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 Finance

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance 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 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has long held that as part of their investigation obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) are not required to assess the merits of a legal defense to a payment obligation being reported on a consumer credit report. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 891… Read More

In Castorina v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:21-cv-02004 WBS KJN, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83039, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2022), Judge Shubb dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim under Rule 9(b). The heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to claims under the Rosenthal Act when premised on allegations of fraud, and here plaintiff's… Read More

Judge David O. Carter, in the Central District of California, made the following findings on a motion to dismiss: the CCPA is not retroactive despite allegations of an ongoing pattern and practice; the CCPA does not include a private right of action for "§§ 1798.100(b), 110(c), and 115(d)"; the "disclosure of consumers’ non-anonymized data was not a result of a… Read More

In Maybaum v. Target Corp., No. 2:22-cv-00687-MCS-JEM, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80466, at *15-16 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2022), Judge Scarsi enforced an arbitration clause despite arguments over whether the Arbitration Clause prohibited a right to public injunctive relief "in any forum" under McGill.  Plaintiff argues that California law prohibits compelling arbitration of her claims because she seeks public injunctive… Read More

In People v. Alorica Inc., 77 Cal. App. 5th 60, 62-63 (2022), the Court of Appeal affirmed the authority of a District Attorney to issue a subpoena to determine whether an entity was subject to the Rosenthal Act.  The basis of the dispute was as follows. According to the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, in January 2019, the district attorneys'… Read More

In Thompson v. Renner, No. 21-1366, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, at *10-12 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that a garnishment application to a state court was a communication under under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) But even without state-specific rules regarding affirmative representations, filing a garnishment request without reasonable belief that… Read More

In Fraser v. Mint Mobile, LLC, No. C 22-00138 WHA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76772, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2022), Judge Alsup denied summary judgment to a defendant claiming that its data breach did not proximately cause the Plaintiff's cryptocurrency loss.  The facts were as follows: Defendant Mint Mobile, LLC is a mobile virtual network operator that currently… Read More

In a strange fact pattern, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72102, at *11-14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022), Magistrate Judge Oberto dismissed FDCPA claims derived from Plaintiff's complaint that the debt collector reported the Account as disputed when the Plaintiff previously had written to the debt collector to advise that he did not… Read More

1 2 3 285