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 Wold v. Dell Financial Services, L.P., 2009 WL 397235 (D.Minn. 2009), Judge Davis ordered a FCRA claim to arbitration due to an arbitration clause contained in Dell’s computer purchase agreement.    Wold argues that the arbitration clause at issue in this case is unconscionable because, if enforced, it would require him to take his federally-protected claims to arbitration rather… Read More

On September 23, 2008, we reported about the 9th Circuit BAP's ruling and treatment of negative equity in automobile retail installment contracts.   See our discussion of the BAP opinion at http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=118    AmeriCredit appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  AmeriCredit received trade group and industry amicus support.  Review the Briefing here: Penrod -- AmeriCredit's Opening Brief  Penrod -- Trade… Read More

In Irvine v. 233 SKYDECK, LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2009 WL 347395 (N.D.Ill. 2009) Judge Leinenweber rejected a constitutional challenge to FACTA’s punitive damages provision, a challenge approved of in Grimes v. Rave Motion Pictures Birmingham, L.L .C., 552 F.Supp.2d 1302 (N.D.Ala., 2008). We previously reported on the Grimes decision here: http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=17 In Irvine, the district court held: Defendant's vagueness challenge… Read More

In Piccini v. Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. 2009 WL 307276 (D.Ariz. 2009), Judge Campbell of the District Court of Arizona enforced Wells Fargo’s arbitration clause to cover credit reporting claims under FCRA.  Judge Campbell explained   Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of his agreement with Wells Fargo, nor does he contend that the arbitration clause is unenforceable. Dkt. #… Read More

In Ward v. Fleetwood Motor Homes (2009) 2009 WL 311407, the California Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision denied relief to a motor home buyer under the Song Beverly Act.  The case involved engine trouble which California purchasers of an RV had with their RV while en route to Mt. Rushmore.  Caterpillar, the manufacturer of the engine, paid $2,206… Read More

In Gerber v. Citigroup, Inc. 2009 WL 248094 (E.D.Cal.2009), District Judge Moulds followed the Southern District's opinion in Sial v. Unifund CCR Partners, 2008 WL 4079281 (S.D.Cal.Aug.28, 2008) (see http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=85), and rejected both the Norr-Pennington doctrine and the litigation privilege as defenses to a Rosenthal Act claim. This court is unpersuaded that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bars actions under the FDCPA. Rather, this… Read More

In Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2009) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 197560, the California Supreme Court held that a CLRA plaintiff must have actually been damaged in order to maintain a CLRA claim.   The case arose from the plaintiffs' lawsuit against their cellular telephone company, alleging that its arbitration agreement was unconscionable, even though plaintiffs did not allege that… Read More

In Sanai v. Saltz --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 162059 (2009), the Second District Court of Appeal declined to follow the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Liceaga on December 30, 2008 (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=336), finding a private right of action under the CCRAA (Civil Code § 1785.25(a)) pre-empted by FCRA.  Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal followed the Court… Read More

In Griffor v. Airport Chevrolet, Inc., 2009 WL 151698 (D.Or. 2009), Judge Hogan ruled on GMAC's Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claim for attorneys fees, which plaintiff claim was afforded by the FTC (and Oregon) Holder Rule(s).  Judge Hogan granted GMAC's Motion to Dismiss, holding: Under the FTC Holder Rule, the amount plaintiffs can recover against an assignee of a… Read More

In Lyman v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC, 2009 WL 143695 (2009), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held in an unpublished decision that the Song-Beverly Act does not protect a dealer who has issued special dealer plates rather than registered the vehicle under the Vehicle Code.  The Court of Appeal explained: The narrow issue in this appeal is… Read More

1 245 246 247 248 249 253