Free Objection - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04732-MJJ

Document 12

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 1 of 2

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 ) ) PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO ) 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' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Case 3:07-cv-04732-MJJ

Document 12

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 2 of 2

3

II1I

on the bases that: (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 1750 et seq.; (3) the

I

I
I

l(coverage of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civil Code
5

Complaint meets the specificity requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b); (4) Plaintiffs' causes of
6
7

~

action are not barred by the relevant statute of limitations; (5) Plaintiffs' complaint is not

I11
10
12

preempted by the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 24 et sea , andlor its implementing regulations (12 C.F.R. $8 7.4008(d)(2)(iv) and (viii); and, (6) the Unfair competition Law (California Bus.
& Prof. Code §§ 17200 et m), California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil the

11

1

1

l3 14 15
16 17

I I1

Code §$ 1750 et sa, e.

or the common law in the context of Plaintiffs' Complaint have, at most,

only an incidental effect on Defendant's lending operation and are not preeppted % . the by National Bank Act and its implementing regulations. The Court is respectfully referred to the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities in support of this Opposition. Dated: November 13,2007 Respectfully submitted,

l8

Matthew S . Hale Attorney for Plaintiffs David J. Lee and Daniel R. Lloyd
25

26
27

28
2

David Lee, et al. vs. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss