Scott Diana v. LVNV Funding LLC, A-52-24

Diana defaulted on a credit-card debt that was sold and later assigned to LVNV through several entities, none of which were licensed in New Jersey as consumer lenders or sales finance companies. 1
LVNV sued Diana to collect the debt and obtained a default judgment against him. 2
Diana later filed a class action alleging defendants unlawfully took assignment of consumer debt without a CFLA license and that the purchase was void under N.J.S.A. 17:11C-33(b). 3
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding the CFLA does not create a private right of action. 4
The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, which held the CFLA contains no private right of action. 5
The Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed, holding the CFLA does not imply a private right of action for a borrower to void a loan contract. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the CFLA imply a private right to void a loan contract? 7	Diana says subsection 33(b) lets him void the contract.	LVNV says the CFLA authorizes only state enforcement.	No implied private right of action exists. 8
Do CFLA predecessors show legislative intent for private enforcement? 9	Diana says predecessor statutes allowed borrowers to void loans.	LVNV says those statutes required an express recovery remedy, later removed.	History shows no intent to create an implied remedy. 10
Does subsection 33(b)'s penal scheme support private suit? 11	Diana says voiding language supports borrower enforcement.	LVNV says it is a criminal provision enforceable by the State.	No; subsection 33(b) is part of a penal scheme. 12

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (sets factors for implying a private right of action 13)
R.J. Gaydos Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Nat'l Consumer Ins. Co., 168 N.J. 255 (N.J. 2001) (New Jersey adopts Cort factors and focuses on legislative intent 14)
Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, 478 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 2024) (held the CFLA contains no private right of action 15)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. 2001) (courts may not create a private remedy absent legislative intent 16)
In re Resolution of State Comm'n of Investigation, 108 N.J. 35 (N.J. 1987) (private injunctions generally unavailable to enforce penal laws 17)
Connell v. Am. Funding Ltd., 231 N.J. Super. 409 (Ch. Div. 1987) (distinguishes voiding a contract from recovering payments made 18)
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1982) (asserting illegality as a defense is not an affirmative remedy 19)
Costello v. Grundon, 651 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2011) (no private right is needed to raise a statutory violation defensively 20)
Lemelledo v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 150 N.J. 255 (N.J. 1997) (described the predecessor statute as allowing treble damages by aggrieved consumers 21)
DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc., 256 N.J. 172 (N.J. 2024) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo 22)