Brice
Brice v. Haynes Investments, LLC.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KIMETRA BRICE, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01200-WHO
Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
v.
HAYNES INVESTMENTS, LLC., et al., Defendants.
12 KIMETRA BRICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01481-WHO Plaintiffs, Dkt. Nos. 178, 179, 181, 182, 183 14 v. 15 MIKE STINSON, et al., 16 Defendants.
19 Defendants move for summary judgment and plaintiffs move for partial summary 20 judgment and to exclude two of defendants’ experts in this class action case involving defendants’ 21 alleged scheme to charge illegally high rates of interest to consumers. The defendants’ motion is 22 DENIED. Material disputes of facts exist concerning each defendant’s role in and benefit from 23 plaintiffs’ loans secured through the Tribal Lending Scheme that preclude summary judgment. 24 Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED in part. California law applies to 25 plaintiffs’ claims. The defendants are not shielded by tribal immunity and the remaining claims 26 do not impact any Tribe’s…