Procedural Posture
By
Mills
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff individual alleged defendants, a deli and chain drugstore, imposed an unlawful fee on customers purchasing beverages in recyclable containers which constituted an unfair business practice in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and violated the common law, as well as 7 C.F.R. § 272.1(b)(1). The court reviewed the drugstore's notice of removal which placed the instant case in federal court.
Overview
Trial attorneys specialize in defending clients before a court of law and in giving legal advice, conducting lawsuits, etc. The drugstore failed to allege, let alone show, that diversity existed as between the individual, a California resident, and the deli. Rather, the drugstore asserted in its notice of removal that the deli's residency could be disregarded because the individual had not yet served the deli. In binding precedent, the Ninth Circuit, however, held that the existence of diversity was determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service. With respect to the deli's residency, the individual alleged that such deli operated its grocery business in California, and, thus, had, in essence, alleged that the deli's principal place of business was California. As a consequence, there was no diversity of citizenship between the individual and the deli and, accordingly, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the complaint. The individual's claim for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 similarly rested on multiple alternative theories, only one of which was based on a violation of federal law. Consequently, there was no federal question jurisdiction over the instant action.
Outcome
The case was remanded back to state court.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff borrower sued defendant bank and property evaluator, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), breach of contract, breach of implied covenants, unjust enrichment, violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and civil conspiracy to illegally reduce credit limits on home equity lines of credit. The bank moved to dismiss the putative class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Overview
The court took judicial notice of three documents as the borrower had not disputed the taking of judicial notice. The TILA claims were dismissed as the borrower failed to allege that the purpose of the loan was for personal, family, or household purposes. The breach of contract claim survived where the borrower alleged that a valuation done two months after his credit was frozen circumstantially supported his theory that his property value had not significantly declined as of the date that his credit was frozen, and that allegation made the claim plausible. The breach of implied covenants claim survived where the borrower sufficiently alleged that requiring him to pay for appraisals up front and failing to provide customers with sufficient information in the notice regarding the calculations the bank used to freeze accounts impaired his ability to appeal and reinstate his loan awards. The unjust enrichment claim survived, but the § 17200 claims were dismissed as the borrower had failed to state a TILA claim. The civil conspiracy claim was dismissed as the property evaluator owed the borrower no duty under TILA.
Outcome
The motion to dismiss was denied as to the breach of contract, breach of implied covenants, and unjust enrichment claims, but was otherwise granted. The dismissal was granted with leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff individual alleged defendants, a deli and chain drugstore, imposed an unlawful fee on customers purchasing beverages in recyclable containers which constituted an unfair business practice in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and violated the common law, as well as 7 C.F.R. § 272.1(b)(1). The court reviewed the drugstore's notice of removal which placed the instant case in federal court.
Overview
Trial attorneys specialize in defending clients before a court of law and in giving legal advice, conducting lawsuits, etc. The drugstore failed to allege, let alone show, that diversity existed as between the individual, a California resident, and the deli. Rather, the drugstore asserted in its notice of removal that the deli's residency could be disregarded because the individual had not yet served the deli. In binding precedent, the Ninth Circuit, however, held that the existence of diversity was determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service. With respect to the deli's residency, the individual alleged that such deli operated its grocery business in California, and, thus, had, in essence, alleged that the deli's principal place of business was California. As a consequence, there was no diversity of citizenship between the individual and the deli and, accordingly, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the complaint. The individual's claim for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 similarly rested on multiple alternative theories, only one of which was based on a violation of federal law. Consequently, there was no federal question jurisdiction over the instant action.
Outcome
The case was remanded back to state court.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff borrower sued defendant bank and property evaluator, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), breach of contract, breach of implied covenants, unjust enrichment, violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and civil conspiracy to illegally reduce credit limits on home equity lines of credit. The bank moved to dismiss the putative class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Overview
The court took judicial notice of three documents as the borrower had not disputed the taking of judicial notice. The TILA claims were dismissed as the borrower failed to allege that the purpose of the loan was for personal, family, or household purposes. The breach of contract claim survived where the borrower alleged that a valuation done two months after his credit was frozen circumstantially supported his theory that his property value had not significantly declined as of the date that his credit was frozen, and that allegation made the claim plausible. The breach of implied covenants claim survived where the borrower sufficiently alleged that requiring him to pay for appraisals up front and failing to provide customers with sufficient information in the notice regarding the calculations the bank used to freeze accounts impaired his ability to appeal and reinstate his loan awards. The unjust enrichment claim survived, but the § 17200 claims were dismissed as the borrower had failed to state a TILA claim. The civil conspiracy claim was dismissed as the property evaluator owed the borrower no duty under TILA.
Outcome
The motion to dismiss was denied as to the breach of contract, breach of implied covenants, and unjust enrichment claims, but was otherwise granted. The dismissal was granted with leave to amend the complaint.
Save
Share
Tweet
