Filed 8/1/23 Le v. Elevate Credit CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO DANH LE, B319914 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCP03900) v. ELEVATE CREDIT, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kristin S. Escalante, Judge. Affirmed. Zimmerman Reed, Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker and Flinn T. Milligan for Plaintiff and Appellant. Morrison & Foerster, Nancy R. Thomas, Matthew E. Ladew, and James R. Sigel for Defendants and Respondents. ______________________________ Plaintiff and appellant Danh Le (Le) took out 17 separate loans from defendant and respondent Rise Credit of California, LLC (Rise Credit).1 After either cancelling these loans or paying them back in full, Le initiated an arbitration proceeding, alleging that the interest rates to which he had agreed were unconscionable. The arbitrator denied Le’s claims, and Le petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied Le’s petition, and Le appeals. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. The parties A. Le Le is a highly educated software engineer. After immigrating to the United States in 1975, he earned a B.S. and an M.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He then began to work for well-known companies, including Boeing, Raytheon, Hughes, and General Research Corporation, and he continued to do so during the time when he obtained the loans at issue and through the date of the arbitration hearing. Le took all his coursework in English; he does his engineering work, for which he obtained a classified clearance, in English; and he testified in English with “no difficulty” at the arbitration hearing. B. Rise Credit Rise Credit’s “business practice is to provide access to credit to non-prime borrowers.” It offers unsecured consumer loans at interest rates commensurate with the level of risk it incurs when 1 Elevate Credit, Inc. (Elevate), is also a respondent on appeal. As explained by the arbitrator, “Elevate provides loan services to Rise [Credit], which is . . . the ultimate lender to consumers.” 2 it offers those loans. Rise Credit does not sue borrowers who default, which increases costs. Its interest rates also reflect its other costs, including: (1) origination costs (including advertising, underwriting, and payments to third-party vendors for applicant credit data); (2) servicing costs; (3) costs of funds; and (4) costs of consumer-facing contractual provisions, including a five-day rescission window and no prepayment penalties. The lender uses an underwriting model that “pull[s] from several credit bureaus [and] data sources up to 10,000 different variables to . . . assess the capacity and the ability to repay.” It employs “35 to 40 data scientists on staff …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals