On May 8, 2019, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument regarding an important issue involving class certification in California state courts: how to apply the requirement of ascertainability in the class...more
Resolving an ambiguity in the California Finance Lender’s Law (CFLL), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that borrowers may use the unconscionability doctrine to challenge the interest rate on consumer loans of...more
8/21/2018
/ Ability-to-Repay ,
CA Supreme Court ,
CashCall ,
Consumer Financial Products ,
Consumer Lenders ,
Finance Lenders Law ,
Financial Services Industry ,
High-Interest Loans ,
Interest Rates ,
State and Local Government ,
Unconscionable Contracts ,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) ,
Usury
Resolving an ambiguity in the California Finance Lender's Law (CFLL), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that borrowers may use the unconscionability doctrine to challenge the interest rate on consumer loans of...more
8/17/2018
/ Ability-to-Repay ,
CA Supreme Court ,
CashCall ,
Consumer Financial Products ,
Consumer Lenders ,
Finance Lenders Law ,
Financial Services Industry ,
High-Interest Loans ,
Interest Rates ,
State and Local Government ,
Unconscionable Contracts ,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
Although the California Finance Lenders Law (the CFLL) does not limit the interest rates that may be charged on loans of $2,500 or more, Section 22302 of the law expressly states that loans made under the CFLL may be held...more
In a state enforcement action alleging violations of California's lending law and seeking to enjoin continued lending to state residents, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the two tribally affiliated entities that...more
1/4/2017
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Civil Investigation Demand ,
Consumer Financial Products ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
Financial Institutions ,
Financial Services Industry ,
FTC Act ,
Internet Lenders ,
Native American Issues ,
Payday Loans ,
Popular ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Tribal Loans
A divided California Supreme Court has held that an arbitrator, rather than a court, should determine whether an arbitration clause in an employment agreement allows employees to bring their claims in arbitration on a...more
The California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, on August 3, 2015, reversing a finding by the Court of Appeal that an arbitration provision was unconscionable...more
8/12/2015
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
AT&T Mobility v Concepcion ,
Best Practices ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Class Action ,
CLRA ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Putative Class Actions ,
SCOTUS ,
Unconscionable Contracts