Henry v. Consumer Portfolio Services
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for class certification to litigate claims against defendants Consumer Portfolio Services (CPS), The Finance Company, Inc. (TFC), and TFC president and director Ronald G. Tray. Henry's operative complaint alleged causes of action against defendants for violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (AFSA, also known as the Rees-Levering Act) (Civ. Code, 2981, et seq.); California Uniform Commercial Code (CUCC)[1]section 9601 and its predecessor statute (CUCC, 9-504); Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200, et seq.); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C.
1692, et seq.); and declaratory relief stemming from allegations that TFC, which had repossessed Henry's vehicle, sent Henry a defective post-repossession notice and along with CPS demanded deficiency monies without any legal right to do so under the AFSA and the CUCC.
On appeal, Henry contends the court erred in denying class certification because (1) he is an adequate class representative; (2) his claims are typical of the claims alleged on behalf of his proposed class; (3) individual issues do not predominate as to tolling of the various statutes of limitation and CUCC claims; (4) a nationwide class is manageable; and (5) his FDCPA claim does not fail as a matter of law. Court affirm.
Comments on Henry v. Consumer Portfolio Services