Abat

Abat v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.

Good Law
738 F. Supp. 2d 1093·2010 WL 3632809·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98989
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 14, 2010Case No.: SACV 07-01476-CJC(ANx)California1,437 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carney, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHASE BANK USA, N.A.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS X AND XI OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Janice Abat, Ildiko Nylen, Jean Rossean, Linda Shakespeare, Shannon Carriero, Nancy Wilksen, Erica Hall, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”) initiated this class action against Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”) and other defendants. Plaintiffs bring claims against Chase under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., and on behalf of those members of the class that are California residents, claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., (collectively “Counts X and XI”). Before the Court is Chase’s motion for partial summary judgment on Counts X and XI on the ground that the disputes under those claims are governed by a valid, enforceable choice of law provision in the credit card agreements between Plaintiffs and Chase that selects Delaware law. Chase’s motion for partial summary judgment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.