Buzenes v. Nuvell Financial Serv. 1/25/12 CA2/5

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2012 » Buzenes v. Nuvell Financial Serv. 1/25/12 CA2/5

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B221870

Case Date: 05/09/2012

Preview:Filed 1/25/12 Buzenes v. Nuvell Financial Services CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

PATRICIA BUZENES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NUVELL FINANCIAL SERVICES et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B221870 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC407366)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carolyn B. Kuhl, Judge. Affirmed. Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton and John B. Sullivan for Defendants and Appellants. Chavez & Gertler, Mark A. Chavez and Nance F. Becker; Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg and Bryan Kemnitzer; and Rosner & Mansfield and Gregory Babbitt for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, Nuvell Financial Services, LLC and Nuvell National Auto Finance Company, Inc., appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration. They were sued by plaintiff, Patricia Buzenes, after a car she purchased was repossessed. The trial court found the arbitration provision was unconscionable and unenforceable. We affirm the order denying the petition to compel arbitration.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

The complaint alleges that plaintiff purchased a used car from Glendale Nissan in June 2007 pursuant to a conditional sales contract. The dealership arranged the financing for the purchase and assigned the conditional sales contract to defendants. In October 2008, defendants repossessed plaintiffs car after she defaulted on her loan. Defendants mailed a written notice to plaintiff advising her that her car had been repossessed and would be sold. The notice of intent did not contain several disclosures mandated by Civil Code section 2983.2, subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(9). The notice of intent warned plaintiff: "YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO SUIT AND LIABILITY IF THE AMOUNT OBTAINED UPON DISPOSITION OF THE VEHICLE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE CONTRACT BALANCE AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS DUE." Plaintiff allegedly requested by form an extension to redeem the car. Defendants ultimately sold the car and then assessed a deficiency balance against plaintiff, a portion of which she paid. The complaint alleges that no deficiency balance was owed due to defendants failure to comply with all mandatory disclosure requirements imposed by law. Plaintiff alleged claims, on her own behalf and as a putative class of automobile purchasers whose cars were repossessed after February 2004 and were sent defective notices of intent to sell their cars, against defendants for: violation of the Business and 2

Professions Code section 17200; contract breach; violation of the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civ. Code,

Download Buzenes v. Nuvell Financial Serv. 1/25/12 CA2/5.pdf