Reyes v. Zions First National Bank

Langer, Grogan & Diver Sues Zions National Bank and Other Banks to Help Elderly Defrauded by Telemarketers.

Langer, Grogan & Diver has filed suit against Zions National Bank et al to help senior citizens who have been victims of telemarketing fraud.  The suit alleges that Zions knowingly provided critical banking services to enable telemarketing criminals to prey on the elderly. The case, which was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Zions Bank et al has made it possible for telemarketing criminals to dip into the bank accounts of senior citizens and other vulnerable citizens including veterans and the disabled.

Johnson v. US Bank

Langer, Grogan & Diver Sues US Bank and National City Bank to Help Elderly Defrauded by Telemarketers.

Langer, Grogan & Diver has filed suit against US Bank and National City Bank to help senior citizens who have been victims of telemarketing fraud.  The sued alleges that US Bank and National City Bank knowingly provided critical banking services to enable telemarketing criminals to prey on the elderly.  The case, which is filled in Ohio, alleges that US Bank and National City Bank made it possible for telemarketing criminals to dip into the bank accounts of senior citizens and other vulnerable citizens including veterans and the disabled.

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners

Langer, Grogan & Diver sues Levine Leichtman Capital Partners to Help Consumers Defrauded by Debt Collectors.

Langer, Grogan & Diver filed suit against a California equity firm that invested in and now owns and operates a check recovery company that, according to the complaint, uses mail fraud and extortion to collect illegal fees from consumers who write checks that are dishonored.  Relying on agreements it has made with over two dozen California district attorneys, the complaint alleges that the company poses as a district attorney office and falsely represents that a "crime report" has been received and a prosecution will likely ensue unless the consumer pays the amount of the check plus over two hundred dollars in fees.  In return for the use of the district attorney name, the company pays a small portion of the fees it obtains to the district attorneys.  The case, filed in San Francisco, is seeking the return of the millions of dollars in illegal fees extracted by the company from California consumers.