Financial Services

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.

Plaintiff stated viable UCL and CLRA claims against Walmart based on its deceptive advertising of its "white baking chips." A reasonable consumer was likely to think, wrongly, that the product contained chocolate because the product was formed into chips that looked like chocolate chips, they were called "white" which could be understood as short for white chocolate, and were placed… Read More

Plaintiff stated viable UCL and CLRA claims against Target based on its deceptive advertising of its "white baking chips."  The product's price tag said "WHT CHOCO" while the product's label didn't clearly say whether the white baking chips contained or did not contain chocolate.  A reasonable consumer could read the price tag and believe that the chocolate chip-like white baking… Read More

LA's COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Ordinance which banned evictions for reasons other than the tenant's fault was not preempted by state law.  A demurrer was properly sustained to the owner's unlawful detainer action which alleged no tenant default but instead claimed the owner wanted to move into the unit himself. Read More

Following ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 69, this decision holds that the filing of the complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all claims the defendant pleads in a cross-complaint, whether compulsory or permissive, so long as the cross-claim was not time-barred at the time the complaint was filed.  This limitations tolling doctrine… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's claims under the UCL and CLRA based on defendants' allegedly false statements in releases or other statements and advertisements that Michael Jackson was the lead artist on all tracks in a posthumous CD.  Even if the defendants' statements were protected speech under CCP 425.16(e), plaintiff showed a probability of… Read More

Following Gray v. Dignity Health (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 225, this decision holds that a hospital does not violate the CLRA if it discloses its emergency room evaluation and management services fee in its on-line chargemaster list of fees.  No additional signage or disclosure of the EMS fee is required.  Any requirement of the sort would impair the Legislature's and Congress'… Read More

Following Gray v. Dignity Health (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 225, this decision holds that a hospital does not violate the CLRA if it discloses its emergency room evaluation and management services fee in its on-line chargemaster list of fees.  No additional signage or disclosure of the EMS fee is required.  Any requirement of the sort would impair the Legislature's and Congress'… Read More

This decision affirms the CFPB's judgment against CashCall under 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B) which prohibits unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in consumer finance.  CashCall made loans to consumers at rates that were usurious under the laws of the states where they resided, attempting to circumvent those laws by a choice of Indian tribal law in its loan agreements. … Read More

Under the FCRA, a furnisher of credit information must make a reasonable investigation if the consumer about whom it furnishes information to a credit reporting bureau properly protests the inaccuracy of the furnisher's information.  Furnishers, unlike credit reporting agencies, may be required to investigate the legal as well as factual bases of the information it furnishes.  Here, CitiMortgage continued to… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for defendant, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant willfully violated the FCRA's requirement that an employer provide a job applicant a stand alone disclosure of its potential use of credit reports for employment screening.  (15 USC 1681b(b)(2)(A).)  Wilful for this purpose includes reckless conduct that increases the risk of violation… Read More

Particularly as amended in 2019, Civ. Code 2923.7 requires a loan servicer to appoint a SPOC for each borrower who seeks a foreclosure alternative.  The borrower need not specifically request a SPOC in order to trigger the statute.  Interpreting Civ. Code 2924.12, the decision holds that for post-foreclosure damages purposes, the court must analyze harm in three steps.  First, did… Read More

In this case, plaintiff sued defendant under the CLRA for not disclosing the amount of its potential or likely emergency room evaluation and management services fee.  The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that defendant owed a duty to disclose the charge as that information was within its sole knowledge and not readily available to its patients.  The complaint… Read More

The district attorneys of several counties served Alorica with an investigative subpoena to produce records regarding it debt collection practices and in particular with respect to its collections for a national bank.  Held, the subpoena was properly enforced.  That Alorica claims not to be a debt collector within the meaning of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is no… Read More

Under the CLRA (Civ. Code 1792(b), no "action for damages" may be brought against a defendant that offers appropriate correction within 30 days of receiving the plaintiff's notice of violation of the statute.  This decision holds that "action for damages" includes--and the subsection therefore bars--any claim for compensatory damages or for restitution under the CLRA.  The decision also holds that… Read More

The Supreme Court holds that lenders and loan servicers do not owe borrowers a duty of care in handling their loan modification applications.  Lender and borrower are in privity of contract, and the economic loss rule prevents recovery for purely economic loss based on negligence between contracting parties.  The Biakanja factors apply only to parties not in privity of contract. … Read More

On remand after a prior appeal decided in plaintiff's favor, the district court granted defendant summary judgment finding that defendant was not negligent or willful in including in its credit report mention of plaintiff's criminal charge that was filed more than 7 years before the credit report but was dismissed less than 7 years before the report.  This decision affirms… Read More

1 2 3 9