• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Trueblood Law Firm

California Consumer Protection Attorneys

Free Consultation (800) 616-9325

Book Online (click here)

yelpyelp
  • HOME
  • WHO WE ARE
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Repossessions
    • Unfair Debt Collection
    • Lemon Law
    • Credit Reporting
  • FAQs
  • SUCCESS STORIES
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

BLOG

Bridgecrest Financial Auto Repossession Litigation (Attorney Advertisement)

February 7, 2022 by Alec Trueblood

The Trueblood Law Firm is assisting consumers in California whose vehicles were repossessed by Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC, which is headquartered in Mesa, Arizona. Mr. Trueblood is plaintiff’s counsel in Fernandez v. Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC (United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 5:19-CV-00877 MWF (SHKx)), in which the complaint alleges that Bridgecrest violated the law by transferring vehicles from California to Las Vegas after repossession while requiring that California consumers wishing to reinstate or redeem their contracts travel at their own expense to Nevada to pick up their vehicles. Bridgecrest denies the allegations of the complaint.

For a free consultation, call (800) 616-9325 or click the “Book Online” link above. This blog post is an advertisement by an attorney, and the lawyer responsible for its content is Alexander Trueblood, located at 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600, Los Angeles, California 90024.

Filed Under: Blog

Recently Filed Consumer Protection Cases By The Trueblood Law Firm (February 20, 2017, attorney advertising)

February 20, 2017 by Alec Trueblood

The Trueblood Law Firm, based in Los Angeles, California, has recently filed the following consumer protection cases.

Capitello v. Coastline Recovery Services, Inc.  United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:16-CV-03169-CAS-SS.  This case alleges that Coastline, a repossession agency, entered a consumer’s closed and locked underground garage, without permission, which is a breach of the peace. In addition, the case alleges that Coastline failed to mail required notices after the repossession to the consumer.  If your vehicle was repossessed by Coastline and you did not receive notices in the mail after the repossession, please give us a call, for you may be an important witness.

Gomez v. Glendale Nissan.  Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 615975.  This case alleges that Glendale Nissan engaged in “yo-yo” financing and an illegal repossession.  The allegation is that Glendale Nissan could not obtain financing on the contract, made harassing phone calls and illegal threats, including impersonating government officials, to try to coerce the consumer into signing a new contract, and then illegally repossessed the vehicle when the consumer was current on her loan.

Jordan v. LAW Recovery.  United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:16-CV-03381-RSWL-AS.  This case alleges that LAW Recovery sent two agents to repossess the plaintiff’s vehicle, one of whom was unlicensed, who then entered a secured underground garage after being denied permission by the apartment manager, then falsely told the consumer that that if he did not hand over the vehicle immediately and assist in moving a blocking vehicle, he would not be able to reinstate his contract by paying the past due amounts, but would instead have to pay the entire loan balance to get his vehicle back. The complaint alleges that this was untrue, because in California consumers whose vehicles have been repossessed generally have a right of reinstatement.

Nguyen v. CARS Recovery.  United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 16-CV-06811-FMO-MRW. This case alleges that CARS Recovery, a repossession agency, entered a consumer’s secured, gated apartment complex, without permission, which is a breach of the peace.

Thorpe v. Statewide Recovery Services, Inc.  United States District Court, Central District of California Case No.16-CV-06859-ODW (GJSx). This case alleges that Statewide, a repossession agency, entered a consumer’s secured, gated apartment complex, without permission, which is a breach of the peace.

For a free consultation, call (800) 616-9325 or click the “Book Online” link above. This blog post is an advertisement by an attorney, and the lawyer responsible for its content is Alexander Trueblood, located at 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600, Los Angeles, California 90024.

Filed Under: Blog

California Post-Repossession Notice Class Action Against Volkswagen Credit (attorney advertising)

June 18, 2016 by Alec Trueblood

The Trueblood Law Firm was class counsel in a class action lawsuit brought against VW Credit, Inc. in the United States District Court, Central District of California, entitled Sharma v. VW Credit, Inc., Case No. CV-11-08360 DDP (Ex).  The complaint alleged that Volkswagen Credit violated California’s Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act by issuing defective post-repossession notices to consumers who had their cars repossessed.  The action settled on an individual basis, without any determination by the court as to whether VW Credit, Inc. violated the law.

Now, the Trueblood Law Firm is investigating whether VW Credit, Inc. is still violating the post-repossession notice laws.  If you entered into a contract to purchase a vehicle in California, and your vehicle was repossessed by VW Credit, you could give us valuable information about VW Credit’s current repossession practices.  We are offering a free consultation and evaluation of your post-repossession notice.  If your notice was not compliant with the law, the law provides that you do not owe any deficiency balance to VW Credit, and you might be able to have any derogatory credit reporting removed from your credit reports.

For a free consultation, call (800) 616-9325 or click the “Book Online” link above. This blog post is an advertisement by an attorney, and the lawyer responsible for its content is Alexander Trueblood, located at 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600, Los Angeles, California 90024.

Filed Under: Blog

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Just Took a Huge Bite Out of Predatory Lending

May 5, 2016 by Alec Trueblood

By F. Paul Bland, Executive Director, Public Justice

Banks and payday lenders have had a good deal going for a while: They could break the law, trick their customers in illegal ways, and not have to face any consumer lawsuits. Armed by some pretty bad 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, they could hide behind Forced Arbitration clauses (fine print contracts that say consumers can’t go to court even when a bank acts illegally), even when it was clear that the arbitration clauses made it impossible for a consumer to protect their rights.

But the free ride is coming to an end. After an extensive study, that proved beyond any doubt how unfair these fine print clauses have been for consumers, the CFPB is taking a strong step to reign in these abusive practices. In a new rule, the CFPB says banks can no longer use forced arbitration clauses to ban consumers from joining together in class action lawsuits. That means banks can no longer just wipe away the most effective means consumers often have for fighting illegal behavior.

This is a common sense rule that will go a long way in combating some of the financial industry’s worst practices.

In recent years, for example, if a bank systematically cheated 10,000 consumers in the same way, the bank could use its arbitration clause to stop those customers from going to court together. Each individual had to figure out the scam, figure out what their rights were and then spend time and money fighting the bank and its expensive lawyers. Everyone was essentially on their own. Under most arbitration clauses, one or two customers (at most) would have the means and ability to fight all the way through the arbitration system to get their money back.

In contrast, a class action could offer all 10,000 people a fair shot at justice.

Exempting the financial industry from the normal legal system has had far-reaching – and terrible – consequences. Predatory lending and dishonest practices have pushed millions of people right into desperation. Far too many Americans have been tricked into taking out loans that were far more expensive than they realized.

But help is finally on the way. The free ride is ending.

When it passed the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress required the CFPB to study the use of forced arbitration clauses and take action if those clauses undermined the public interest. So the CFPB undertook a huge, data driven empirical study, which it released in March of 2015. The study found that, when consumers could go to court as part of a class action, they recovered billions of dollars in relief. Banks had to refund over charges, erase illegal or inflated debts, and correct inaccurate credit reports.

When consumers were subject to forced arbitration, though, nearly all of those wins disappeared. Almost no consumers actually fought their way through the complex and biased corporate arbitration system. They just gave up. Predatory lenders generally kept whatever money they’d taken, and could operate in a Wild West manner, unless a government agency intervened on behalf of the helpless consumer.

How did arbitration get to be so unfair? In the past, many state laws were clear that if an arbitration clause that banned class actions would undermine a consumer protection law, then a court should strike it down. But in a pair of 5-4 decisions, Justice Scalia wrote opinions that swept all that law away. As a result, corporations could write fine print contracts that would override actual laws. These decisions – one in 2011 and one in 2013 – were unmitigated disasters for consumers and they transformed the Federal Arbitration Act – in place since 1925 – into a Federal Predatory Lender Immunity Act.

But today, things are changing. The CFPB is living up to its name — the Bureau really is protecting consumers. CFPB Director Rich Cordray is probably the most effective agency head in the federal government. He is not afraid to stand up to huge and politically powerful corporations on behalf of the American people. He’s worked hard to ensure the agency lives up to the vision that Elizabeth Warren had when she was advocating for its creation. It’s no wonder why politicians who get huge campaign contributions from large banks hate the agency so much. Many House Republicans attack the CFPB almost as often as they try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Today’s action is probably the biggest step forward for consumers since Dodd-Frank itself. It’s a huge step forward in the fight for common-sense protections. It’s a new rule that says the financial sector doesn’t get to re-write – or break – the rules anymore.

Filed Under: Blog

A Successful Student Loan Defense – National Collegiate Student Loan Trust

March 26, 2016 by Alec Trueblood

The firm successfully defended our client against three lawsuits involving student loans, brought by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust, in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Main Case No. BC 588089).  The cases together sought over $60,000 against our client, who had guaranteed the student loans of her ex-boyfriend while in college.  When the ex-boyfriend defaulted years later, NCSLT sued our client, who had never benefited from the loans.  The statute of limitations analysis was complicated in this matter by the fact that three different states were involved, with five possible statute of limitations periods.  We determined that the correct statute was California’s four-year statute of limitations, raised the defense, and noticed NCSLT’s deposition. NCSLT and its lawyers Patenaude & Felix then abandoned the case, and dismissed.  Our client walked free of $60,000 in alleged student loan debt, demonstrating how important the statute of limitations can be.

Filed Under: Blog

Some Deep Background on Junk Debt Buyers

January 26, 2016 by nkulshresh

A junk debt buyer is a collection agency which has purchased a portfolio of delinquent or charged off accounts from credit card companies, or other collection agencies. Credit card debt accounts for nearly 70% of the accounts sold to junk debt buyers, followed by auto loans, telecommunications debt and other retail accounts. Some of the better known junk debt buyers are Asset Acceptance, NCO Group, Portfolio Recovery Associates, RJM Acquisitions, Cavalry Portfolio, Unifund, Midland Funding, First Select, and Sherman Acquisitions.

Junk debt buyers purchase debts on which other debt collectors have failed. Usually, the debts are too old to be sued upon, or the debtor is judgment-proof, or the debtor cannot be located, or the debt has even been discharged in bankruptcy. Because the accounts are inherently hard to collect, junk debt buyers pay only pennies on the dollar for the debt.

[Read more…] about Some Deep Background on Junk Debt Buyers

Filed Under: Blog

Primary Sidebar

PRACTICE AREAS

  • California Repossession Laws
  • Unfair Debt Collection
  • Lemon Law
    (Auto Dealer Fraud)
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act Lawyers Los Angeles

BLOG

  • Bridgecrest Financial Auto Repossession Litigation (Attorney Advertisement)
  • Recently Filed Consumer Protection Cases By The Trueblood Law Firm (February 20, 2017, attorney advertising)
  • California Post-Repossession Notice Class Action Against Volkswagen Credit (attorney advertising)
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Just Took a Huge Bite Out of Predatory Lending
View All

Footer

LOCATIONS

Los Angeles Office
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Orange County Office
Jamboree Center
One Park Plaza, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
Riverside - San Bernardino
9431 Haven Ave., Suite 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

CONTACT US

    [recaptcha]

    Copyright © 2022. Trueblood Law Firm. The attorney responsible for this website is Alexander Trueblood, located at 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600, Los Angeles, California 90024. We serve the following localities: Los Angeles County including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Clarita, Glendale, Lancaster, Palmdale, Pomona, Torrance, El Monte, Downey, Inglewood, San Fernando Valley, Burbank, Pasadena, Southgate, Norwalk, Whittier, and West Covina; Riverside County including Riverside, Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Temecula, Indio, Palm Springs, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, and Perris; San Bernardino County including Apple Valley, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Hesperia, Highland, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, and Victorville; Orange County including Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Westminster, Yorba Linda, and Anaheim; San Diego County including San Diego, Chula Vista, Oceanside, El Cajon, Vista, San Marcos, National City, La Mesa, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Escondido; Santa Clara County including San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale; Alameda County including Oakland, San Leandro, and Berkeley; San Francisco County; Sacramento County including Sacramento, Elk Grove, and Folsom; Fresno County and the entire Central San Joaquin Valley; Santa Barbara County; Ventura County; San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast.

    Website by Devi Studios

    Copyright © 2023 · truebloodlaw on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

    MENU
    • HOME
    • WHO WE ARE
    • PRACTICE AREAS
      • Repossessions
      • Unfair Debt Collection
      • Lemon Law
      • Credit Reporting
    • FAQs
    • SUCCESS STORIES
    • BLOG
    • CONTACT US