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 Hill v. CAG2 of Tuscaloosa, LLC, No. 7:19-cv-02044-LSC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104442 (N.D. Ala. June 15, 2020), Judge Coogler held that a car dealer was stuck with an adverse arbitration award. The facts were as follows: On January 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Demand for Arbitration against Carlock, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.… Read More

In Fitzhenry v. Safe Sts. United States Llc, No. 5:19-CV-394-BO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105364 (E.D.N.C. June 16, 2020), the District Court permitted “other complaints” discovery in a TCPA action. Finally, Safe Streets objects to producing lists of past TCPA litigation or complaints, but such information is plainly related to willfulness and the issue of damages and is thus discoverable.… Read More

In Panzarella v. Solutions, No. 18-3735, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104746 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2020), Judge Tucker granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used under the TCPA. Plaintiffs, in arguing that the ININ system is an ATDS, point to the ININ user manual and a declaration from an expert, Randall Snyder.… Read More

The California Legislature passed a budget by its annual deadline to do so--June 15, 2020—but the budget did not include Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed mini-CFPB. Earlier, Governor Newsom’s January 2020 proposed budget included the California Consumer Financial Protection Law, which sought to overhaul the California Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”) and remake it into a more powerful Department of Financial… Read More

In Russell v. Santander Consumer United States, No. 19-CV-119, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101404 (E.D. Wis. June 9, 2020), the District Court held an automobile finance company responsible for the repossession company’s breach of the peace. The Russells also sue their creditor, Santander, under Wis. Stat. § 425.206(2)(a) and Wis. Stat. §§ 427.104(1)(h) and (1)(j) for the illegal repossession. The… Read More

In Krosch v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 19-CV-2784 (NEB/KMM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99150, at *5-9 (D. Minn. June 5, 2020), Judge Brasel held that a consumer stated no FCRA claim against a CRA due to the CRA's alleged failure not to report all furnishers' tradelines. Experian argues that the Complaint fails to allege either of these elements because… Read More

In Spikener v. Ally Financial, Inc. , the Court of Appeal deferred to the FTC's 2019 interpretation of the FTC Holder Rule, holding that the Holder Rule limits recovery, including attorneys' fees, against the holder to the amount that the debtor paid under the assigned contract.  Civil Code 1459.5, which was enacted post-Lafferty to allow a debtor to recover uncapped attorneys'… Read More

In N. L. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Nos. 19-15399, 19-15938, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17434 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit followed Soppet and Osorio decisions regarding calls to recycled to cellular telephones. Credit One also attempts to draw support from certain orders of the FCC, which has authority to promulgate regulations implementing… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 261