Conder v. Home Savings of America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the UCL cause of action was based on HOLA-preempted claims
• “The fact that Aurora entered into a contract with 25 HSA to service Plaintiff’s loan does not create contractual privity between Aurora and Plaintiff.”
• “The fact that Aurora entered into a contract 11 with HSA to service Plaintiff's loan does not create contractual privity between Aurora and 12 Plaintiff.”
• “The fact that [Loan Servicer] entered 13 into a contract with [Lender] to service Plaintiff’s loan does not create contractual privity between 14 [Loan Servicer] and Plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).