On September 19, a lending company and its affiliates petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a 9th Circuit decision affirming a $134 million restitution order in favor of the CFPB. The CFPB alleged the company collected interest and fees on loans void under state law. Following a bench trial, the district court ordered legal restitution based on net revenues, which the 9th Circuit affirmed (previously covered by InfoBytes here). After the 9th Circuit denied the company’s petition for rehearing (covered here), the company filed this petition to the Supreme Court.

The company presented two questions for Supreme Court review: (i) “whether a claim for legal restitution triggers the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial”; and (ii) “whether a litigant may validly waive a constitutional right at a time when binding circuit precedent forecloses any exercise of that right.”

The company argued that the 9th Circuit’s conclusion that “no form of restitution triggers the right to a jury trial” conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and other circuit court decisions. It further contended that the panel’s waiver holding implicates a separate circuit split regarding the validity of waiving rights which were then unknown to be available. The company asserted the restitution award exceeded its net profits and should be characterized as legal relief, which would mandate a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. It also argued that it could not have knowingly waived its jury trial right in 2016, when 9th Circuit precedent had precluded a right for equitable restitution.