Joshua Maynard v. Usaa Federal Savings Bank
23-15566
9th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Joshua C. Maynard sought to obtain clear title to a 2014 Dodge Durango after purchasing it at a lien sale from X-Men Towing in June 2020.
- USAA Federal Savings Bank (USAA FSB) held a security interest in the Durango through an existing loan agreement with Maynard.
- Maynard defaulted on his loan, surrendered the vehicle, and later declared bankruptcy, yet the bank’s security interest was not discharged by his bankruptcy.
- The district court granted summary judgment mostly in favor of USAA FSB on breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory relief, but did not address the conversion claim regarding Maynard’s personal property inside the Durango.
- Maynard appealed the district court’s rulings, including issues around amending his complaint, discovery, and alleged judicial bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Lien Sale on Security Interest | Lien sale extinguished USAA FSB's interest; Maynard obtained clean title. | Contract & law preserved FSB’s lien; no written consent to sale. | Lien remained; title was still subject to FSB's security interest. |
| Rightful Possession of Vehicle | USAA FSB lacked legal interest; repossession was improper. | FSB had right to repossess due to loan default. | FSB’s repossession was lawful; Maynard’s conversion claim as to vehicle failed. |
| Conversion of Personal Property | Vehicle’s contents were wrongly taken during repossession. | (No substantive response on appeal to this specific claim.) | Reversed grant of summary judgment on this claim, remanded for further proceedings. |
| Unjust Enrichment | Maynard spent money on repairs, unjust entitlement for FSB. | (Parties & court did not analyze merits below.) | Remanded for district court to consider the unjust enrichment claim. |
| Leave to Amend for IIED/Code Violation | Should be allowed to add claims for emotional distress and breach of peace. | Claims would be futile based on facts and the law. | Denial of leave to amend was proper; claims were futile. |
| Discovery/Subpoena Quash | Subpoena was improper, discovery obligations misapplied. | Maynard lacked standing to quash, and discovery was proper. | No abuse of discretion in denying motion to quash; discovery was appropriate. |
| Judicial Bias/Discovery Misconduct | Court was biased, evidence mishandled, defense counsel misbehaved. | No valid basis for bias; procedural rulings not evidence of bias. | No abuse of discretion or prejudice shown by Maynard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budget Fin. Plan v. Sav-On Food Club, 283 P.2d 694 (Cal. 1955) (loan contract terms determine effect of repossession)
- Cent. Cal. Equip. Co. v. Dolk Tractor Co., 144 Cal. Rptr. 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (written consent needed to release security interest at sale)
- Gordon v. Hamm, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (buyer-in-ordinary-course exception construed)
- Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115 (Cal. 2011) (elements of breach of contract claim)
- Lee v. Hanley, 354 P.3d 334 (Cal. 2015) (elements of conversion claim)
- Wilson v. Hynek, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (claims for IIED in repossession settings are generally futile)