Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Consumer Finance

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

In Gerber v. Citigroup, Inc. 2009 WL 248094 (E.D.Cal.2009), District Judge Moulds followed the Southern District's opinion in Sial v. Unifund CCR Partners, 2008 WL 4079281 (S.D.Cal.Aug.28, 2008) (see http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=85), and rejected both the Norr-Pennington doctrine and the litigation privilege as defenses to a Rosenthal Act claim. This court is unpersuaded that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bars actions under the FDCPA. Rather, this… Read More

In Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2009) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 197560, the California Supreme Court held that a CLRA plaintiff must have actually been damaged in order to maintain a CLRA claim.   The case arose from the plaintiffs' lawsuit against their cellular telephone company, alleging that its arbitration agreement was unconscionable, even though plaintiffs did not allege that… Read More

In Sanai v. Saltz --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 162059 (2009), the Second District Court of Appeal declined to follow the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Liceaga on December 30, 2008 (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=336), finding a private right of action under the CCRAA (Civil Code § 1785.25(a)) pre-empted by FCRA.  Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal followed the Court… Read More

In Griffor v. Airport Chevrolet, Inc., 2009 WL 151698 (D.Or. 2009), Judge Hogan ruled on GMAC's Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claim for attorneys fees, which plaintiff claim was afforded by the FTC (and Oregon) Holder Rule(s).  Judge Hogan granted GMAC's Motion to Dismiss, holding: Under the FTC Holder Rule, the amount plaintiffs can recover against an assignee of a… Read More

In Lyman v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC, 2009 WL 143695 (2009), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held in an unpublished decision that the Song-Beverly Act does not protect a dealer who has issued special dealer plates rather than registered the vehicle under the Vehicle Code.  The Court of Appeal explained: The narrow issue in this appeal is… Read More

In Van v. Grant & Weber, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in an unpublished decision that including in collection letters certain location obligations permitted under the Rosenthal Act does not violate the FDCPA.  The Court of Appeals explained: Van argues that this statement is misleading because California Civil Code § 1788.21(b) requires such notification only in… Read More

In Offril v. J.C.Penney, Inc., 2009 WL 69344 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Hamilton held that notice by a consumer to a creditor that it was represented by counsel did not, for purposes of the FDCPA, constitute notice to the collection agency hired by the creditor to collect the debt.  Judge Hamilton explained:  Although plaintiff did not allege or argue that JC Penny's actual knowledge of… Read More

In Moya v. Chase Cardmember Services, Inc., 2009 WL 57112 (N.D.Cal.2009), Judge Zimmerman gave guidance on what constitutes a permissible "statement of account" which may be sent to consumers notwithstanding notice that the consumer is represented by counsel.  Civil Code §1788.14(c) prohibits a debt collector from initiating communications with the debtor about a consumer debt, other than to provide a statement… Read More

In Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2009) 2009 WL 57806, the California Court of Appeal held that Federal law (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act) specifying the use of EPA estimates of mileage preempts breach of warranty claims based on a Hybrid vehicle's failure to achieve EPA mileage estimates.  However, the EPCA did not preempt claims under the CLRA and… Read More

1 232 233 234 235 236 239