The question of whether plaintiff's county law promises would-be preempted by DIDA if put against County lender, however, isn't the issue prior to the Court. The state motion reports include asserted against EZPawn and EZCorp, neither of which try a state-chartered, federally guaranteed (or national) lender. See e.g., Colorado ex rel. Salazar v. Ace Earnings Present, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1285 (D.Colo.2002) ("The issue strictly means a non-bank's infraction of state law. It alleges no claims against a national financial within the NBA.").
Defendants argue that County financial may be the real loan provider and blossoms cannot change *1205 around national jurisdiction by not naming ...