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.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs

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 General Motors LLC v. Bowie, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 1485306 (Fla.App. 2011) , the Florida Court of Appeal was called to determine whether a consumer, in pre-litigation settlement discussions regarding a lemon-law vehicle, could hold out for her attorneys’ fees against a manufacturer’s offer of full rescission prior to litigation.The Court of Appeal found no, explaining: Florida's “Lemon… Read More

In Karapetian v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 4678691 (C.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Carney exercised his discretion to reduce Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in a lemon law case.  In Karapetian, the Plaintiff’s counsel rejected the defendant’s Rule 68 offer and did not do better in the ultimate settlement of the Action, even though Plaintiff prevailed in the case. … Read More

In Winer v. Family Inv. Co., Inc. 2010 WL 3920365 (2010), Chad E. Winer and Nicole M. Franklin, filed suit against Family Investment Company, Inc. dba Family Honda asserting causes of action for viola-tion of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ.Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA), unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.), negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation.… Read More

In Purdue v. Kenny, -- S.Ct. -- (2010), Justice Alito authored an opinion holding that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar method of calculating attorneys' fees in fee shifting statutes (in this case, 42 USC 1988) sufficiently compensates the attorney, and that a multiplier, while allowed, is permissible only in rare cases.   While Purdue involved a civil rights… Read More

In Davis v. Ford Credit, 2009 WL 3859327 (2009), the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held that Ford Credit’s practice of applying a payment to past-due installments first, rather than to the current monthly installment, did not violate the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act’s ban on late-fee pyramiding.  (Civ. Code, § 2982(k).)  The facts of the case were as… 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 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

When an out-of-state car dealer successfully demonstrates that California had no jurisdiction over it, does the trial court retain jurisdiction to award attorneys fees to that defendant?  Yes it does, said a California Court of Appeal in Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) __ Cal.Rptr. 3d __ 2008 WL 4347761.    Moreover, in determining whether the car dealer was… Read More

1 2 3