While this matter had been pending, Magistrate Judge Roby granted plaintiffs’ movement for keep to register a second complaint that is amended. As a result, defendant, ACE, filed A movement to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) that has been set for hearing on October 11, 2000. The parties waived oral argument such that these motions were taken under submission on the briefs only in each instance. The Court, having considered the memoranda filed, the proof presented, the record, regulations and relevant jurisprudence, is completely encouraged within the premises and able to rule.
PURCHASE AND REASONS
ACE is just a customer finance business. Plaintiffs, Shirley Porter and Joyce Davis, filed this class that is putative against ACE and “other unknown defendants” alleging that the loans they received from ACE were in breach of (1) the previous Louisiana Small Loan Act (prior Los Angeles. R.S. 9:3577.1-3577.8.) (“Small Loan Act” or “LSLA”) that has been repealed under Act 1315 of 1999, effective January 1, 2000; (2) the Louisiana Deferred Presentment Act (present La. R.S. 9:3577.1-3577.8) (“LDPA”), which became effective January 1, 2000; (3) the Louisiana Consumer Credit Law (Los Angeles. R.S. 9:3510, et seq.) (“LCCL”); and, (4) the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organization Act ( 18 U.S.C. В§ 1961, et seq.) (“RICO”).
The 2nd Amended issue is the same as the First Amended Complaint, other than it substitutes the prior “unknown defendants” with called officers and/or directors of ACE as defendants in this course of action. The Second Amended problem asserts that these newly known as defendants “were connected with, or used by, an enterprise that partcipates in activities that affect interstate business and carried out such enterprise’s affairs, and obtained earnings for such enterprise, by way of a pattern of collection of illegal financial obligation, in breach of 18 U.S.C. Continue reading “The 2nd Amended problem asserts that these newly called defendants “were linked with,”