Photo of Bryan A. Fratkin

Bryan leads the firm’s class action practice group, focusing his national practice on consumer financial services litigation under the various "alphabet soup" statutes. He represents large financial institutions involved in credit card, auto finance, banking, and mortgage litigation, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Truth in Lending Act, Credit Repair Organizations Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and Stay, and state law consumer protection statutes. He also represents financial institutions and business clients in disputes that include allegations of fraud, conspiracy, civil RICO, and breach of contract. More recently, Bryan has successfully defended employers in background check class actions, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s standalone and adverse action disclosure requirements.

On July 11, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Townstone Financial, Inc. that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) protects prospective applicants and prohibits creditors from discouraging prospective applicants on the basis of sex, marital status, race, color, religion, national origin, or age.  Lenders and other financial institutions should take note of Townstone, as it expands the ECOA to apply even before a credit transaction begins.Continue Reading Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Townstone Financial, Inc.

In a recent decision, Bruce v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction over class actions.  Specifically, the court rejected a bankruptcy court’s ruling that allowed a plaintiff’s nationwide class action to survive Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s (“Citi”) motion to dismiss and strike class allegations.  Following its sister Circuits, the Second Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a bankruptcy court to adjudicate contempt claims of a nationwide class because it lacks authority to enforce other bankruptcy court’s discharge injunctions. Continue Reading Second Circuit Strikes Down Attempted Bankruptcy Contempt Proceedings In Class Context

In Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc., —F.4th—, 2023 WL 3857499 (June 7, 2023), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel that was more than thirty times the amount the class members received.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reverses Award of Attorneys’ Fees More than 30 Times Greater than Amount Received by Class Members

On January 20, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to certify a class under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which prohibits public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Reverses ADA Class Certification Because the Class is Not Ascertainable

In Kelly v. RealPage, Inc., the Third Circuit held that a small subclass of consumers could proceed on their class action against RealPage based on the company’s failure to provide them with required third-party information in credit reports.  In issuing the decision, the court is one of the first Circuit Courts to squarely address the scope of what constitutes an “informational injury” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Transunion LLC  v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021).
Continue Reading Third Circuit Decision Provides Post-Transunion Guidance on Informational Injuries and Ascertainability

On August 15, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a class-certification order on a Rule 23(f) appeal after sua sponte holding that the named plaintiff had no standing to sue.  The case is yet another example of how federal courts closely examine standing following the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, — U.S. —, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021): “Every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.”  Id. at 2208.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Sua Sponte Vacates Class-Certification Order for Lack of Standing

In Drazen v. Pinto, –F.4th–, 2022 WL 2963470 (July 27, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s decision to certify a class under Rule 23 and approve the class settlement because the class included members who lacked Article III standing.

This case involves three consolidated class actions against GoDaddy.com, each of which alleges the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”) by using a prohibited automatic telephone dialing system to make unsolicited contact with plaintiffs through calls and texts to market its services and products. Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Vacates Class Certification and Settlement Based on Lack of Standing for Class Members

The 7th Circuit recently vacated a 25% attorneys’ fee award in In re Stericycle Securities Litigation, No. 20-2055, 2022 WL 1564997, at *1–14 (7th Cir. May 18, 2022).  The Court’s reasoning focused on the previous litigation against the defendant.

Years before this litigation, a former Stericycle employee brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act with similar claims.  Various settlements with governments and private customers followed.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Vacates 25% Attorneys’ Fee Award