Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc.green2 sentences2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus 2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus | 1 | 1 |
King v. State Of Californiagreen2 sentences2017The violations here allegedly occurred in 2007 and 2010 (see, e.g., Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co. (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 159, 163 [date of occurrence for disclosure violations is the date the transaction was consummated]; King v. California (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 910, 915 [same]) and were allegedly first discovered by Ivanoff, according to her verified complaint, when she had her loan “forensically examined” in May 2011. 2017The violations here allegedly occurred in 2007 and 2010 (see, e.g., Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co. (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 159, 163 [date of occurrence for disclosure violations is the date the transaction was consummated]; King v. California (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 910, 915 [same]) and were allegedly first discovered by Ivanoff, according to her verified complaint, when she had her loan “forensically examined” in May 2011. | 1 | 1 |
Baral v. Schnittgreen2 sentences2017(See generally Bared v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 395 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] [“the primary right theory is notoriously uncertain in application”].) Similarly, even if the conclusory statement of grounds recited by the court when it sustained the Bank’s demurrer to the first amended complaint in the initial lawsuit is properly considered a decision on the merits of Ivanoff s contract claim, the adequacy of the disclosure of credit terms in the refinancing and loan modification agreements was neither actually litigated nor finally determined in that action. 2017(See generally Bared v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 395 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] [“the primary right theory is notoriously uncertain in application”].) Similarly, even if the conclusory statement of grounds recited by the court when it sustained the Bank’s demurrer to the first amended complaint in the initial lawsuit is properly considered a decision on the merits of Ivanoff s contract claim, the adequacy of the disclosure of credit terms in the refinancing and loan modification agreements was neither actually litigated nor finally determined in that action. | 1 | 1 |
Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.green2 sentences2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus 2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus | 1 | 1 |
Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.green2 sentences2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus 2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus | 1 | 1 |
Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co.green2 sentences2017The violations here allegedly occurred in 2007 and 2010 (see, e.g., Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co. (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 159, 163 [date of occurrence for disclosure violations is the date the transaction was consummated]; King v. California (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 910, 915 [same]) and were allegedly first discovered by Ivanoff, according to her verified complaint, when she had her loan “forensically examined” in May 2011. 2017The violations here allegedly occurred in 2007 and 2010 (see, e.g., Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co. (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 159, 163 [date of occurrence for disclosure violations is the date the transaction was consummated]; King v. California (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 910, 915 [same]) and were allegedly first discovered by Ivanoff, according to her verified complaint, when she had her loan “forensically examined” in May 2011. | 1 | 1 |
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerbergreen2 sentences2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus 2017(DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 , 230 P.3d 342 ].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or those in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclus | 1 | 1 |
Lippner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.green1 sentence2016Ill. 2008) 544 F.Supp.2d 695, 702 [where creditor conceded it had violated the TILA and the consumer had timely exercised her right to rescind, the creditor was obligated under section 1635 to honor the rescission demand, and the failure to do so was a further TILA violation].) And the Court stated in Jesinoski, supra, 135 S.Ct. at p. 792 , “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” On the other hand, respondent points us to Yamamoto, supra, 329 F.3d 1167 , on which the trial court relied. | 1 | 1 |
Heritage Mutual Insurance v. Ricart Ford, Inc.green2 sentences2015Co. v. Ricart Ford, 663 N.E.2d 1009, 1013 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1995) the TILA rider in a “ ‘Garage Coverage Form’ ” was made expressly applicable to “ ‘damages solely due to Section 130, Civil Liability, of Title I (Truth in Lending Act) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act . . . .’ ” This provision did not allow for coverage of the Ohio Attorney General’s complaint, as that pleading did not include a prayer for damages under section 130 of the TILA, even though it alleged a TILA violation. 2015Co. v. Ricart Ford, 663 N.E.2d 1009, 1013 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1995) the TILA rider in a “ ‘Garage Coverage Form’ ” was made expressly applicable to “ ‘damages solely due to Section 130, Civil Liability, of Title I (Truth in Lending Act) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act . . . .’ ” This provision did not allow for coverage of the Ohio Attorney General’s complaint, as that pleading did not include a prayer for damages under section 130 of the TILA, even though it alleged a TILA violation. | 1 | 1 |
Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bankgreen2 sentences2013Bank) (1998) 523 U.S. 410, 415 [ 118 S.Ct. 1408 , 140 L.Ed.2d 566 ].) To avoid dismissal at this stage, plaintiffs must show that “(1) the TILA violation and the debt are products of the same transaction, (2) the debtor asserts the claim as a defense, and (3) the main action is timely.” (Moor v. Travelers Ins. 2013Bank) (1998) 523 U.S. 410, 415 [ 118 S.Ct. 1408 , 140 L.Ed.2d 566 ].) To avoid dismissal at this stage, plaintiffs must show that “(1) the TILA violation and the debt are products of the same transaction, (2) the debtor asserts the claim as a defense, and (3) the main action is timely.” (Moor v. Travelers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Homecomings Financial, LLCgreen1 sentence2011(See Taylor v. Homecomings Financial, LLC (N.D.Fla. 2010) 738 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1267 [explicitly noting its analysis of the disclosure issue was under Fla.’s state unfair competition law]; Wallace v. Midwest Financial & Mortgage Services, Inc. (E.D.Ky. 2010) 728 F.Supp.2d 906, 917-918 [granting summary judgment on TILA claim and observing plaintiff “cites to no case law, specific statutes, or regulations to support his claim that the numerous loan disclosures provided to him throughout the loan process were inadequate under TELA”]; Conder v. Home Savings of America (C.D.Cal. 2010) 680 F.Supp.2d | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Midwest Financial & Mortgage Services, Inc.green1 sentence2011(See Taylor v. Homecomings Financial, LLC (N.D.Fla. 2010) 738 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1267 [explicitly noting its analysis of the disclosure issue was under Fla.’s state unfair competition law]; Wallace v. Midwest Financial & Mortgage Services, Inc. (E.D.Ky. 2010) 728 F.Supp.2d 906, 917-918 [granting summary judgment on TILA claim and observing plaintiff “cites to no case law, specific statutes, or regulations to support his claim that the numerous loan disclosures provided to him throughout the loan process were inadequate under TELA”]; Conder v. Home Savings of America (C.D.Cal. 2010) 680 F.Supp.2d | 1 | 1 |
Conder v. Home Savings of Americagreen1 sentence2011(See Taylor v. Homecomings Financial, LLC (N.D.Fla. 2010) 738 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1267 [explicitly noting its analysis of the disclosure issue was under Fla.’s state unfair competition law]; Wallace v. Midwest Financial & Mortgage Services, Inc. (E.D.Ky. 2010) 728 F.Supp.2d 906, 917-918 [granting summary judgment on TILA claim and observing plaintiff “cites to no case law, specific statutes, or regulations to support his claim that the numerous loan disclosures provided to him throughout the loan process were inadequate under TELA”]; Conder v. Home Savings of America (C.D.Cal. 2010) 680 F.Supp.2d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
R.B. Moor v. The Travelers Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2016Co. (5th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 632, 634 .]” (Ortiz, at p. 1164, original italics.) The plaintiffs in Ortiz argued that their cause of action was in defense to the creditor’s nonjudicial foreclosure action. 2016Co. (5th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 632, 634 .]” (Ortiz, at p. 1164, original italics.) The plaintiffs in Ortiz argued that their cause of action was in defense to the creditor’s nonjudicial foreclosure action. | 2 | 2013–2016 |
Rosen v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange County
green
1 sentence2021Joseph Hospital of Orange County (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 453, 458 .) “‘Where the appellant offers no allegations to support the possibility of amendment and no legal authority showing the viability of new causes of action, there is no basis for finding the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.’” (Ibid.) Here, plaintiffs did not explain to the trial court how they could cure the defects in the TILA claim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Larry Meyer Virginia Badalamente Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, a Delaware Corporation
green
2 sentences2021(Id., § 1640(e).) The period begins to run “at the time the loan documents were signed.” (Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (9th Cir. 2003) 342 F.3d 899, 902 .) TILA states that “not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer.” ( 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (g)(1).) The FAC alleged that Bank of New York violated this section by failing to disclose in writing the 2015 assignment of the deed of trust from Countrywide. 2021(Id., § 1640(e).) The period begins to run “at the time the loan documents were signed.” (Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (9th Cir. 2003) 342 F.3d 899, 902 .) TILA states that “not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer.” ( 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (g)(1).) The FAC alleged that Bank of New York violated this section by failing to disclose in writing the 2015 assignment of the deed of trust from Countrywide. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Melvin T. Yamamoto Elaine S. Yamamoto Maxine H. Tampon v. Bank of New York Bnc Mortgage U.S. Financial Corporation
green
1 sentence2016Ill. 2008) 544 F.Supp.2d 695, 702 [where creditor conceded it had violated the TILA and the consumer had timely exercised her right to rescind, the creditor was obligated under section 1635 to honor the rescission demand, and the failure to do so was a further TILA violation].) And the Court stated in Jesinoski, supra, 135 S.Ct. at p. 792 , “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” On the other hand, respondent points us to Yamamoto, supra, 329 F.3d 1167 , on which the trial court relied. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Ill. 2008) 544 F.Supp.2d 695, 702 [where creditor conceded it had violated the TILA and the consumer had timely exercised her right to rescind, the creditor was obligated under section 1635 to honor the rescission demand, and the failure to do so was a further TILA violation].) And the Court stated in Jesinoski, supra, 135 S.Ct. at p. 792 , “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” On the other hand, respondent points us to Yamamoto, supra, 329 F.3d 1167 , on which the trial court relied. 2016Ill. 2008) 544 F.Supp.2d 695, 702 [where creditor conceded it had violated the TILA and the consumer had timely exercised her right to rescind, the creditor was obligated under section 1635 to honor the rescission demand, and the failure to do so was a further TILA violation].) And the Court stated in Jesinoski, supra, 135 S.Ct. at p. 792 , “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” On the other hand, respondent points us to Yamamoto, supra, 329 F.3d 1167 , on which the trial court relied. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2015Relying on Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287 and subsequent state and federal decisions, Luna maintains that “[i]t is the alleged conduct (‘error or omission’), not a ‘cause of action,’ that triggers Praetorian’s defense obligation under the endorsement.” Montrose does not help him, however. 2015Relying on Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287 and subsequent state and federal decisions, Luna maintains that “[i]t is the alleged conduct (‘error or omission’), not a ‘cause of action,’ that triggers Praetorian’s defense obligation under the endorsement.” Montrose does not help him, however. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2015Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263 , noted that the TILA endorsement was triggered not by particular facts or conduct, but by a particular statutory claim—that is, a TILA claim for damages. 2015Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263 , noted that the TILA endorsement was triggered not by particular facts or conduct, but by a particular statutory claim—that is, a TILA claim for damages. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.