Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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.

In Cowley v. Equifax Info. Servs., No. 2:18-cv-02846-TLP-cgc, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193522 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2019, the District Court refused to allow a scheduled monthly payment issue case to proceed under the FCRA. The only evidence Plaintiff [*9]  brings to defeat UCFSC's motion for summary judgment is that the industry guideline, the CRRG, suggests that when a furnisher of… Read More

In Alan v. Equifax, Inc., No. CV 19-6588-DMG (ASx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194161 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019), the District Court found no jurisdiction over a CCRAA claim. Federal law is not essential to the CCRAA claim under Cal Civ. Code section 1785.25(a). Defendant does not argue that the FCRA is a necessary element of the Section 1785.25(a) CCRAA… Read More

In Koehler v. Waypoint Res. Grp., No. 8:18-cv-2071-T-60AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191438 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019), the District Court held that a debt collector’s reporting of a cable bill to the CRAs did not trigger the FDCPA. All of Koehler's FDCPA claims are based on Waypoint's error in reporting the original creditor as "Charter Communications" rather than "Bright… Read More

In Persinger v. Sw. Credit Sys., No. 1:19-cv-00853-RLY-MJD, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188920, at *9 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2019), the Defendant was sued in a class action for accessing a consumer's credit report after the consumer's account had been discharged in bankruptcy; i.e. that the defendant had no permissible purpose in accessing the consumer report for account review purposes… Read More

In Nayab v. Capital One Bank USA, No. 17-55944, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32575, at *24-32 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an FCRA Plaintiff met the Spokeo and Iqbal/Twombly standards for pleading a "Permissible Purpose" action under the FCRA. Nayab has pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable… Read More

In Timmons v. SunTrust Bank, No. A19A1262, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 547, at *1-6 (Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that an auto finance lender was not a holder-in-due-course, but instead was subject to the FTC Holder Rule contained in the RISC. [O]n July 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs purchased a 2015 GMC Sierra from the… Read More

In Kalta v. Fleets 101, No. B292185, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1060 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff was a “consumer” under the CLRA. Defendant does not tell us the standard of review; does not summarize the facts, detailed ante, supporting a finding that the vehicle was purchased for… Read More

In Berroteran v. Superior Court, No. B296639, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1065 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal permitted admission of prior deposition testimony from an automobile manufacturer’s employee where the manufacturer allegedly had motive and opportunity to examine their own witness in the prior case(s). Except for Wahlgren, California law is consistent with federal law. Section… Read More

1 2 3 4 250