D. Keith Andress

Obtained $13 million award in trade secrets/business fraud case.

Led and won trial on behalf of major U.S. consumer lender against allegations of fraud involving its servicing of a loan.

Led and won a TCPA trial on behalf of national mortgage servicer in 2017, in which plaintiff alleged to have been called by an auto dialer 2,000 times.

Obtained summary judgment for a national bank in a data breach case in the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff's identity was stolen and alleged it was because the bank caused a breach by not encrypting a loan application sent via a PDF Attachment to an email. We defended the case on issue of proximate cause; the court agreed and granted summary judgment.

Obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims for loan servicer against alleged violations of Truth in Lending Act section 1641(g) under "administrative convenience" exception, affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims for loan servicer on alleged "standing" issues and a challenge to the servicer's authority to exercise the power of sale as the holder of the debt obligation under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Obtained summary judgment dismissal for lender against breach of contract claim arising from alleged violations of required pre-foreclosure notice. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and writ of certiorari was denied by the Alabama Supreme Court.

Represented title insurer in loan dispute involving claims of fraud and mortgage reformation, resulting in a more than $500,000 verdict for client.

Obtained dismissal from federal district court and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of a case alleging wrongful foreclosure and violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act, Truth in Lending Act and Fair Debt Collection Practice Act.

Secured a bench trial win for top-five national servicer against borrower allegations of fraud and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims stemming from the denial of a loan modification request and allegations that of an oral promise of a modification at a home preservation workshop several years prior. Following the bench trial, the court concluded that the servicer was the borrower's creditor as the owner of the loan, and was not covered by the FDCPA as a result. The court also concluded that there was no evidence that the borrower was promised a modification, and in fact, that there was evidence to the contrary.