SOMEONE v. MIAMI NATION ENTERPRISES
Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, California.
The individuals associated with the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MIAMI COUNTRY ENTERPRISES et al., Defendants and participants.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Commissioner's Complaint additionally the ruling that is initial the Motions To Quash
After a study by the Department of Corporations, in August 2006 the Commissioner 1 given desist-and-refrain requests to Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, U.S. Fast money, Preferred money and another Click money, directing them to stop their unlicensed and illegal loan activities in Ca. In June 2007, following the organizations did not conform to the desist-and-refrain requests, the Commissioner filed a issue into the title of those for the State of California for injunctive relief, restitution and civil charges against Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, U.S. Fast money, Preferred Cash plus one Simply click Cash alleging they certainly were supplying short-term, pay day loans on the internet to Ca residents in breach of a few conditions associated with California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL) (Fin.Code, В§ 2300 et seq.). 2 particularly, the grievance alleged the five businesses involved in deferred deposit deals within California without having to be licensed (Fin.Code, В§ 23005, subd. (a)), originated loans more than the $300 statutory optimum (Fin.Code, В§ 23035, subd. (a)), charged loan that is excessive (Fin.Code, В§ 23036, subd. (a)), and neglected to offer various required written notices to their customers (Fin.Code, В§ 23001, subds. (a), ( ag e)).