Smith v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 20, 20193:18-cv-05131California4,840 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

17 In this putative class action, plaintiff moves for class certification and for new plaintiffs 18 to intervene with leave to amend the complaint. To the extent stated herein, both motions are 19 20

GRANTED.

STATEMENT

21 California Civil Code § 2954.8(a) requires “[e]very financial institution that makes loans 22 upon the security of real property containing only a one- to four-family residence and located in 23 this state” to “pay interest on the amount so held to the borrower.” Defendant Flagstar Bank, 24 FSB is a federal savings bank that makes the loans covered by Section 2954.8(a). 25 In 2010, the enshrinement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 26 Protection Act changed the federal preemption scheme for banks and federal savings 27 associations. See, e.g., Dodd-Frank Act § 1046 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1465). In 2018, our 28 1 national banks — did not preempt Section 2954.8(a). Lusnak v. Bank of Am., N.A., 883 F.3d 2 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 2018). The instant action is one of three pending actions in the wake of 3 Lusnak to allege violation of Section 2954.8(a). See also McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase 4 Bank N.A., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1063

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.