Opinion
Nos. 14-17571 15-15042
10-03-2018
Eduardo DE LA TORRE ; Lori Saysourivong, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, v. CASHCALL, INC., Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellants.
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.
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.
--------
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.