Case Name: Mejia v. San Jose Outlet Plus Trucks, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2013-1-CV-247552

Defendant Veros Credit, LLC (“Veros” or “Defendant”) moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, of the first amended complaint (“FAC”), and each cause of action asserted therein, filed by plaintiff Lorena Mejia (“Plaintiff”).

After full consideration of the evidence, separate statements and authorities submitted by each party, the Court makes the following ruling:

Veros’ motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, is DENIED. First, Veros fails to establish that Plaintiff has obtained all of the damages to which she is entitled, i.e., fees and costs, and that such items are part of the amount capped by the FTC Holder Rule. Consequently, Veros also has not established that Plaintiff is seeking a double recovery. Second, to the extent that Veros is attempting to obtain summary judgment by arguing that Plus Trucks’ settlement offer to Plaintiff was appropriate, or that Plaintiff’s apparent acceptance of the $5,000 check from the dealer in September 2014 operated as a final settlement of her claims, it fails to meet its initial burden. Veros does not address the specific amounts paid to Plaintiff or establish that the $5,000 was actually cashed, which is a necessary element of establishing an accord and satisfaction of a claim. (See Comm. Code, § 3111, subd. (a)(3).) Finally, Plaintiff establishes the existence of a triable issue of material fact with regard to whether she was current on the amounts due under the RISC when the vehicle was repossessed and thus whether Veros had a lawful right to possess it. (Declaration of Lorena Mejia in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, ¶¶ 22, 25.)