below, the Court concludes that the breach of contract claim is not preempted, because it is a Bank, No. 08-CV-0069 (FCD), 2008 WL 2873406, at *9 (E.D.Cal. July 16, 2008) (“Defendants’ lending practices will not be affected whatsoever by [a breach of contract claim]. Instead, it is defendants’ practices of performing contractual obligations with good faith and fair dealing that might be affected”; breach of contract claim not preempted); Reyes v. Downey Savings and Loan Ass’n, FA., 541 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1114 (C.D.Cal.2008) (“[A] law against breach of contract will not be preempted just because the contract relates to loan activity.”); Binetti, 446 F.Supp.2d at 218-19 (noting that court had previously denied motion to dismiss contract claim as preempted under HOLA); Cassese MTD at 34-35 (<HOLDING>). Defendants correctly point out that some
holding breach of contract claim not preempted under hola holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract