Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, Ca.
The folks 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 plus the ruling that is initial the Motions To Quash
After a study by the Department of Corporations, in August 2006 the Commissioner 1 released desist-and-refrain sales to Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, U.S. Fast money, Preferred money and One Click money, directing them to stop their unlicensed and illegal loan tasks in Ca. The Commissioner filed a complaint in the name of the People of the State of California for injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties against Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, U.S. Fast Cash, Preferred Cash and One Click Cash alleging they were providing short-term, payday loans over the Internet to California residents in violation of several provisions of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL) (Fin.Code, В§ 2300 et seq.). 2 Specifically, the complaint alleged the five businesses engaged in deferred deposit transactions within California without being licensed (Fin.Code, В§ 23005, subd in June 2007, after the businesses failed to comply with the desist-and-refrain orders. (a)), originated loans more than the $300 statutory optimum (Fin.Code, В§ 23035, subd. (a)), charged extortionate loan charges (Fin.Code, В§ 23036, subd. (a)), and neglected to offer their clients with various needed written notices (Fin.Code, В§ 23001, subds. (a), ( ag e)). The test court granted the Commissioner's ex parte ask for a short-term restraining order against each one of the companies and set a date to allow them to show cause why the ask for a initial injunction shouldn't be awarded.