Smith v. Loanme
| Decision Date | 01 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | S260391 |
| Citation | 460 P.3d 757,260 Cal.Rptr.3d 433 (Mem) |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMITH v. LOANME |
The petition for review is granted. The requests for an order directing depublication of the opinion in the above-entitled appeal are denied.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger and Groban, JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Erceg v. Lendingclub Corp.
... ... Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).C. Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f), a party may move to strike ... Conversely, section 632.7 does not prohibit the participants in a phone call from intentionally recording it." Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. , 43 Cal. App. 5th 844, 848, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 61 (2019). That ruling, which is fatal to Plaintiff's section 632.7 cause of action because ... ...
-
CS Wang & Assoc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...advances the same argument in favor of dismissal of Plaintiffs' § 632.7 claims: in December 2019, the California Court of Appeal in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., heldthat CAL. PENAL CODE § 632.7 prohibits only third-party eavesdroppers from recording telephonic communications, not parties to the c......
-
Saunders v. Sunrun, Inc.
...recording it." 43 Cal. App. 5th at 848. This decision, however, is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court. See Smith v. LoanMe, 460 P.3d 757 (Cal. 2020). The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to address whether that statute allows participants in a phone call to record it or if ......