23 vs. UtiliuiÍLi:xl Civil Case. 2 NANCY BAl~RON Bar No R

Transcription

1 1 KRMNITZERI BAN.RON~ & KRIEG; LLP BRYAN KEMNfT7:ER. Bnr No NANCY BAl~RON Bar No. 099R KRISTIN KEM.NITZER Bar No J 445 Bush SL, 6th Floor San i-rancisco, CA Telephone: (41 5) Facsjrnl1c; (415) CUA VEZ & GERTLER LLP 6 MARK A. ella VLZ Bar No. 090gS8 NANCEF. BECKER BarNo, Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA ß Telephone: (415) 381~5599 Fuc:simiIe: (415) Atlomeyf' tor PlalntllT Joshua Bühannan and the Proposed Clui:8 10 TH E COSTA LAW FIRM 1 1 Daniell). Costa Bn! No Ryan E. Abc111ethy Bar No J.~? 89 Sunrì.se Rlvd., Stc, A Gold River, CA Telephone: (9) 400~34 Facsimile: (9) S 17 AHoll1eys tor Defendanl Professional Cycle Parts IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE or CA LTrORNIA )0 JOSf:lU \ BOHANNAN, índivîdually and on 21 behalf of all ntliers similarly ::ituat~,-i: IN AND fìor THE COUNTY OF SACRAivr.ENTO Case No '1 ~OOl OH983 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 22 P laii1liffs, STATEMEN'l vs. UtiliuiÍLi:xl Civil Case 211 PROFESSIONAL CYCLE PARTS, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,. ) I~J ' D~fendmits Dnte: Dcccmhcr 3, 2015 Time: 9:30 n.m. Dept.; 35 Hon. Ahm G. Perkins Assigned Ü/f a.ll purposes to Hon. -Alan G, Perkins... Dept 35 "i1.\ nt eii:;c MallClgcm\'nt COiifct'(;!lCI, SI"I :lm:nt 1 S i ~W'i

2 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 The instant Case Management Conference is scheduled for December 3, On 3 November 4,2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. Since class 4 certification was granted, the parties have been working together to draft class notice, and 5 provide the Court with a time line of events for the case. The parties are prepared to discuss the 6 mailing of class notice, and the proposed timeline at the CMC. 7 II. SUMMARY OF THE CASE 8 This lawsuit concerns the sale of motorcycles by PCP through the use of third party 9 financial institutions' credit cards that consumers applied for while at PCP. PCP customers then 10 made payinents on these credit cards. 1 1 Joshua Bohannan claims that PCP engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices in connection with the sale and financing of motorcycles through branded credit cards, as described 13 below: 14. That PCP sold motorcycles through credit card transactions without making all 15 disclosures in a single document as required by California's Rees- Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civil Code 2981 et seq.), a law that governs the sale of motor vehicles under conditional sales contracts.. That PCP failed to provide motorcycle buyers with all docuinents and financial 17 disclosures required by the Rees- Levering Act for the sale of motor vehicles under conditional sales contracts. 1 9 PCP denies Plaintiff s allegations and contends that all necessary disclosures under th 2 0 law were made and that PCP did not engage in any unlawful or unfair business practices for th 21 following reasons: 22. The Rees-Levering Act does not govern these types of third-party credit card transactions.. No violations of any law occurred.. Plaintiff and Class members have not experienced any injury due to PCP's actions and injunctive relief is not warranted. III. PROCEDURAL POSTURE Plaintiff filed the instant class action on August 17, On January 21,2014, PCP filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for a No- 2 Joint Case Management Conference Statement 1501

3 1 Merits Determination, or in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication based on the First 2 Amended Complaint. On June 3, 2014, the Court denied PCP's motion. 3 On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification based on the Second 4 Amended Complaint ("SAC"). On May 29,2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Class 5 Certification without prejudice. 6 On June 17, 2014, Plaintiff propounded additional discovery requests based upon the 7 Court's Order denying class certification without prejudice. Specifically, Plaintiffrequested six 8 sales documents from each putative class member's file: 1. The credit application; 2. The bill of 9 sale; 3. The sale slip; 4. The DMV transfer application; 5. The DMV registration; and 6. The deal 10 profitability sheet. PCP refused to respond to discovery. Plaintiff brought a Motion to Compel 11 Discovery Responses. The Court granted Plaintiffs motion on November 17,2014. PCP produced all compelled documents as of January, Plaintiff reviewed all 1,8 files 1 3 produced. 14 Subsequently, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint 15 ("TAC"). Plaintiff filed the TAC on June 5,2015, which amended the class definition and added 1 6 a Rees- Levering Act cause of action. 1 7 PCP filed a Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion to Compel Joinder, claiming that Capital One was a necessary party. The Court overrled PCP's demurrer on September, On November 4, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. The 2 1 Court certified the class based upon the following class definition presented in the TAC: 22 (a) all California consumers who purchased motor vehicles from Defendant PCP; (b) for which title would vest in the buyer only upon the payment of part or all of the price, or the performance of any other condition; ( c) through a contract that fails to state in a single document all the agreements with respect to the total cost and the terms of payment, including without limitation, the applicable interest rate; (d) between August, 2007 and December 3, 2015, 3 Joint Case Management Conference Statement 1501

4 1 iv. DEFENDANT'S NO MERITS MOTION 2 Defendant is :fling a Motion for a No Merits Determination on Plaintiff s CLRA Cause 3 of Action. The Parties met and conferred and have agreed to a hearing for this motion on Marcr 4 17, 20. Plaintiffs Opposition will be due by January 29, 20 and Defendant's Reply will be 5 due by March 1, 20. Notice for this hearing will be posted on the class website. 6 v. CLASS NOTICE 7 Concurrently with this Joint CMC Statement, Plaintiff has :fled a Rule Statement, 8 elucidating the need for class notice to be disseminated. The parties have met and conferred on 9 the contents of the class notice. The agreed-upon class notice is attached to the declaration of 10 Kristin Kemnitzer in support of the Rule Statement. 11 Vi. TIMELINE... The parties present the following time line regarding mailing of class notice, and all 13 remaining case issues. 14 Event Date 15 PCP to provide all updated class statistical information and class member contact information to Notice Administrator Notice Administrator to send Class Notice Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's No Merits Motion December 21,2015 January 10,20 January 29, 20 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's No Merits Motion March 1,20 Exclusion from Class Members postmarked March 15,20 Hearing on Defendant's No Merits Motion March 17,20 Mandatory Settlement Conference by which time parties will have June 15,20 stipulated to a number of issues so as to narrow the issues for trial Bench Trial October,20- October,20 VII. STIPULATION TO WAIVE FIVE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The parties have stipulated to extend the five year statute of limitations in which to bring a case to trial by six months, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Thus, the above timeline contemplates trial in October, 20. II 4 Joint Case Management Conference Statement 1501

5 1 VIII. MEDIATION 2 As always, Plaintiff remains interested in exploring mediation. If PCP is amenable to 3 exploring settlement, Plaintiff will coordinate with defendant to find a mutually acceptable 4 mediator. 5 IX. CONCLUSION 6 The parties respectfully request that the Court approve the Class Notice for mailing in 7 mid-january, 20, and set a mandatory settlement conference for June, 20 and trial for 8 October, 20. The paries request an additional Case Management Conference in March, 20 9 so that the parties can apprise the Court of any issues that may arise prior to the mandatory i 0 settlement conference. 11 Dated: November 30, 2015 KEMNITZER, BARON & KRIEG, LLP ' Dated: November 30, 2015 By: By: 5 Joint Case Management Conference Statement 1501

6 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Re: Bohannan v. Professional Cycle Parts, et ale Sacramento County Superior Court Case No I, Sean R. Barry, certify that I am not a party to the proceeding herein, that I am and was 5 at the time of service over the age of years old, and a resident of the State of California. My 6 business address is 445 Bush Street, San Francisco, California On December 1, 2015, I served the following: 8 PLAINTIFF'S RULE 3.766(b) STATEMENT REGARDING CLASS NOTICE 9 DECLARATION OF KRSTIN KEMNITZER IN SUPPORT OF RULE 3.766(b) STATEMENT 10 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 11 COURTCALL APPEARANCE - SERVICE COPY 13 by ELECTRONIC MAIL, and by depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in separate, sealed 14 envelopes, each of which was addressed respectively to the person(s) and addressees) shown 15 below, for collection and processing for mailing following this business' ordinary practice with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and 1 7 mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with the postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California. Daniel P. Costa Ryan E. Abernethy 20 THE COSTA LAW FIRM 89 Sunrise Blvd., Ste. A 21 Gold River, CA DPC@costalaw.net 22 REA@costalaw.net JL@costalaw.net Attorneys for Defendant PROFESSIONAL CYCLE PARTS II II II II II

7 1 Mark Á. Chavez 2 Nance F. Becker CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 3 42 Miller Ave. Mill V alley, CA mark@chavezgertler.com nance@chavezgertler.com 5 kim@chavezgertler.com J ennifer@chavezgertler.com 6 Co-Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 I declare. under penalty of perjury that the Dated: December i, 2015