Rees-Levering Act -- Civil Code § 2981

In Harrelson v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2013 WL 5348087 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), Harrelson filed a class action against CarMax, pleading the first class to be any person who in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint purchased a car from CarMax, signed a retail installment contract (RIC), and made a deferred down payment and whose… Read More

In Muller v. Auto Mission, Ltd., 2013 WL 1996916 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Magistrate Judge Cousins remanded a removed state court action that alleged a host of Rees-Levering Automobile Sales & Finance Act violations, many of which included embedded federal claims.  Judge Cousins found an absence of substantial federal question, and rejected the defendants’ contention that a defense of compliance with federal… Read More

In Ramirez v. Balboa Thrift & Loan, 2013 WL 1151496 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal for the 4th District reversed in an unpublished decision a trial court’s denial of class certification in an NOI case, finding that the trial court erred in finding that a creditor ought to be able to litigate individual issues of fraud… Read More

In Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc. --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2013 WL 156561 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal required strict compliance under Rees-Levering, finding that a dealer’s error of improperly listing a $2,000 ‘down-payment’ on the downpayment line (line 6G) of the standard auto RISC as opposed to the ‘deferred downpayment’ line (line 6D) rendered the… Read More

In Mora v. Harley-Davidson Credit Corp.,2012 WL 3245518 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Ishii adopted the Magistrate’s ruling certifying an NOI class against HDCC, rejecting the argument that an arbitration clause contained in some but not all of the RISCs could defeat class certification.  Magistrate McAuliffe's full opinion which Judge Ishii reviewed can be found at Mora v. Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., 2012… Read More

In a decision that is important to auto finance companies liable under the FTC Holder Rule where the assigning dealer is defunct, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in Pierce v. Western Sur. Co., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2012 WL 2362579 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.), that an Automobile Dealer Surety Bond also covered the attorneys’ fees incurred by a consumer Plaintiff’s… Read More

In Smith v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., 2012 WL 834784 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Sabraw post-Concepcion followed Sanchez in denying enforcement of an arbitration clause in an NOI class action. With respect to the first clause, the Sanchez court found it was one-sided in favor of the seller because the buyer, not the dealer, is more likely to recover an award… Read More

In Aho v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., 2012 WL 273780 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Sabraw granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their claims regarding post-repossession letters under Juarez.  As to the claim under the ASFA, Judge Sabraw held:   Accordingly, that the information may be available to the consumer does not relieve Defendant of its obligation to include that information… Read More

In Medina v. Performance Automotive Group, Inc.,  2012 WL 219308 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Karlton remanded to state court a class action alleging that a car dealer illegally ‘backdated’ retail installment contracts.  The defendant finance company had removed the matter to federal court, and then moved to compel arbitration (and the class action waiver) under Concepcion.   Judge Karlton found that neither… Read More

California state senator Tom Lieu (D-Torrance) introduced SB 956 yesterday, that would require Buy Here Pay Here car dealers to be regulated by the Department of Corporations as lenders. A companion bill (AB 1447) introduced last week by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) would require Buy Here Pay Here dealers to display vehicle sales prices and would block dealers from using GPS… Read More

In Aho v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., --- F.R.D. ----, 2011 WL 5401799 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Sabraw certified an NOI class under the UCL and ASFA for allegedly faulty post-repossession letters ("NOIs") pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2), but refused to do so under the Rosenthal Act.  Judge Sabraw found the ‘damages’ sought under the Rosenthal Act were not incidental to the… Read More

On October 7, the Governor signed AB 238, which amends ASFA on the remedies available for failing to itemize license and registration fees in violation of ASFA.  The so-called 'lumping' cases had become a cottage industry for some members of the plaintiff's bar.  ASFA regulates motor vehicle conditional sale contracts, and, among other things, requires a person selling or leasing a motor… Read More

In Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3250465 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the National Bank Act did not pre-empt the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act as to disclosures required in Notice of Intent to Dispose ("NOI") letters.  The Court of Appeals explained: Despite all the foregoing, U.S. Bank insists… Read More

In Cardenas v. AmeriCredit Financial Services Inc., 2010 WL 3619851 (N.D.Cal. 2010), the Plaintiffs sued to prevent the Defendant from collecting further based on a purportedly defective NOI letter.  Plaintiff filed a class action against the defendant, alleging claims for (1) violation of the UCL, which, in turn, is predicated on a violation of Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, Cal.Civ.Code §… Read More

In Perez v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2010 WL 4117461 (N.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Koh held that the National Bank Act and OCC regulations pre-empted Rees-Levering’s disclosure requirements that afford post-repossession reinstatement/redemption rights to consumers who have had their vehicles repossessed. Judge Koh followed the Aguayo decision, and held that:   Thus, although this Court agrees with the holding of Alkan, it… Read More

In Mora v. Harley-Davidson Credit Corp, 2010 WL 4008156 (E.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Wanger held that HDCC’s NOI letter failed Rees-Levering’s disclosure requirements – even if Rees-Levering allowed “substantial compliance”.  Judge Wanger explained:        Plaintiff contends that Defendant's NOI was deficient, inter alia, because the notice failed to state the actual amount Plaintiff was required to pay to effect… Read More

In Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports, LLC (2010) 2010 DAR 12715 , the California Court of Appeal refused to enforce an arbitration clause with a class action waiver in it, distinguishing Arguelles-Romero v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 825 as merely dealing with claims under the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, not the CLRA, -- the latter of which gives… Read More

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2010 WL 2779307 (2010), the California Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of re-written contracts, the “single-document rule”, and remedies available under the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act.  In Nelson, the Dealer sold car to buyer on Day 1.  The original contract was signed that day and the customer drove… Read More

In Davis v. Ford Credit, 2009 WL 3859327 (2009), the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held that Ford Credit’s practice of applying a payment to past-due installments first, rather than to the current monthly installment, did not violate the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act’s ban on late-fee pyramiding.  (Civ. Code, § 2982(k).)  The facts of the case were as… Read More

On December 31, 2009, the Attorney General's Office issued issued Opinion 08-804, addressing the question whether, "the single document requirement for automobile sales contracts satisfied if the document consists of multiple pages that are attached to each other and integrated by means such as inclusive sequential page numbering (e.g., “1 of 4,” “2 of 4,” etc.)?".  The Attorney General opined… Read More