Marko Mandaric et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al.

I. Background

Plaintiffs purchased the Aston Martin, which has a “current fair market value [of] approximately $154,950,” “under a consumer auto finance agreement serviced by Chase.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs were not up to date on payments, but believed based on June 5, 2025, conversations with Chase representatives “that after a payment would be made, repossession _________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:25-cv-02321-FWS-JDE Date: November 25, 2025 Title: Marko Mandaric et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al. would not occur until approximately 90 days past due.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs then made a payment on June 14, 2025. (Id.) “Notwithstanding that guidance, in the early hours of August 27, 2025 (on or about the 86th day past due), Defendants seized the [Aston Martin] from Plaintiffs’ residence via a stealth, 41-second tow conducted at night with the tow truck’s lights turned off. During the tow, Defendants dragged the [Aston Martin] sideways down the street after making driveway contact with the near $10,000 front lip spoiler.…