A borrower took out a loan from the bank to finance the purchase of his new pickup truck. The borrower soon failed to make the payments due under the loan. Consequently, the bank contracted with a debt collection firm to recover the vehicle. The day of the repossession, the borrower left his pickup at his property, behind a locked gate. When the tow truck arrived to take possession of the pickup, the borrower’s girlfriend noticed the tow truck and informed the operators that they were trespassing. The tow truck operators cut the lock on the borrower’s gate and threatened to involve law enforcement if the girlfriend did not allow them to leave with the pickup. The tow truck operators left with the borrower’s truck. Later that day, the borrower returned to find the lock on his gate cut and his vehicle missing. The borrower subsequently sued the bank and the debt collection firm, alleging: (1) a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against the debt collection firm; (2) a violation of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) against both parties; (3) a breach of the peace repossession against both parties; and (4) conversion against both parties. The bank filed a motion to dismiss claims one through three under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the borrower had failed to establish a breach of the peace, a required element of those claims.
In Roberts v. Plumas Bank, No. 2:25-cv-01484-TLN-DMC, 2025 WL 3704535, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264431 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2025) (opinion not yet released for publication), the court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court focused on the cases the borrower cited in which courts have held that a repossessor does not have the legal right to force their way past “a locked gate in order to effectuate the repossession.” Clark v. PAR, Inc., No. CV-15-02322-MWF (FFMx), 2015 WL 1378146, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198216 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2015); Rivin v. Patrick K. Willis Co., No. 2:20-cv-07431-RGK-KS, 2020 WL 8365251, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249263 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2020). Furthermore, the court acknowledged precedent stating that “a secured party can lose their present right to possession of collateral by actions taken during repossession,” and that “California law makes it unlawful for repossessors to enter ‘any private building or secured area without the consent of the owner . . . at the time of the repossession.’” Additionally, because the borrower parked the vehicle behind a locked gate on private property and the bank’s agent forcibly broke that lock to enter, the court found that the borrower had pled sufficient facts to establish a breach of the peace. The bank argued that because the property was a standalone gate without a fence and was not locked, there should be no breach of the peace. The court was not persuaded and denied the bank’s motion to dismiss on claim one. Furthermore, the court held that the borrower sufficiently alleged a violation of the FDCPA and a breach of the peace. Therefore, the court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss claims two and three.
By Jace Brown [email protected]
Edited By Charlie Cole [email protected]
Edited By Olivia Lewis [email protected]
Edited By Taylor O’Brien [email protected]