Author: lfsuser

Consumer Bureau May Have Final Say on Arbitration Clauses

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/01/business/la-fi-lazarus-20120501 Highlights:

The Dodd-Frank Act gives the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explicit authority to study use of arbitration clauses related to financial products and services.”

A 2007 report by Public Citizen found that, over a four-year period, arbitrators sided with credit card companies 94% of the time in disputes with California consumers.

Consumer advocates have long argued that it’s unfair to deny people the right to sue or to band together in class actions, which are often the only effective way of addressing relatively small claims.

So if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau comes to the same conclusion, does it have the power to do anything about it?

The answer, it seems, is yes.

Learn More

San Diego Superior Court Approves $94,500 Cy Pres Award to Make-A-Wish Foundation

Auto Fraud Legal Center’s Auto Fraud Legal Center is pleased to announce San Diego County Superior Court Judge Luis Vargas approved a $94,500 cy pres award to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The award comes from the case of Macias v. Acura of Escondido, in which it was alleged Acura of Escondido violated various California consumer protection laws by backdating retail installment sale contracts. For more information about this case, or any of the Auto Fraud Legal Center’s other class actions against California automobile dealerships and finance companies, please contact Hawk Barry at (800) 466-5366.

Learn More

California Supreme Court Refuses To Review Ruling Holding Claims Under the Automobile Sales Finance Act are Subject to Four Year Statute of Limitations

Auto Fraud Legal Center’s Auto Fraud Legal Center is pleased to announce the California Supreme Court has refused to review a trial court decision holding actions for rescission under the Automobile Sales Finance Act are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court issued its order denying a petition for review filed by Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services on December 14, 2011, in Santa Maria Ford v. Superior Court (Martinez), Case Number S197395. In Martinez, Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services filed motions for summary judgment arguing Mr. Martinez’s claim under the Automobile Sales Finance Act was subject to either a one-year, or three-year, statute of limitations. In August 2011, the trial court agreed with Mr. Martinez the appropriate statute of limitations for an action for rescission of a written contract is four years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 337. Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, which summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Court then denied Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services’ petition for review.

In the underlying class action, Mr. Martinez alleges Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act by failing to separately disclose fees on purchase contracts, and labeling fees as “not applicable” when in fact the customer was charged for the fees. The proposed class covers all persons who purchased vehicles from Santa Maria Ford between May 26, 2006, and May 26, 2010.

For more information on this, or any of Auto Fraud Legal Center’s class action lawsuits against car dealerships and financial institutions, contact Hawk Barry or Angela Smith at 800-466-5366.

Learn More

Class Action Lawsuit Against Ron Baker Chevrolet and Capital One Auto Finance

Auto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of Jose Mondragon and three classes of auto purchasers against Ron Baker Chevrolet and Capital One Auto Finance. The first class identified in Mr. Mondragon’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Ron Baker Chevrolet and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. The second class identified in Mr. Mondragon’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Ron Baker Chevrolet in National City and were automatically charged an Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee. Mr. Mondragon alleges that instead of giving customers the choice of whether to pay Ron Baker Chevrolet to electronically submit their registration information to the DMV, Ron Baker Chevrolet automatically charged its customers for this service, profiting on every deal. The third class identified in Mr. Mondragon’s lawsuit is all car buyers in California whose purchase contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees, and whose contracts are held by Capital One Auto Finance. Mr. Mondragon purchased a used Chevrolet Silverado from Ron Baker Chevrolet in National City in April 2010, and his contract falsely stated registration, transfer, and titling fees were not applicable to his transaction. Mr. Mondragon’s contract was assigned by Ron Baker Chevrolet in National City to Capital One Auto Finance. The contract, the standard form vehicle purchase contract used in California, included a clause whereby the holder of the contract, in this case Capital One Auto Finance, agreed to be responsible for any claims that could be brought against the seller, Ron Baker Chevrolet in National City.

If any of these practices happened to you at Ron Baker Chevrolet in National City, or any other dealership in California, or your contract was assigned to Capital One Auto Finance, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.

Learn More

Class Action Lawsuit Against Lake Buick Pontiac

Learn More

Recent article on msnbc.com discusses Car Dealers’ latest deceptive sales tactic — “We’ll pay off your trade”

Recently, there was an article on msnbc.com discussing the latest deceptive practice used by car dealers. You’ve probably seen or heard the advertisements “We’ll pay off your trade-in — no matter what you owe.” Well, the FTC is cracking down on these advertisements:

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10815449-car-dealers-latest-deceptive-sales-tactic What a lot of people do not realize is that the amount used to pay off your trade-in is added to your new purchase contract. Thus, you are really financing your old and your new car together. It’s like consolidating debt or credit cards. If you continue to do this a number of times you end up financing a car that is worth a lot less than you owe on it.

Learn More

Class Action Lawsuit Against Maurice J. Sopp & Son and Chase Auto Finance

Auto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Aurelio Deniz and two classes of auto purchasers against Maurice J. Sopp & Son and Chase Auto Finance. The first class identified in Mr. Deniz’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Maurice J. Sopp & Son and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. The second class identified in Mr. Deniz’s lawsuit is all car buyers in California whose purchase contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees, and whose contracts are held by Chase Auto Finance. Mr. Deniz purchased a used Nissan Sentra from Maurice J. Sopp & Son in January 2010, and his contract falsely stated registration, transfer, and titling fees were not applicable to her transaction. Mr. Deniz’s contract was assigned by Maurice J. Sopp & Son to Chase Auto Finance. The contract, the standard form vehicle purchase contract used in California, included a clause whereby the holder of the contract, in this case Chase Auto Finance, agreed to be responsible for any claims that could be brought against the seller, Maurice J. Sopp & Son.

If any of these practices happened to you at Maurice J. Sopp & Son, or any other dealership in California, or your contract was assigned to Chase Auto Finance, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.

Learn More

Class Action Lawsuit Against Pedder Nissan in Hemet

Auto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court on behalf of Jamiel and Martha Gutierrez and a class of auto purchasers against Pedder Nissan in Hemet. The proposed class identified in the lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Pedder Nissan in Hemet and signed contracts that fail to disclose deferred down payments, instead falsely stating the customer had made a cash down payment. The Plaintiffs allege Pedder Nissan in Hemet had them sign a separate Automobile Hold Check Agreement that contained different terms than their purchase contract relating to their down payment. Plaintiffs purchased a used Nissan Pathfinder from Pedder Nissan in Hemet in April 2009.

If any of these practices happened to you at Pedder Nissan in Hemet, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.

Learn More

Class Action Lawsuit Against Crevier BMW

Auto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court on behalf of Jonas Domkus and Angelyn LaPorte-Domkus and a class of auto purchasers against Crevier BMW. The proposed class identified in the Domkus’ lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Crevier BMW and signed backdated contracts. The Domkus’ allege Crevier BMW would cancel contracts and have customers sign new contracts, and the new contracts would be dated the date of the customer’s original contract. The Domkus’ purchased a used Mini Cooper from Crevier BMW in September 2009 and signed contracts at least two days apart that were both dated the same date.

If any of these practices happened to you at Crevier BMW, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.

Learn More