PHH has filed a reply to the CFPB’s opposition to PHH’s motion for leave to file a supplemental response to the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc. On December 22, PHH and the United States filed responses to the CFPB’s petition with the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit had invited the Solicitor General to file a response expressing the views of the United States.
In its motion for leave to file a supplemental response, PHH asserts that “the United States [in its response] argues that this Court should grant the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc on several grounds that were not pressed in the CFPB’s petition, and with which PHH strongly disagrees.” Further asserting that “[t]he United States government has now had two rounds of briefing and taken two separate positions in this Court in support of rehearing,” PHH seeks an opportunity to be heard “on the United States’ newly expressed views.” In its opposition to the motion, the CFPB states only that it opposes PHH’s motion and that if PHH “wants an opportunity to present additional arguments to this Court, they may do so if this Court grants rehearing en banc and seeks additional briefing.”
In its reply, PHH describes the CFPB’s opposition as “completely nonresponsive to PHH’s basis for seeking a supplemental response.” It states that “the CFPB does not dispute or even address” PHH’s point that it has not had a chance to respond to the United States’ response and “[i]nstead it offers a non sequitur: that if rehearing is granted, PHH will have a chance to brief the merits.” PHH asserts “[t]hat is always true—and has nothing to do with whether PHH has had a fair opportunity to respond to the arguments for rehearing. It has not.”