In Berry v. American Express Publishing, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 31, 2007), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) held: "After considering CLRA’s text and legislative history, we conclude the extension of credit, such as issuing a credit card, separate and apart from the sale or lease of any specific goods or services, does not fall within the scope of the act." Slip op. at 2.
Interestingly, the opinion does not cite McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (2006), from September, in which the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) held that a transaction resulting in the sale of real property does not fall within the scope of the CLRA because real property is not a "good or service."
Nor does the opinion cite another decision that came to my attention last week as a result of my membership in Consumer Attorneys of California: Knox v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 2005 WL 1910927 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Knox held that "California courts generally find financial transactions to be subject to the CLRA." Id. at *4 (citing Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 915 (2004); Kagan v. Gibraltar Savings and Loan Ass'n, 35 Cal.3d 582 (1984)).