Unc. Opp'n from the twelve. CashCall's directed earnings is fifteen-20%, though it can be done CashCall generated up to forty%, or maybe 53% towards some finance. Id. within nine. There is no facts these particular number was indeed extortionate such that they'd assistance a finding from unconscionability. A 100% markup could be "good-sized," however, "is wholly inside the directory of commonly approved notions out-of fair earnings," and you will considerably large finances levels are crucial just before even considering whether substantive unconscionability can get exists. Cal. Grocers Ass'n, 22 Cal. Application. 4th at 216; Wayne, 135 Cal. Software. fourth during the 473 (100% markup to the declared value coverage did not break UCL). While the the highest projected funds in these financing is actually 53%, Plaintiffs failed to establish that CashCall's winnings were excessive.

Unconscionability are matter of legislation to be erican Application, Inc. v. Ali, 46 Cal. Software. next in the 1391. But not, "several factual questions happen abreast of one to question." Marin Shop & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco Hiring and you will Eng'g, Inc., 89 Cal. App. next 1042, 1055 (2001). Merely where "new extrinsic facts [is] undisputed" tend to the courtroom have the ability to influence unconscionability absent predicate results of-fact. Id. On the other hand, since there is good "sliding scale" relationships ranging from proceeding and you will substantive unconscionability, disputed issues of fact when it comes to possibly the brand new proceeding or substantive aspects of the deal commonly prevent a legal devotion out of unconscionability. McCollum v. , Inc., 212 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (pointing out Ellis v.