Case Name: Eduardo DE LA TORRE ; Lori Saysourivong, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, v. CASHCALL, INC., Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellants.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-10-03
Citations: 904 F.3d 866
Docket Number: Nos. 14-17571; 15-15042
Parties: Eduardo DE LA TORRE ; Lori Saysourivong, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,
v.
CASHCALL, INC., Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 904
Pages: 866–867

Head Matter:
Eduardo DE LA TORRE ; Lori Saysourivong, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,
v.
CASHCALL, INC., Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 14-17571
15-15042
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 16, 2017
Submitted September 17, 2018 San Francisco, California
Filed October 3, 2018
James C. Sturdevant (argued), The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, California; Jessica Riggin and Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, San Francisco, California; Arthur D. Levy, Law Office of Arthur D. Levy, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Brad W. Seiling (argued), Donald R. Brown, and Joanna S. McCallum, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Caryn Becker, Oakland, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Center for Responsible Lending.
Ted Mermin, Berkeley, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Public Good Law Center.
Michael J. Quirk, Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Curiae National Association of Consumer Advocates.
Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge.
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc. , 5 Cal.5th 966, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 422 P.3d 1004 (2018), the judgment of the district court is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to that court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.