9th Cir.;
13-56484
The court of appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part a district court judgment. The court held that the improper recess appointment of a plaintiff executive agency’s director did not deprive the court of jurisdiction where the Executive Branch retained its fundamental interest or power in having federal law enforced. The court held further that the invalid recess appointment was not fatal to the case where the agency director’s subsequent valid appointment, coupled with his Senate confirmation, cured any Article II Appointments Clause deficiencies. The court also held that an attorney failed to demonstrate any disputed material fact issue as to his liability for violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act and Regulation O in his advertising and performance of home mortgage modification services.
