Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00256/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00256-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 This order moots Defendant’s motion filed January 23, 2007,

since it grants the relief Defendant seeks in that motion.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUICKEN LOANS INC., a Michigan )

corporation, )

) 2:03-cv-256-GEB-JFM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) AMENDED ORDER

)

PRESTON DuFAUCHARD, in his )

capacity as Commissioner of the )

California Department of )

Corporations, )

)

Defendant. ) )

This order amends and supercedes the order filed in this

action on January 10, 2007.1

On May 22, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion

vacating in part, affirming in part, and remanding, the judgment that

was entered in this action on May 13, 2004. See Quicken Loans, Inc.

v. Wood, 449 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2006).

Case 2:03-cv-00256-GEB-JFM Document 95 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As to Count I of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the

Circuit found that California’s per diem loan interest statutes are

not preempted by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary

Control Act (DIDMCA), and therefore vacated the judgment entered for

Plaintiff by the Clerk of the Court on May 13, 2004. Id. at 947, 948,

954. In accordance with the Circuit’s opinion, Count I is dismissed.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant on Count I.

As to Count II of the First Amended Complaint, the Circuit

affirmed this Court’s finding that California’s per diem loan interest

statutes “are not preempted by the [Alternative Mortgage Transaction]

Parity Act.” Id. at 947, 953, 954. Judgment was entered for

Defendant on Count II on May 13, 2004.

As to Count III of the First Amended Complaint, the Circuit

affirmed this Court’s “dismissal of Plaintiff’s as-applied federal

takings claim for ripeness and [held] that any facial claim was

waived.” Id. at 947, 953, 954. The dismissal of Count III is without

prejudice. Since judgment has not yet been entered for Defendant on

Count III, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant

on Count III.

The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00256-GEB-JFM Document 95 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2