Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.02 -- Statutory Background and Pre-emption -- Statutory Pre-emption

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 Aho v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., 2012 WL 273780 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Sabraw granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their claims regarding post-repossession letters under Juarez.  As to the claim under the ASFA, Judge Sabraw held:   Accordingly, that the information may be available to the consumer does not relieve Defendant of its obligation to include that information… Read More

In Hunt v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 2011 WL 2847428 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Zatkoff held that the HEA pre-empted Michigan’s state law debt collection statutes, explaining:   Defendant contends that Plaintiff's state-law claims fail to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because they are preempted by the HEA. Defendant asserts that the HEA requires it to make diligent efforts to… Read More

In In re Bate, --- B.R. ----, 2011 WL 2469689 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla. 2011), Bankruptcy Judge Williamson held that although the National Bank Act preempts state laws that prevent or significantly interfere with the exercise by national banks of their powers, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act applies generally to all creditors and prohibits inappropriate debt collection practices, the FCCPA does… Read More

In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (D. Minn. 2010) , Judge Schiltz found that a debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by reporting an account to the Credit Reporting Agencies after a debtor demands validation without first validating the debt, explaining The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer,… Read More

In Murphy v. Triad Financial, Judge Benitez of USDC for the Southern District dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim as lacking federal question jurisdiction.  Judge Benitez rejected the argument that since Civil Code § 1788.17 incorporates the federal FDCPA, claims filed under that section trigger federal question jurisdiction under the "substantial federal question" doctrine.  The parties "argue that Murphy's Rosenthal Act… Read More