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.

In Seeger v. AFNI, Inc., -- F.3d -- 2008 WL 512416 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed a debt collector's contention that its reliance on periodic bulletins from the American Creditor Association ("ACA") gave rise to a 'bona fide error' defense to the plaintiff's claim that, under Wisconsin law, the debt collector could not… Read More

On November 21, 2008, Judge Illston heard argument on whether the Hobbs Act deprived her of jurisdiction to rule on the FTC's Order interpreting the TCPA.  Judge Illston granted defendant's Motion to Vacate.   See her ruling here See my prior post regarding Leckler and Judge Illston's previous orders here:  http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=228 Read More

In Coordinated Automobile Lease Tax Cases (L.A.Sup. Coord. No. JCCP 4378), Judge Anthony Mohr presided over litigation involving whether automobile leases and the holders of such contracts properly assessed use taxes on such items as acquisition fees and service contracts.  On April 9, 2008, Judge Mohr sustained the demurrers of the various automobile finance companies without leave to amend, holding… Read More

In a decision of probably more personal than professional importance, Judge Pregerson held that Law Enforcement System's Inc.'s collection outstanding toll violations on Hwy 91 was not subject to the FDCPA.  (Yazo v. Law Enforcement Systems, Inc. (C.D.Cal.2008) 2008 WL 4852965).  Hwy. 91, for those non-southern-Californians, is a toll road which connects the Orange County beach cities to San Bernardino and… Read More

Update:  Motion Continued to November 21, 2008. -Ed.    Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based on the Hobbs Act is fully briefed, and scheduled for hearing on October 31, 2008.   Plaintiffs' Opposition states: It appears that part of Defendant's motion has merit and Plaintiff agrees that the Orders granting Plaintiff's and denying Defendant's summary judgment motions must be set aside for… Read More

In Yang v. DTS Financial Group (U.S.D.C. No. 07-CV1731JLS (WMc)), Judge Sammartino of the U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of California opined on whether a 'for profit' credit counseling service fell outside the FDCPA.  On an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion, Judge Sammartino held that the plaintiffs had pleaded adequate facts to surve the Motion.  The plaintiff had pleaded: Before May 1, 2006,… Read More

The Federal Trade Commission said it would delay implementation of what is known as the “Red Flag” rules from Nov. 1 to May 1, 2009. The rule requires that creditors adopt programs to identify and respond to indicators of identity theft.  For the FTC's Notification, please see http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/10/redflags.shtm  For my earlier post on the FTC's Red Flag Rules, please see:  http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=148 Read More

In Great Seneca Financial v. Holtzclaw, (L.A.Super. No. LC075416), Superior Court Judge Lichtman granted Summary Adjudication to Great Seneca Financial against the debtor's FDCPA claim.  The debtor argued that Great Seneca had not qualified to do business in California at the time Great Seneca filed a collection action against the debtor.  Judge Lichtman rejected that argument as factual basis for… Read More

It's not an automobile case, but is interesting for statements of law applied.  In Galindo v. Financo Financial, Inc., 2008 WL 4452344 (N.D.Cal. 2008), Judge William Alsup required strict compliance with the CLRA's pre-filing notice requirement: California courts require “strict” compliance with Section 1782. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.3d 30, 40-41, 124 Cal.Rptr. 852 (1975). Plaintiffs filed the… Read More

1 277 278 279 280 281 282