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.

Business Law
Unfair Competition
Consumer Warranty

Esteban Ramirez, Gloria Sanchez v. Giromex Inc., Giromex S.A. de C.V., Casas de Cambio el Gallo LLC dba Casa de Cambio, Jaime Muller, Luis Echeverria

Published: Aug. 12, 2003 | Result Date: May 8, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: JCCP4159 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

S. Charles Wickersham

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kevin P. Roddy
(Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer PA)

Howard W. Foster

Henry H. Rossbacher


Defendant

Teresa A. Trucchi
(Suppa, Trucchi & Henein LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs Gloria Sanchez and Esteban Ramirez are California consumers who paid dollars to financial institutions to transmit pesos to Mexico. These financial institutions include defendants Giromex Inc. and Casas de Cambio el Gallo. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and class members, sued defendants and its officers, alleging unfair competition, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false advertising. They contended that defendants failed to disclose the rate of exchange used on transmission of funds to Mexico. They also contended the rate that pesos for the transactions were purchased in bulk was not disclosed. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' allegations and asserted their practices were fair and that full disclosure was made to their clients.

Settlement Discussions

The plantiffs demanded $600,000. The defendants offered $300,000.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages of several million dollars for reimbursement to consumers, attorney fees and punitive damages.

Result

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The court found defendants' practices were fair and full disclosure was made. It also found there was no evidence that plaintiffs or class members were deceived or likely to be deceived by the defendants' business practices. The court further found defendants' procedures were in compliance with Financial Code Section 1815. The defendants' motion was granted also under Civil Code Section 1781(c)(3). Judgment was entered for the defendants on all causes of action.

Other Information

Three similar actions against defendants were disposed of through summary judgment. This case also disposed of a consolidated case filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.


#110289

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

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