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 Lawrence v. First Fin. Inv. Fund V, No. 2:19-cv-00174-RJS-CMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149122 (D. Utah Aug. 17, 2020), Judge Shelby certified an FDCPA class after the class representative abandoned any claim for emotional distress because such damage claim could not be pursued on a representative basis. Next, First Financial argues Lawrence's claims are atypical of the proposed classes… Read More

In Mercedes v. Nat'l Bus. Factors, No. 19-16055, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25996 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected application of the bona fide error defense where the debt collector outsourced its compliance obligations through a boilerplate agreement with the creditor. The parties do not dispute that NBF unintentionally violated the FDCPA… Read More

In Komaiko v. Baker Techs., No. 19-cv-03795-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143953 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020), Magistrate Judge Ryu denied a stay in a TCPA case pending SCOTUS review of the Duguid case. At issue in Duguid is the definition of ATDS in the TCPA, and specifically whether that definition "encompasses any device that can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone… Read More

In Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 18-1534, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24993 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit enforced an arbitration clause in a TCPA class action.  DIRECTTV, who was an affiliate of AT&T, was entitled to enforce the agreement. As an initial matter, we conclude—as the district court appears to have acknowledged… Read More

In Vargas v. Vehicle Sols. Corp., No. 8:19-cv-1109-T-60AAS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141526 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2020), Judge Barber found  standing under the TCPA. The facts were as follows: The son of Plaintiff Yajairis Vagas incurred a debt to Defendant Vehicle Solutions Corp. ("VSC") to purchase a car. Because her son worked for Plaintiff's company, Plaintiff made payments on… Read More

In Tillman v. Mich. First Credit Union, No. 19-12860, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139056 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2020), Judge Lawson declined to exercise jurisdiction over a collection counter-claim in an FCRA case. Nonetheless, federal courts have had little trouble finding that supplemental jurisdiction is proper over counterclaims like the one pleaded here where the underlying dispute is between a… Read More

In Muñoz v. JLO Auto., Inc., No. 3:19-cv-01793 (MPS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136552 (D. Conn. July 31, 2020), Judge Shea refused to enter a default judgment against a car dealer based on the consumer’s claim that she was falsely told that GAP was required as part of the transaction. Just below this language is the cost ($752), the term… Read More

  In Zablocki v. Merchs. Credit Guide Co., No. 19-2045, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23737 (7th Cir. July 28, 2020), the Court of Appeals dismissed an FDCPA claim premised on a debt collectors failure to aggregate debts into a single account when reporting to the CRAs. Viewing Merchants's separate reporting of debts from the perspective of an unsophisticated but reasonable… Read More

  In Caplan v. Budget Van Lines, No. 2:20-CV-130 JCM (VCF), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136865 (D. Nev. July 31, 2020), Judge Mayan denied a ringless technology defendant’s motion to dismiss a TCPA claim The second issue is whether RVMs constitute calls under the TCPA. RVM technology allows a message to be placed in a recipient's voicemail without the recipient's… Read More

In Allan v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, No. 19-2043, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23935 (6th Cir. July 29, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit followed Mark’s interpretation of the TCPA as to what constitutes an auto dialer. Here, again, we agree with the Second and Ninth Circuits [*15]  that the structure and context of the autodialer ban support… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 264