Safe Credit Union v. Diaz CA3

Filed 8/23/21 Safe Credit Union v. Diaz CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

SAFE CREDIT UNION, C092158

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Super. Ct. No. Appellant, STKCVUOC201813550)

v.

JULIET M. DIAZ,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant SAFE Credit Union (SAFE) sued defendant and cross-complainant Juliet M. Diaz for an outstanding balance owed by her on a car loan after SAFE repossessed and auctioned the car subject to the loan. Diaz cross complained alleging she and other members of a putative class were victims of SAFE’s unfair debt collection practices. Generally, Diaz alleged SAFE issued legally inadequate notices of its intent to sell repossessed vehicles. Because of the legally inadequate notices, SAFE

1

was precluded from seeking outstanding balances on the loans from her and members of the putative class, yet attempted to do so through multiple means including litigation. Diaz alleged SAFE violated the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act (Rees- Levering Act) (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.), the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (Rosenthal Act) (Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq.), and the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). SAFE filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure1 section 425.16 to strike from Diaz’s cross-complaint the allegations, to which it refers as “Litigation Claims,” pertaining to SAFE’s litigation. The trial court denied SAFE’s motion. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Diaz filed a class action cross-complaint against SAFE in SAFE’s suit seeking from her the outstanding balance on a car loan after SAFE’s repossession and sale of the car subject to the loan. On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Diaz sought damages, injunctive relief, and restitution under the Rees-Levering Act, the Rosenthal Act, and the unfair competition law. Specifically, Diaz alleged she brought the suit “to challenge the unlawful, unfair and deceptive practices of [SAFE] following repossession of [her] and the putative class’s motor vehicles under a conditional sales contract. [¶] . . . In particular[,] [SAFE] failed to provide [Diaz] and the class with statutorily-mandated notices of their legal rights and obligations after repossession of their motor vehicles . . . [¶] . . . [SAFE] wrongfully deprived [Diaz] and the putative class of their right to reinstate or redeem their conditional sales contract after repossession, negligently and/or fraudulently misrepresented the rights and obligations of the parties following repossession, collected, or sought to collect, a deficiency from [Diaz] and the putative class following