Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Delisle v. Speedy Cash

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

June 10, 2019, Decided; June 10, 2019, Filed

Case No.: 3:18-CV-2042-GPC-RBB

Opinion

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

[ECF No. 18.]

On October 16, 2018, Plaintiffs Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty ("Plaintiffs") filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a putative class action against Defendant Speedy Cash on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs assert claims under  [*2] California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. Plaintiffs define the proposed class as:

All persons in the State of California who obtained loans in excess of $2,500.00 from Defendant Speedy cash within the 48 months preceding the filing of this Complaint, wherein the annual percentage rate (APR) of interest on said loans exceeded 90 percent.

(ECF No. 16, at 6.) On October 30, 2018, Speedy Cash moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss this case. (ECF No. 18.) On January 4, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 20), and on January 11, 2019, Speedy Cash filed a reply (ECF No. 21).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument, and having considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

I. Background

Speedy Cash is a Delaware business with its corporate headquarters in Kansas. It operates thirty-six locations throughout California, and is licensed by the California Department of Corporations as a California Finance Lender subject to Cal. Fin. Code § 22000. Speedy Cash offers loans through its physical stores, as well as through online loan portals. According to Plaintiffs, Speedy Cash conducts comprehensive advertising [*3]  campaigns in California to generate business for what it characterizes as "Easy, Fast & Friendly Cash Loans." (ECF No. 16, at 4.)

Both Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty are citizens of the state of California. On July 14, 2018, Ms. Delisle entered into an "Installment Loan and Promissory Note" (the "Loan Agreement," ECF No. 18-3, Ex. A to Decl. of Katrina Anthony) with Speedy Cash, which provided that Speedy Cash would loan $4,457.38 to Ms. Delisle at an Annual Percentage Rate ("APR") of 95.737%. On October 16, 2017, Mr. Dougherty signed an identical contract with Speedy Cash, under which Speedy Cash agreed to loan him $2,600 at an APR of 135.441%. The high APRs charged by Speedy Cash meant that Ms. Delisle would be required to repay Speedy Cash a minimum of $15,097.63, and Mr. Dougherty, a minimum of $12,746.78.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96981 *; 2019 WL 2423090

CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT DOUGHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDY CASH, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Stay granted by Delisle v. Speedy Cash, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172276 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2019)

Motion granted by Delisle v. Cash, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18269 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020)

CORE TERMS

injunctive relief, arbitration, arbitration provision, preempted, unconscionable, invalid, parties, injunction, waivers, waive, terms, arbitration agreement, class action, preemption, loans, general public, advertising, loan agreement, district court, public policy, unenforceable, courts, rights, procedural unconscionability, attorney general, interfere, notice, compel arbitration, unfair competition, state law