Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06963/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06963-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY GUILLORY and FELISE

GUILLORY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WFS FINANCIAL, INC., WESTERN

FINANCIAL BANK, NELSON &

KENNARD, and ACTION AUTO

RECOVERY,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06963 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 9, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ pleadings and, thus, does not wish to hear the

parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal

authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 16 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties each shall have ten minutes to address the following questions:

1. Has defendant Action Auto Recovery been served? What is the status of Plaintiffs’

claims against them? 

2. On October 27, 2006, Defendants WFS and Nelson & Kennard filed a deficiency action

in Alameda Superior Court against Dorothy Guillory. (Compl. ¶ 32.) The action sought

to collect the allegedly delinquent amount due under the contract disputed in the instant

action. (Id.) What is the status of the Alameda Superior Court action and why is that

action not related to the instant action?

3. Plaintiffs assert that “[a] parent corporation may be held liable for the acts of its

subsidiaries under alter ego theory, integrated enterprise, agency, indirect or vicarious

liability, aiding and abetting, or ratification theories.” (Opp. Br. at 3.) What facts are

alleged in the complaint or could be alleged upon amendment to support any of these

theories of liability? 

4. Felise Guillory asserts a cause of action against WFS under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(A). 

Section 1692f(6)(A) prohibits debt collectors from “[t]aking or threatening to take any

nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if [] there is no

present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable

security interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(A). What facts are alleged in the complaint or

could be alleged to support an allegation that Felise Guillory had a property interest in

the repossessed car? What authority supports the proposition that a plaintiff without a

property interest in the dispossessed or disabled property may sue under § 1692f(6)(A)? 

5. Are there any other issues that the parties wish to address?

Dated: March 7, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 16 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2