On June 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a joint motion by the CFPB and the defendants to vacate a stipulated final judgment and order, finding that the parties failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After the stipulated final judgment and order resolved the dispute, the CFPB and the defendants jointly sought to vacate it, asserting that the lawsuit was initiated without substantial evidence of discrimination and was motivated by targeting constitutionally protected speech.

As previously covered by InfoBytes, an Amici Curiae consisting of nonprofit organizations, focused on fair housing and consumer protection, opposed the motion, contending that the parties failed to meet Rule 60(b)(6)’s high bar of “extraordinary circumstances” and warning that granting the motion would undermine public confidence in the finality of judgments.

In denying the motion, the court noted that the alleged wrongdoing affected the public and that relaxing Rule 60(b)(6)’s requirements would be improper. The court emphasized the parties had voluntarily entered the settlement and consent decree and found unpersuasive the assertion that the case lacked evidence of discrimination and was politically motivated. Ultimately, the court concluded that the public interest in the finality of judgments outweighed any benefit of vacatur, leaving the stipulated final judgment and order in effect and terminating the civil case.

Visit our resource center, CFPB Pause: Where From Here?, to stay on top of the latest and what it may mean for the federal and state regulatory and enforcement landscape.