Aguayo v. U.S. Bank
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15806
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Aguayo bought a Ford Expedition in California; loan assigned to U.S. Bank after purchase.
- Aguayo defaulted; U.S. Bank repossessed the vehicle in August 2007 and sent a Notice of Our Plan to Sell Property with an accompanying Redemption Letter.
- Redemption Letter detailed amounts to reinstate or redeem but did not include all information required by California's Rees-Levering Act §2983.2(a).
- Bank subsequently sold the repossessed vehicle; proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the contract, prompting a deficiency claim against Aguayo.
- Aguayo filed a state-court action alleging U.S. Bank violated Rees-Levering Act post-repossession notice requirements and that the Bank’s deficiency claim violates California law.
- U.S. Bank removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing NBA preempts California Rees-Levering Act notices via OCC regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rees-Levering post-repossession notices are preempted by the NBA/OCC | Aguayo argues state notice requirements survive preemption; not within OCC debt-collection scope. | U.S. Bank contends notices are preempted as disclosures/credit-related documents under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008. | Not preempted; savings clause saves debt-collection rights; notices not disclosures or credit-related documents. |
| Whether the OCC savings clause preserves state right to collect debts from preemption | Savings clause protects rights to collect debts; California debt-collection provisions remain effective. | Regulation’s savings clause could be read narrowly, but preemption should apply to debt-collection notices. | Savings clause applies; debt-collection rights are preserved from preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (touchstone for preemption as a congressional intent inquiry)
- Bank of Am. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 309 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2002) (presumption against preemption in some contexts; state regulation history)
- Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) (interpretation of statutes and full reading of them in preemption analysis)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) (read statutes as a whole; savings vs express preemption balance)
- National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353 (1869) (federal banks subject to state laws, informing context for preemption themes)