Case: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Check City Partnership, LLC
2:23-cv-00939 | U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
Filed Date: June 12, 2023
Closed Date: April 23, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the Trump administration's mass rollback of the Biden administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement actions, culminating in the dismissal of a petition to compel a payday lender's compliance with a civil investigative demand.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) brought this individual petition to compel a payday lender to comply with a civil investigative demand (CID), but the case was stayed for over a year while the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Bureau's funding structure in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFPB v. CFSAA), 601 U.S. 416 (2024). Ultimately, this case was dismissed with prejudice as part of the Trump administration's mass rollback of CFPB enforcement actions in early 2025.
On June 12, 2023, the CFPB filed this petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. § 5562(e), seeking a court order directing Check City Partnership, LLC (Check City), a Utah-based company that provides short-term, small-dollar, and installment loans to consumers, to show cause as to why it should not be compelled to comply with the Bureau's civil investigative demand (CID). The CFPB, represented by its own enforcement attorneys, sought an order compelling full compliance with the CID, as well as costs. The case was assigned to Senior District Judge James C. Mahan and referred to Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. Check City was represented by private counsel from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP and Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP.
The CFPB had issued the CID to Check City in late 2022 as part of an investigation into possible violations of the CFPA related to Check City's lending practices. The CID required Check City to respond to six interrogatories, four requests for written reports, and twenty-one document requests. Check City initially complied with the CID, but in March 2023 it moved the Bureau to stay its investigation after the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in CFPB v. CFSAA, No. 22-448, a case challenging the constitutionality of the Bureau's funding mechanism under the Appropriations Clause. When Check City ceased compliance, the CFPB filed the instant petition.
On July 28, 2023, District Judge James C. Mahan issued an order to show cause directing Check City to explain in writing within 21 days why an order compelling compliance with the CID should not be granted. Check City then filed a motion to stay the case pending the Supreme Court's decision in CFPB v. CFSAA, 601 U.S. 416 (2024) as well as a motion to vacate its response deadline to the Bureau's petition. The CFPB opposed the stay, arguing that the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision might not require dismissal of its enforcement actions and that the delay would prejudice the public interest. On November 3, 2023, District Judge James C. Mahan granted the stay. ECF No. 23. District Judge James C. Mahan reasoned that the Fifth Circuit's 2022 decision holding the Bureau's funding mechanism unconstitutional, Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass'n of Am., Ltd. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 51 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (cert. granted), cast sufficient doubt on the Bureau's enforcement authority to justify a stay. The court found that the stay would not be indefinite because CFPB v. CFSAA was fully briefed and argued, and that a brief stay would avoid wasteful litigation on a matter that might require dismissal. District Judge James C. Mahan also vacated all pending deadlines and denied as moot Check City's motion for leave to file supplemental authority.
On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court decided CFPB v. CFSAA, 601 U.S. 416 (2024), upholding the constitutionality of the Bureau's funding structure in a 7-2 decision. On June 17, 2024, District Judge James C. Mahan lifted the stay, noting that the parties had agreed that the Supreme Court's ruling eliminated the basis for staying the case and that they had set a production schedule for Check City to comply with the CID. ECF No. 25. The court ordered the parties to submit joint status reports and continued to defer Check City's obligation to respond to the original order to show cause.
Over the following months, the parties filed a series of joint status reports (in August 2024, October 2024, and January 2025), apparently reflecting ongoing negotiations over Check City's compliance with the CID. In February 2025, shortly after the change in presidential administration, Check City filed a consent motion for a temporary 60-day stay of the case, to which the CFPB agreed. District Judge James C. Mahan granted the stay on February 25, 2025, staying the case until April 28, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the CFPB filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). District Judge James C. Mahan granted the dismissal on April 23, 2025, closing the case. The dismissal was consistent with a broader pattern in which the Trump administration's CFPB, under acting Director in its official capacity, dismissed dozens of pending enforcement actions inherited from the prior administration.
This case is closed. As of June 2025, no appeal had been filed, and because the dismissal was with prejudice, the Bureau cannot refile this CID enforcement action.
Summary Authors
Simon Jillson (6/24/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67507572/parties/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-check-city-partnership-llc/
Mahan, James C. (Nevada)
Assae-Bille, Vanessa (Nevada)
Clark, Benjamin (Nevada)
Garlock, Stephanie (Nevada)
Cover, Jason M. (Nevada)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67507572/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-check-city-partnership-llc/
Last updated Oct. 18, 2026, 3:17 a.m.
Docket for: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Check City Partnership, LLC
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 12, 2023
Closing Date: April 23, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal independent agency within the Federal Reserve System.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-DOJ federal government plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Check City Partnerships, LLC
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of Nevada 2:23-ms-00035
District of Nevada 2:23-cv-00939
Special Case Type(s):
Warrant or subpoena application (or protection)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Case Summary of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Check City Partnership, LLC, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48245/ (last updated 6/24/2026).