§Why CasetextPricing

De La TORRE v. CASHCALL

Respondent’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

31 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 (2011)   Cited 3,753 times   601 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

  2. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV

    52 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 453 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Act must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act

  3. A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp.

    135 Cal.App.3d 473 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 371 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconscionable a disclaimer of warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code where there was "allocation of commercial risks in a socially or economically unreasonable manner"

  4. State Department of Public Health v. Superior Court (Center for Investigative Reporting)

    60 Cal.4th 940 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the lower court's "harmonization efforts" because they "did not give full effect" to the statutes at issue

  5. State v. B&B Inv. Grp., Inc.

    329 P.3d 658 (N.M. 2014)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that payday lenders possessed superior bargaining strength over loan consumers who were financially unsophisticated and "lacked knowledge, ability, experience or capacity in credit consumption" and who presented borrowers with the choice of either accepting the non-negotiable terms of the contract or walking away from the loan

  6. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court

    211 Cal.App.3d 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "claim of oppression may be defeated if the complaining party had reasonably available alternative sources of supply from which to obtain the desired goods . . . free of the terms claimed to be unconscionable"

  7. Wayne v. Staples, Inc.

    135 Cal.App.4th 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 69 times
    Finding no UCL violation where plaintiff claimed defendant charged an insurance coverage fee that constituted a 100% markup on its cost of obtaining the coverage

  8. Ailanto Prop. Inc. v. City of Half Moon Bay

    142 Cal.App.4th 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 67 times
    Refusing to adopt an interpretation of Gov. Code section that “would negate other statutory provisions” in the Water Code

  9. Berry v. American Express Publishing, Inc.

    147 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the CLRA does not apply to credit card transactions

  10. Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.

    2 Cal.5th 1074 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 38 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1074, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 889, 393 P.3d 375 (Mendoza), the court responded to the Ninth Circuit’s request for guidance as to whether prohibitions in sections 551 and 552 against working seven days in a row should be calculated on a rolling basis, or by the workweek.

  11. Section 1670.5 - Contract or clause unconscionable

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5   Cited 758 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting UCC section 2-302 and making it generally applicable to all contracts

  12. Section 1631 - Disclosure requirements

    15 U.S.C. § 1631   Cited 473 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Referring to disclosures that apply to a person "who is obligated on a consumer lease or a consumer credit transaction"

  13. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XV § 1   Cited 387 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Limiting the permissible scope of loan contract negotiations by prohibiting, subject to penalty, negotiation for usurious interest rates

  14. Section 22302 - Unconscionable loans

    Cal. Fin. Code § 22302   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Section 1670.5 of the Civil Code applies to the provisions of a loan contract that is subject to this division. (b) A loan found to be unconscionable pursuant to Section 1670.5 of the Civil Code shall be deemed to be in violation of this division and subject to the remedies specified in this division. Ca. Fin. Code § 22302 Added by Stats. 1994, Ch. 1115, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1995. Operative July 1, 1995, by Sec. 5 of Ch. 1115.

  15. Section 1452 - Loan Size and Duration: Limitations

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 1452   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    When making or negotiating loans, a finance company shall take into consideration, in determining the size and duration thereof, the financial ability of the borrowers to repay the same, to the end that the borrowers should be reasonably to repay said loans in the time and manner provided in the loan contracts. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 10, § 1452 1. New NOTE filed 12-29-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 53). 2. Amendment of NOTE filed 2-21-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter

  16. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,157 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  17. Rule 8.548 - Decision on request of a court of another jurisdiction

    Cal. R. 8.548   Cited 210 times

    (a)Request for decision On request of the United States Supreme Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the court of last resort of any state, territory, or commonwealth, the Supreme Court may decide a question of California law if: (1) The decision could determine the outcome of a matter pending in the requesting court; and (2) There is no controlling precedent. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Form and contents of request The request must take the form of an order of the requesting