Opinion ID: 2528261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Finding of Liability Under Section 1679b(a)(3)

Text: In their opening brief on appeal, the Puccios offer no challenge to their liability under Section 1679b(a)(3). In their reply brief, they explain that curious omission, contending that the district court did not actually find them liable under Section 1679b(a)(3). That position is untenable. The district court unambiguously held in section III.C.3.a of its opinion, entitled CRO Violations, that the [d]efendants betrayed [p]laintiffs' trust when, as was its policy for all [Cambridge] clients, it transferred Plaintiffs' account to BC Mass, straightforwardly violating § 1679b(a)(3) by misleading consumers into thinking they were doing business with a non-profit corporation, when, in fact, their accounts were being wholly serviced by a for-profit. Zimmerman, 529 F.Supp.2d at 279. The court then made explicit in section III. C.3.b, entitled Non-CRO Violations, that [t]hose Defendants that are not themselves CROs within the meaning of CROAnamely, John and Richard Puccio,... are still liable for the above violations. Id. at 280. That statement is an unmistakable finding that all of the defendants, both the credit repair organizations themselves, and John and Richard Puccio, violated Section 1679b(a)(3). [15]