Jones v. Centerone Financial Services LLC

Filing 46

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 30 42 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/12/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARK R. JONES,

Case No. 14-cv-01673-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CENTERONE FINANCIAL SERVICES
LLC,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 30

12
13

On December 12, 2014, the Court held a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss the

14

amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated California law by issuing post-

15

repossession notices to consumers that do not comply with the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales

16

Finance Act (“Rees-Levering” or “the Act”), Cal. Civ. Code, § 2983 et. seq., and the California

17

Government Code.

18

Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court

19

GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim that the NOI violates § 2983.2(a)(1) by

20

failing to itemize the unpaid principal and accrued finance charge. The Court finds that the statute

21

does not require a separate itemization of unpaid principal and interest, and instead the statute

22

requires the NOI to set forth “in full the indebtedness evidenced by the contract until the

23

expiration of 15 days from the date of giving or mailing the notice,” including “an itemization of

24

the contract balance and of any delinquency, collection or repossession costs and fees . . . [minus

25

any credits or estimates of credits received]” as of the date of the notice. Civ. Code §2983.2(a)(1)

26

(emphasis added). This claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

27

The balance of defendant's motion is DENIED. The Court finds that at the pleadings stage,

28

plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the Rees-Levering Act and the California

1

Government Code (with regard to payment of the law enforcement fee).

2
CONCLUSION

3
4
5

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: December 12, 2014

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2