During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Consumer Protection

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The Song-Beverly Warranty Act requires new car manufacturers to provide restitution of the purchase price to the buyer of a defective car.  (Civ. Code 1793.2(d)(2)(B).)  This decision holds that if the buyer sells the defective car or trades it in on another car from a third party car dealer, the amount that the manufacturer must pay the buyer is reduced… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apportion plaintiff's attorney fees between the Song-Beverly Act claim (on which fees were awardable by statute) and the fraudulent concealment claim (a non-fee-bearing claim) since the two claims were based on a common set of facts.  In selecting a 2.0 multiplier on fees, the trial court did not improperly… Read More

This decision reverses a judgment for fraudulent concealment of an alleged defect in a car because there was no substantial evidence that before the plaintiff bought the car (thus allegedly relying on the concealment) the defendant knew of the alleged defect and that it was unable or unwilling to fix it.  However, the decision also affirms the judgment for plaintiff… Read More

Ocwen, a mortgage loan servicer, periodically reviewed credit reports of borrowers who had received bankruptcy discharges of personal liabiity on debts secured deeds of trust on their homes.  This decision holds that Ocwen did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act by doing so.  Ocwen had a permissible pupose in trying to determine whether the borrowers qualified for an alternative… Read More

The FELA (45 U.S.C. § 55) invalidates any contractual provision “the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this act [FELA]."  However, a release provided in settlement of a specific liability claim is enforceable. (See Callen v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (1948) 332 U.S. 625, 631.)  Federal courts… Read More

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not preempt state law requirements for dietary supplements that do not differ from those promulgated under the FDCA. So a plaintiff can bring a UCL action against a dietary supplement supplier for failing to substantiate its advertising or labeling claim about the supplement's structure or function--except that while the FDCA and FDA… Read More

Ramos leased a new Mercedes.  It made grinding sounds when he backed up and turned the steering wheel.  He took the car in to be fixed many times.  It was never repaired to the point of stopping the noises.  At lease end, Ramos returned the car, but also sued to recover damages unde the Song-Beverly Act.  The jury found that… Read More

California's automatic renewal law, B&P Code 17600 et seq. requires a consumer’s affirmative consent to any subscription agreement automatically renewed for a new term when the initial term ends as well as “clear and conspicuous” disclosure of the offer terms, and an “easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation.  However, this decision holds that the law's provision that "all available civil remedies that… Read More

Shloss was Cohen's attorney in a disability discrimination suit Cohen brought against Golden State when one of its delivery drivers parked in a disabled persons parking spot to make a delivery.  Cohen claimed the delivery truck kept him from parking the disabled spot and thus blocked his access to nearby business A.  At trial, Cohen had no evidence to show… Read More

Plaintiffs pled a viable claim for false advertising under the UCL by the defendant manufacturers of pet food labeled "prescription" pet food.  Under the reasonable consumer test, use of the word "prescription" was misleading in suggesting that the pet food contrained medicine or drugs.  The fact that defendants sold their products, at least initially, only through vets did not make… Read More

1 2 3 4