Puppy Leasing Program Violates Calif. Law, Class Action Claims

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A class action lawsuit argues that National City Puppy LLC’s “puppy leasing” program violates California law.

National City Puppy located in California allegedly misrepresents the nature of its financing for pets.

According to the National City Puppy class action lawsuit, customers are lead to believe they own a dog once they make a down payment, when in reality, they don’t own their pet until they’ve completed the lease financing and paid an additional amount as a purchasing fee.

Plaintiff Raechaniel Hall says that she and her boyfriend visited a National City Puppy store on or around Sept. 10, 2018, and selected a dog that they wanted to purchase — a Boston Terrier. They reportedly were told that the price was $2,500, and were offered financing options.

Hall says the company represented to the couple that they would own the dog when they made their initial down payment, when actually, they did not own the dog, and were paying a price more akin to a “rent” fee for the dog.

The National City Puppy class action lawsuit states that Hall would not own the puppy unless the couple chose to purchase it after renting it, at which point they would be charged a purchase fee, bringing the total price of the dog up to a sum beyond the stated $2,500.

According to Hall, National City Puppy told the couple that choosing a financing option would allow the couple to take the dog home the day after making the down payment.

However, the company allegedly did not communicate to Hall that she would not own the Boston Terrier until she completed multiple lease payments and exercised her right to a purchase option.

The National City Puppy class action lawsuit claims that the company ran a credit check on Hall and told her that her only financing option was a down payment of $249.76 with subsequent payments subject to a “0% interest” over the next nine months.

Hall says she agreed to this payment plan because the company advertised that it has “30 years of industry experience” in selling dogs.

She says that the company told her to complete the financing process on defendants PayTomorrow, KRW Associates LLC’s website which hosts businesses; commerce and financing contracts like that of National City Puppy.

The National City Puppy class action lawsuit claims that Hall was directed to a list of National’s financing options on the KRW website, and claims that National “aggressively directed [Hall] to click on a button that read ‘I accept this option,'” on the agreed-upon payment option.

Hall says she then received a receipt that stated that her total payments would equal $2,416.67, and a text message that confirmed that her financing was finalized, and telling her to check her email for the signed contract regarding her purchase.

The National City Puppy class action lawsuit claims that the company never told or explained to Hall that she did not own the dog, and Hall believed that she owned the dog once she made the down payment.

Allegedly, the company made the nature of the contract difficult to understand, and included a clause in the contract that said “you are leasing the property and have no ownership rights in it unless you exercise your purchase option,” and “you will have an option to purchase [the dog] that the scheduled end of the lease for $1,750.00 official fees and taxes.”

Hall says that the total price of the dog was above the stated $2,500, but she was not told clearly that she would have to pay more than that price to own the dog.

The plaintiff is represented by Dante T. Pride, Jessica K. Pride, and Briana M. Givens of The Pride Law Firm.

The National City Puppy Class Action Lawsuit is Raechaniel Hall v. National City Puppy LLC, Case No. 37-2019-00015933-CU-BC-CTL, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division.