Morgan Drexen files motion for summary judgment

Posted by:

Bookmark and Share

On August 7, 2013, Morgan Drexen and co-plaintiff Kimberly Pisinski filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the judge to rule in the plaintiff’s favor without a trial as a matter of law based on the material facts of the case. The court filing lays out in plain view the structural flaws of the CFPB:

“There are at least five structural features of CFPB that, viewed in the aggregate, make CFPB unconstitutional. First, CFPB is controlled by a single Director who serves a fixed term of five years and is removable only for cause (and not at-will) by the President. Second, CFPB is not subject to Congressional oversight through the appropriations process; instead, CFPB automatically receives a fixed sum that it can use to carry out its activities – up to a twelve percent (12%) cap of the Federal Reserve’s total operating expenses (about a half a billion dollars). Third, the
final version of Dodd-Frank did not retain the original multimember commission structure in the House-passed version, a structural feature that has been the hallmark of independent agencies for more than 125 years. Fourth, CFPB is insulated from accountability from the Federal Reserve, which does not review or approve CFPB actions. Fifth, the Dodd-Frank Act limits judicial review over CFPB actions.”

Further, Morgan Drexen argued in the filing that the CFPB’s actions have caused the company undue harm and the immediate threat of further injury:

“Here, CFPB has purported to subject Morgan Drexen to its direct authority, including through the issuance of Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”). Morgan Drexen has incurred significant costs in complying with the CIDs, has produced over 17,000 pages of documents to CFPB along with four of its officers for depositions, and incurred significant attorneys’ fees. Like the petitioners in Free Enterprise Fund, Morgan Drexen is entitled to ensure that the investigation to which it has been subject is conducted by a constitutional agency, and Morgan Drexen is suffering a “here-and-now” injury because CFPB violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.”


About the Author:


  1. Steve  September 6, 2013

    Another lawyer thinks the CFPB has gone too far. This time, the lawyer, Kimberly Pisinski, is a named plaintiff in an action alleging that the CFPB has engaged in improper attempts to regulate the practice of law, among other violations. Ms. Pisinski and her co-plaintiff, legal support services company Morgan Drexen Inc., also challenge the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure as a whole. Ms. Pisinski’s complaint, which was filed yesterday in the District Court for the District of Columbia, takes issue with a Civil Investigative Demand the CFPB issued to Morgan Drexen that sought information about its relationships with the attorneys it supports.

    Ms. Pisinski alleges that based on documents it received from Morgan Drexen, the CFPB took the position that the attorneys supported by Morgan Drexen are violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Pisinski alleges that the CFPB’s actions amount to an attempt to regulate the practice of law. While Pisinski challenges the CFPB’s specific conduct that relates to her law practice, she also makes sweeping allegations challenging collection of financial information in general and organizational structure.

    Financial services companies and the lawyers who serve them may want to keep an eye on Ms. Pisinki’s lawsuit as it develops.

  2. susan  September 10, 2013

    There need to be more attorneys like this CT solo practitioner who are willing to stand up to Obama and his Democratic supporters.


Add a Comment