Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04732-MJJ

Document 14

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Matthew S. Hale, Esq. HALE & ASSOCIATES Calif. State Bar No. 136690 45 Rivermont Drive Newport News, VA 23601 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1951 Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone No. (757) 596-1143 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs, DAVID J. LEE and DANIEL R. LLOYD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) Case No.: C 07-4732 MJJ ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ) DISMISS ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) DATE: December 4, 2007 ) TIME: 9:30 a.m. ) PLACE Courtroom 11 ) CHASE MANHATTAN BANK U.S.A., 19th Floor ) N.A., a Delaware corporation, CHASE 450 Golden Gate Avenue MANHATTAN BANK U.S.A., N.A. d.b.a. ) ) San Francisco, Calif. 94102 CHASE BANK U.S.A., N.A., JPMORGAN ) CHASE & CO., a Delaware corporation; ) ) and DOES 1, through 100, inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) DAVID J. LEE and DANIEL R. LLOYD, as individuals and, on behalf of others similarly situated,

1

David Lee, et al. vs. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al. Plaintiffs' [Proposed] Order Re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Case 3:07-cv-04732-MJJ

Document 14

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2

The motion of Defendants, Chase Manhattan Bank U.S.A., N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank U.S.A., N.A., D.B.A. Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A., and JPMORGAN Chase & Co., came on for

3 4 5 6 7 8

hearing before this Court Tuesday, December 4, 2007. Matthew Hale, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs David J. Lee, and Daniel R. Lloyd. Stephen J. Newman appeared on behalf of the Defendants. After considering the written submissions and the arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion is

9 10 11 12 13 14

DENIED. The Court rules as follows: 1. Plaintiffs have standing to maintain the action and its various causes of action; 2. Plaintiffs' claims concerning their charge, credit, gift, and dining cards fall within the coverage of the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA")(California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.);

15 16 17 18 19

3. The Complaint meets the specificity requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b); 4. No cause of action is barred by the relevant statute of limitations; 5. Plaintiff's Complaint is not preempted by the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. § 24 et seq.);

20 21 22 23 24 25

6. Plaintiffs' Complaint is not preempted by either 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008 (d)(2)(iv) or 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008(d)(2)(viii); 7. The California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.), the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) and common law in the context of Plaintiffs' Complaint have, at

26 27 28 2

most, only an incidental effect on Defendants' credit operation;

David Lee, et al. vs. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al. Plaintiffs' [Proposed] Order Re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Case 3:07-cv-04732-MJJ

Document 14

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8. Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Company is not a National Bank and thus the claims against it may not be preempted under the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. § 24 et seq.) or its implementing regulations.

DATED:

December ___, 2007

By: ____________________________ Honorable Martin J. Jenkins U.S. District Court Judge

3

David Lee, et al. vs. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al. Plaintiffs' [Proposed] Order Re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss