Notes of Decisions
Vincent v. The Money Store, 736 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1666d (“Whenever a credit balance in excess of $1 is created in connection with a consumer credit transaction .”
Vincent v. Money Store, 402 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
· cites it 3× “TILA Claim Plaintiffs assert that The Money Store defendants violated TILA by charging unauthorized fees and expenses in excess of that permitted under California law, and failing to “credit Plaintiffs for such excess charges in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1666d and 12 CFR § 226.21…”
Vincent v. Money Store, 915 F. Supp. 2d 553 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
“On April 24, 2003, the plaintiffs brought their initial action, Vincent I , against The Money Store defendants and Moss Codilis alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1666d, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.”
Mazzei v. Money Store, 349 F. Supp. 2d 651 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
“TILA and RESPA Claims Plaintiff additionally asserts a claim under TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1666d and 12 C.F.R. § 226.21 , based on defendants’ collection of a returned check fee in excess of that permitted by plaintiffs loan documents, and on defendants’ charging for “Attorney…”
Mazzei v. Money Store, 288 F.R.D. 45 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
“The plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1666d, TILA Regulation Z, 12 C.”
Kline v. Mortg. Elec. Sec. Sys., 154 F. Supp. 3d 567 (S.D. Ohio 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 1692f(l); the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1666d; the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”), Ohio Revised Code § 1345.”
Kline v. Mortg. Elec. Sec. Sys., 659 F. Supp. 2d 940 (S.D. Ohio 2009).
“; the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666d; and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 *955 U.”
Fitzgerald v. Mercedes-Benz Fin. Servs. USA LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01053 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2024).
· cites it 3× “270 ); Fitzgerald’s Response at 3 (asserting that MBFS is “not licensed to collect debt in the State of Florida”); Fitzgerald’s Response at 7 (contending that MBFS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1666d and Securities Exchange Rule 10b-5); see also Fitzgerald’s Reply at 5 (citing 15 U.”
Grimmer, No. 0:25-cv-02758 (D. Minn. Nov. 7, 2025).
· cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1666d. The regulation to which this claim refers, 12 C.”
Johnson v. Taylor Auto Sales, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00068 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 10, 2024).
“15 U.S.C. § 1666d (emphasis added). Johnson contends that the finance charges at issue are: (1) a $399.”
Johnson v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, No. 1:22-cv-01451 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2023).
“The Court will also address 15 U.S.C. § 1666d, as Plaintiff listed this specific provision as a basis for federal jurisdiction.”
Conto, No. 5:25-cv-00320 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2026).
“See 1 At the outset of her complaint Conto makes a passing reference to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1666d. See id. at 2. However, she does not assert a claim under TILA in the body of her complaint or support such a claim with necessary factual allegations.”
15 U.S.C. § 1666d(A): 1 case
Vincent v. The Money Store, 736 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013).
“See 15 U.S.C. § 1666d (“Whenever a credit balance in excess of $1 is created in connection with a consumer credit transaction .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.