Although Lobel Financial denies any wrongdoing, it will provide significant relief to the settlement class. According to the declaration of general counsel Gary Lobel, there are 9,159 members of the class whose outstanding deficiency balances total approximately $43,808,147. The settlement halts all collection activity on those accounts. Lobel has collected approximately $407,563 in deficiencies from class members already to date. Those class members who paid money toward their deficiencies and file a claim as set forth in the class notice will get a refund of  the amount they paid.  In addition, Lobel Financial will waive and extinguish the  entire $43,808,147 in alleged deficiencies and instruct credit reporting agencies to delete the Lobel Financial tradelines of all settlement class members.  In other words, with respect to this debt, the slate will be wiped clean. 

The class is defined as all persons:  who purchased a Motor Vehicle in California and as part of that transaction entered into a Conditional Sales Contract assigned to Lobel Financial; whose Motor Vehicle was repossessed in California; who were issued an NOI by Lobel Financial from July 7, 2004 to October 1, 2008; who were assessed a deficiency balance ; and against whom Lobel Financial had not obtained a judgment as the settlement date.

Class Notice is to be mailed to all settlement class members around April 20, 2010.  Nancy Barron and Bryan Kemnitzer, of the law firm Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, along with Alexander Trueblood of the Trueblood Law Firm, are class counsel. If you have any questions concerning this case, feel free to contact us.

Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron of the San Francisco office of Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, and Mark Chavez, of Chavez & Gertler, Mill Valley, California, represent the class.

The case arose out of the plaintiffs’ purchase of vehicles from dealers who arranged financing through Alliant Credit Union. Veronique McCoy purchased a 2005 Mazda on July 21, 2004 from Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Bernardo Castro purchased a 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche on November 16, 2007 from Sacramento Auto Plaza.  Each borrower eventually fell behind in their  payments and their vehicles were repossessed – McCoy’s on September 5, 2008 and Castro’s on October 11, 2008. Thereafter Alliant Credit Union sent them a “notice of intent” to sell the vehicle. Plaintiffs contend that this NOI failed to provide the borrowers certain information that would enable them to know exactly what they had to do to reinstate or redeem the contract in time to get their vehicle back and avoid  auction.

The Class includes borrowers to whom Alliant Credit Union mailed an NOI between April 1, 2005 and May 1, 2009. If you are a member of this class, you should receive a class notice shortly after April 9, 2010.

Defendant ACC Consumer Finance has agreed to resolve the case, with significant benefits to settlement class. Representative plaintiffs Paul Meza and Jay Pelkey alleged that ACC Consumer Finance failed to provide post-repossession notices that comply with California law. Although it denies the allegations, ACC Consumer Finance will provide substantial relief to the 1,595 settlement class members, including a promise to stop collection of approximately $15,319,728.96  in outstanding deficiency balances and to refund the full amount that class members have already paid on their deficiencies, if any. The aggregate refund is $75,329.14. There is no claims process and the benefits will be automatic after final approval by the court.

 Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron of Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, and Mark Chavez, of the law firm Chavez & Gertler, Mill Valley, represent the class.

The case arose out of the plaintiffs’ purchase of vehicles from dealers who arranged financing through ACC Consumer Finance. Paul Meza purchased a 2004 Nissan Sentra, which was later repossessed when he fell behind in his monthly payments. Jay Pelkey bought a 2004 Ford Mustang, which was also repossessed. On April 24, 2008 ACC Consumer Finance sent Mr. Meza a post-repossession “notice of intent” to sell the Nissan  and on August 11, 2006 ACC Consumer Finance sent Mr. Pelkey a “notice of intent” to sell the Mustang. Among other things, plaintiffs contend that the form notices sent by ACC Consumer Finance failed to provide the borrowers certain information that would enable them to know exactly what they had to do to reinstate or redeem the contract in time to get their vehicle back and avoid  auction.

The Settlement Class is defined as all persons:  (1) who purchased a Motor Vehicle, and as part of that transaction entered into an agreement subject to California’s Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, Civil Code §2981, et seq.; (2) whose contract was assigned to ACC Consumer Finance; (3) whose Motor Vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered; (4) who were issued an NOI by ACC Consumer Finance during the Class Period (June 22, 2005 to the present); and (5) against whose account a deficiency balance was assessed in any amount. If you are a member of this class, you should receive a class notice shortly after April 19, 2010.

The court certified a class action involving the Public Storage Tenants Insurance Program (“PSTIP”) on March 11, 2010. Bang, et al. v United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, et al., Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG06-273805.  

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Bang, Maggie Johnson and the class allege that Public Storage has sold insurance with its storage unit rentals – going all the way back to 2002 – without a license and without rate approval required by the California Department of Insurance. The court further certified the California-wide class on the claim that Public Storage deceptively failed to disclose that it controlled the insurance program even though the PSTIP was ostensibly underwritten by a series of insurance companies, including United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company, and Traveler’s Indemnity Company. Class claims were also certified against the insurer defendants for unlawful and unfair offering of insurance lacking rate approval.

The case arose out of plaintiffs’ rental of storage units at Public Storage facilities. At the time of the rental, Public Storage employees urged them to buy PSTIP insurance. Maggie Johnson and Elizabeth Bang agreed to insure their personal goods with a PSTIP policy and the premium was added to their monthly bill. Not long afterwards, each of them suffered a burglary at the Public Storage site, and yet each had her claim denied. It turns out that Public Storage was not even licensed to sell insurance and the rates charged were not approved by the DOI. Yet, much of the profit from the PSTIP goes right back to a Public Storage captive entity.

The Court defined the class as follows: All persons who, at any time from June 8, 2002, through March 31, 2010, purchased coverage under the Public Storage Tenants Insurance Program at a Public Storage facility located in California.

This class includes hundreds of thousands of California consumers. Plaintiffs seek restitution of unapproved and excessive insurance premium charges, among other remedies.  A trial date has not been set, but is expected to be held in 2011.

The class is represented by the Law Offices of Kim E. Card, Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron of  Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, and Philip Prince of San Francisco.

Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron, of the law firm Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP, along with Alexander Trueblood of Los Angeles and Lilys McCoy of San Diego, represent the class.  If you have questions concerning this case, the information hotline is 1 (877) 435-4072.

The class is defined as all buyers: (1) who purchased a motor vehicle in California and entered into a conditional sales contract with any person or entity that was assigned to BMW Financial; (2) whose motor vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered in California, and was not reinstated or redeemed; and (3) who were issued an NOI by BMW Financial between August 25, 2004 and September 5, 2008. Excluded are those persons who have filed bankruptcy proceedings, accounts of individuals who are deceased, those persons who signed releases with BMW Financial from any liability for Deficiency Balance payments on their accounts, and those against whom BMW obtained judgments.

Mr. Friedrichs bought a BMW on August 1, 2004, and financed the deal through a loan from BMW’s captive finance arm, BMW Financial. When he missed one or more payments, the lender seized the car in late July 2005. A Notice of Intent to sell the vehicle followed. The vehicle was then sold and Mr. Friedrichs was charged a large deficiency amount, which BMW Financial claimed was the difference between the amount he still owed on the contract and the amount for which they sold the car. We later filed suit on behalf of him and others, on the grounds that this Notice of Intent did not comply with California law in several material respects. After extensive litigation, discovery and investigation, BMW Financial agreed to settle the case before trial.

The settlement class members fall into two categories depending on the status of their accounts. Approximately 175 members of the settlement class have paid some or all of the deficiency amount BMW Financial charged them. These class members will get back a refund of the full amount that they paid, a total of about $550,000. In addition, about 2,450 class members did not pay their deficiency. BMW agrees to stop any collection of these amounts, and the total amount involved is about $35,000,000. BMW Financial’s agreement to cease collection activity includes a limited injunction against certain related business practices.  BMW Financial also agrees to stop initiating any negative credit reporting concerning these accounts.

 Distribution of class benefits will follow shortly.

If your car or truck was recently repossessed, you may have a defense to the deficiency, even if you were in default. If this has happened to you, contact us.

Class members are California consumers (1) who purchased a motor vehicle in California and as part of that transaction entered into a purchase contract with any person or entity which contract was later assigned to Bay Federal Credit Union; (2) whose motor vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered in California, and was not reinstated or redeemed; and (3) who were issued a Notice of Intent to Sell Motor Vehicle at any time between August 4, 2004 to January 13, 2009.

This definition describes a class of approximately 711 members. There are two categories of class members. Those who have paid some or all of the money Bay Federal claimed was owing as a deficiency and those who did not pay anything. Bay Federal agreed to pay back those who had paid, for a total of about $41,150 in refunds. In addition, Bay Federal further agreed to forgive and not to pursue collection of the outstanding deficiencies, which amounts to approximately $5,159,515.

Notice was sent to all class members. In December 2009, Judge Peter Busch of the San Francisco Superior Court issued final approval of this settlement. Class members entitled to a cash refund should get their checks in early 2010. As always, class members should cash the checks immediately, because of a stale date after which the checks are no longer valid. Bay Federal Credit Union further agreed to instruct the major credit reporting companies to delete the class members’ negative trade lines concerning the affected accounts. Class members entitled to deficiency waiver should check their credit reports.

Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron brought this case with co-counsel Alec Trueblood of Los Angeles in order to enforce important consumer protection laws involving fair debt practices and automotive lending. Class members received substantial benefits through use of the class action device. If you think you have been the victim of unfair or unlawful repossession practices, contact us.

Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron of San Francisco, along with co-counsel Alexander Trueblood of Los Angeles and Lilys McCoy of San Diego, represent the class.
On January 8, 2010, Judge William Cannon of the San Diego Superior Court issued an order of final approval of the settlement. Distribution of benefits will occur in late March.

The case arose out of Timothy O’Neal’s purchase of a vehicle on July 21, 2004 from Perry Ford in National City, San Diego County. The dealer, Perry Ford, arranged financing for the purchase with FMCC. O’Neal eventually fell behind in his payments and the vehicle was repossessed in June 2006. Thereafter FMCC sent him a “notice of intent” to sell the vehicle. This post-repossession notice is sometimes referred to as an “NOI.” This NOI failed to provide O’Neal information that would enable him to know exactly what was owed (and to whom), and just what he had to do to reinstate or redeem the contract in time to avoid auction of his vehicle. He did not reinstate or redeem, and was subsequently charged a deficiency of $10,443.89, which is the difference between the wholesale price obtained for the vehicle after repossession and the debt FMCC claimed remained due. When O’Neal failed to pay that amount, FMCC sued him. At that point he sought legal counsel from us. We answered the complaint on O’Neal’s behalf and filed a class action cross-complaint on behalf of him and other California consumers who had received similar post-repossession notices from FMCC. The cross-complaint pointed out a whole list of specific reasons the NOI did not comply with California law. FMCC continues to deny that its NOI notices violate the law. Nonetheless, FMCC changed its standard form NOI in California while this case was pending.

Under the terms of the settlement, the class is defined as all persons: (1) who purchased a Motor Vehicle, and as part of that transaction entered into an agreement subject to California’s Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, Civil Code §2981, et seq.; (2) whose contract was assigned to FMCC; (3) whose Motor Vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered;(4) who were issued an NOI by FMCC during the Class Period; (5) against whose account a deficiency balance was assessed in any amount; and (6) against whom FMCC has not obtained a judgment.  The Class Period is from November 8, 2003 to September 7, 2008.