Another case we have been following that includes a challenge to Director Cordray’s appointment is the case filed this past June in federal court in Washington, D.C. by State National Bank of Big Spring against the CFPB, the Department of Treasury, Richard Cordray, and a number of other federal officials. The original plaintiffs also included two non-profit organizations in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.

In September, an amended complaint was filed adding Republican state Attorneys General from Oklahoma, South Carolina and Michigan as plaintiffs. The state AGs did not join the portions of the complaint seeking an order declaring the provisions of Dodd-Frank creating the CFPB and Mr. Cordray’s appointment unconstitutional. Instead, the three state AGs were only parties to the request included in the amended (but not the original) complaint for an order declaring unconstitutional the Title II (orderly liquidation) provisions.

On February 13, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that would add as plaintiffs the state AGs from Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia. The second amended complaint would make no changes to the plaintiffs’ substantive claims and the new AGs would also only be parties to the Title II challenge.

The CFPB and other defendants had filed a motion to dismiss on November 20, 2012 and the date for the plaintiffs’ responses was initially extended until January 30 and later extended until February 13. Concurrently with their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay briefing on the motion to dismiss until the court decides their leave motion. The plaintiffs also ask that, if the court grants them leave to file the second amended complaint, the defendants be given 14 days to determine whether they will (1) accept the plaintiffs’ offer to stipulate that the motion to dismiss applies to the second amended complaint, in which case the plaintiffs would be required to file their responses within 24 hours, or (2) file a new motion to dismiss or otherwise respond, in which case the plaintiffs would be required to respond to the new filing within the otherwise applicable timeframes.