CashCall, Inc.; WS Funding, LLC; Delbert Services Corporation; and J. Paul Reddam

On December 16, 2013, the Bureau filed a complaint against online loan servicer CashCall Inc.; its owner J. Paul Reddam; WS Funding, LLC, a subsidiary; and Delbert Services Corporation, an affiliate (collectively, the defendants or CashCall), for collecting money consumers did not owe. The Bureau’s amended complaint, filed on March 21, 2014, alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices by collecting and attempting to collect consumer-installment loans that were void or uncollectible because they violated either state caps on interest rates or state licensing requirements for lenders. The case was transferred to the Central District of California, where defendants were based, on September 23, 2015.

On August 31, 2016, the court granted the Bureau’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices by demanding and collecting payment on debts that consumers did not owe. Following a trial, on January 19, 2018, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law imposing a $10.28 million civil money penalty but denying the Bureau’s request for restitution and an injunction.

The Bureau and the defendants appealed. On May 23, 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of liability; vacated the district court’s penalty, remanding for the district court to reassess the penalty taking into account defendants’ reckless conduct; and vacated the district court’s decision to award no restitution, remanding to the district court to determine whether and what restitution would be appropriate in consideration of the Ninth Circuit Court’s opinion.

On February 10, 2023, the district court issued an order awarding the Bureau a $33,276,264 civil money penalty and $134,058,600 in restitution. On March 16, 2023, CashCall appealed the district court’s final judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and issued an order and amended opinion on April 24, 2025. On September 19, 2025, CashCall filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition on behalf of the Bureau on January 23, 2026. The petition was denied on March 2, 2026.

On July 8, 2026, CashCall filed a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief, seeking to vacate the district court’s post-remand judgment. The Bureau opposed the motion. On September 11, 2026, the district court denied CashCall’s motion, holding that “[f]or the reasons stated in the CFPB’s Opposition, the Court concludes that CashCall has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to relief under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6).” The court further emphasized that, “[r]ather than demonstrating extraordinary circumstances, the Court concludes that CashCall’s Motion is simply an ill-conceived tactic designed to continue to delay the CFPB’s enforcement of the Amended Judgment."

Complaint

Amended Complaint

U.S. District Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion

U.S. District Court Order and Judgment on Remand

U.S. Court of Appeals Order and Amended Opinion

U.S. District Court Order on Judgment Relief