In O’Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 2009 WL 1833990 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge James addressed whether plaintiffs stated a class action claim against CashCall under the CLRA.  Judge James held that Plaintiffs’ claim under the UCL failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, explaining:


Defendant notes that the California Court of Appeal has held that the extension of credit is not covered by the CLRA. In Berry v. American Express Publishing, Inc., plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that the defendants had been charging American Express cardholders, who paid annual fees for lines of credit, for travel magazines they had never received. 147 Cal.App.4th 224, 227, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 (2007). The court found that the extension of credit did not qualify as goods or services under the CLRA. Id. at 229-30, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 91. The court then carefully analyzed the legislative history of the statute, noting that the original draft of the statute expressly included the extension of credit. Id. at 230-33, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 91. The version passed by the legislature, however, omitted this provision. Id. at 230-31, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 91. Relying on this change, the court held that the extension of credit, apart from providing any other good or service, was not a transaction covered by the CLRA. Id. at 233, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 91. In view of the relevant legislative history, this Court finds Berry‘s logic persuasive.     Other courts in this district have found that the CLRA is applicable to mortgage loans. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Hilltop Financial Mortgage, Inc., No. C06-7401, 2007 WL 3101250, at *6 (N.D.Cal. Oct.22, 2007); Jefferson v. Chase Home Finance LLC, No. C06-6510, 2007 WL 1302984, at *3 (N.D.Cal. May 3, 2007); Knox v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No. C05-00240, 2005 WL 1910927, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Aug.10, 2005). In those cases, however, the defendant provided additional services over and above the extension of credit. See, e.g., Hernandez, 2007 WL 3101250, at *6 (“unlike in Berry, the situation in the present case involves more than the mere extension of a credit line. Instead, the circumstances here deal not just with the mortgage loan itself, but also with the services involved in developing, securing, and maintaining plaintiffs’ loan”). Here, the Complaint does not allege that CashCall provided any services in addition to the extension of credit. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim is dismissed with leave to amend to include additional services that may have been provided in connection with the loan.