United States District Court, N.D. California
For Eduardo De La Torre, Plaintiff, Counter-defendant: Damon M. Connolly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Damon M. Connolly, San Rafael, CA; James C. Sturdevant, The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Whitney Stark, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC, Seattle, WA; Arthur David Levy, San Francisco, CA; Melinda Fay Pilling, Rukin Hyland Doria and Tindall, San Francisco, CA; Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, San Francisco, CA.
For Lori saysourivong, Plaintiff: James C. Sturdevant, The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Whitney Stark, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC, Seattle, WA.
For Cashcall, Inc., Defendant, Counter-claimant: Brad W. Seiling, Lydia Michelle Mendoza, Noel Scott Cohen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Claudia Callaway, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Washington, DC.
For Lori saysourivong, Lori Saysourivong, Counter-defendant: Arthur David Levy, San Francisco, CA; James C. Sturdevant, The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Whitney Stark, LEAD ATTORNEY, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC, Seattle, WA.
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 234
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant CashCall, Inc.'s (" CashCall" ) Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9. Dkt. No. 234. Plaintiffs have filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 235) and Defendant has filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 238). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the October 30, 2014 hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for the reasons set forth below.
On July 1, 2008, Plaintiffs initiated this class action lawsuit against CashCall, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws. Dkt. No. 1. On November 1, 2011, the Court granted class certification in this matter. On July 30, 2014, the Court ruled on: (1) CashCall's motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' First and Fifth Causes of Action; (2) Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to two of their claims; and (3) CashCall's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (" UCL" ) based on unconscionable loan terms (the " Unconscionability
Claim" ). Dkt. No. 220. The Court denied both of CashCall's motions, and granted Plaintiffs' motion. Id.
On August 08, 2014, CashCall filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as to the Court's denial of its motion for summary judgment on the Unconscionability Claim. Dkt. No. 222. CashCall argued that reconsideration was appropriate due to a failure to consider dispositive legal arguments. Specifically CashCall contended that the Court failed to address the threshold question of whether Plaintiffs could assert an unconscionability claim ...