This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Unfair Competition
Repossession

Annie Collins v. The Money Store Auto Finance Inc.

Published: Oct. 18, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 25, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: C8352024 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Ronald M. Sabraw

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark A. Chavez
(Chavez & Gertler LLP)

Alison Hardy

Jonathan E. Gertler

Larry Sokoloff


Defendant

Thomas H. Keeling
(Freeman Firm)

Lee Pierce


Facts

The defendant, The Money Store, was engaged in the business of providing financing to purchasers of
automobiles. The plaintiffÆs automobile loan was serviced by the defendant and her vehicle was repossessed.
Following the repossession, the defendant sent the plaintiff a post-repossession notice which, among other
things, informed the plaintiff of the requirements for redeeming the vehicle and reinstating the contract. The
requirements for such post-repossession notices are set forth in the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance
Act, Civil Code Section 2981 et seq.
The plaintiff filed an action for injunctive relief as a private attorney general on behalf of the general public.
She alleged that the defendantÆs post-repossession notice failed to comply with the Rees-Levering Act and that
the defendant had committed acts of unfair competition under Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq. A copy of the post-repossession notice received by the plaintiff was attached to the original complaint and
incorporated therein by reference.
The defendant demurred to the original complaint on the ground that, on its face, the post-repossession notice
attached to the complaint fully complied with the requirements of the Rees-Levering Act and that the terms of
the notice take precedence over the allegations set forth in the text of the complaint.
The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint prior to the scheduled hearing on the demurrer. The post-
repossession notice attached to the original complaint was neither attached nor referenced in the first amended
complaint.
The defendant demurred to the first amended complaint on the same grounds stated in
its demurrer to the original complaint. The defendant demurred on the additional ground that the
plaintiff could not escape the effect of the post-repossession notice attached to the original
complaint by dropping it in the first amended complaint.

Result

The defendantÆs demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and the plaintiffÆs entire complaint was dismissed.


#110034

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390