O’Donovan v. CashCall, Inc.
Case No.: C 08-03174 MEJ
U.S. Federal District Court- Northern District
Attorneys: Steven Tindall, Jessica Riggin
We have filed a class action case alleging two primary claims against CashCall on behalf of borrowers: the Unconscionability Claim and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) Claim. The Unconscionability Claim is on behalf of 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 Unconscionability Claim alleges that the loan terms are oppressive on their face because they combine a high rate of interest with a lengthy repayment period, in which borrowers must repay interest prior to the principal. The EFTA Claim is on behalf of all individuals who, while residing in California, borrowed money from CashCall, Inc. for personal, family, or household use, or after March 13, 2006, through July 10, 2011, and were charged and NSF (i.e. an overdraft) fee. The claim alleges that CashCall improperly conditioned its extension of credit on borrowers’ repayment by means of electronic funds transfers.
See the complaint here.
Court Grants Summary Judgment on Unconscionability Claim: Although the District Court denied CashCall’s original Motion for Summary Judgment on the Unconscionability Claim, finding that a trial on this claim was required to resolve the genuine disputes of material fact, it later granted CashCall’s Motion for Reconsideration, finding that the claim “would impermissibly require the Court to regulate economic policy.” This decision is fully briefed on appeal before the Ninth Circuit and is awaiting oral argument.
CashCall Liable for Statutory Damages on EFTA Claim: On March 16, 2016, the Court, following a bench trial, found CashCall liable for $500,000 in statutory damages for its EFTA violations but held that it was not liable for any actual damages or restitution.