Unconscionable Lending Class Action: CashCall
Levy is cocounsel with the Sturdevant Law Firm and others in a federal Class Action in San Francisco, challenging CashCall's 90+% interest loans and electronic payment practices. CashCall targets consumers in distress with limited credit alternatives, and structures their loans so that borrowers are effectively making interest-only payments over much of the loan term. Borrowers make hundreds of dollars in interest-only payments for several years, without significantly reducing the amount they owe.
The federal District Court in San Francisco has certified the two California sub-classes, one reflecting the loan terms challenge and the other the electronic payments "conditioning" issue under the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act:
The Loan Unconscionability Class: All individuals who, while residing in California, borrowed from $2,500 to $2,600 at an interest rate of 90% or higher from CashCall, Inc., for personal, family, or household use at any time from June 30, 2004, to the present.
The Conditioning Class: All individuals who, while residing in California, borrowed money from CashCall, Inc. for personal, family, or household use on or after March 13, 2006 through July 10, 2011 and were charged an NSF Fee.
In July 2014, the Court issued an extensive Order denying CashCall's motion for summary judgment on the Loan Unconscionability Claim and granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Conditioning Claim.
However, on October 21, 2014, the Court reversed its denial of summary judgment on the Loan Unconscionability Claim because the Court believed it could not provide a remedy with respect to the Loan Unconscionability Claim "without overstepping the bounds of judicial authority." Plaintiffs strenuously disagree with the Court's ruling and are seeking immediate leave to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal is scheduled to be decided on December 11, 2014.
Trial on the Conditioning Claim is set for September 2015. Because the Court has already determined that CashCall violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the sole issues for trial will be the amount of money to be awarded to the Conditioning Class.
Eduardo De La Torre, et al. v. Cashcall, Inc.
United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 08-cv-03174 MEJ