Opinion ID: 2139868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: CPA Violation

Text: [12] Regarding Street, defendants first argue that the district court erred in finding that any misconduct on their part amounted to a violation of the CPA. The CPA's scope is limited to the sale of assets or services and any commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the State of Nebraska. [22] Based on that language, we have held that the CPA only applies to unfair or deceptive practices which affect the public interest. [23] Drawing on that phrase, defendants contend that the CPA should not apply here because the transaction involved only Street and the named defendants, not the public at large. In this way, defendants believe this case is similar to Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co . [24] In Nelson, we held that the CPA did not apply to the allegedly fraudulent sale of a single Jeep vehicle between a corporation and a private citizen. Notably, defendants made the exact same argument with respect to the other plaintiffs in this case during the first appeal. Although we did not elaborate on our rationale at the time, it is clear that we found defendants' CPA argument unavailing, since we concluded that plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages and attorney fees under their alternative theories of fraud and violation of the CPA.  [25] We see no reason to alter that conclusion now. Nor is it significant that Street's claim was litigated separately from the remainder of plaintiffs' claims. Street would have recovered along with those plaintiffs but for the district court's mistaken conclusion that his claim was procedurally barred. Street's claim depends on the same allegations raised by the other plaintiffsthat is, that defendants engaged in a pattern of calculated conduct intended to defraud numerous citizens of this state of their homes. We find no merit in defendants' contention that the CPA does not apply to their transaction with Street.