Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.20 -- 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 Wheeler v. Premiere Credit of North America, LLC, 2015 WL 222459, at *1-2 (S.D.Cal.,2015), Judge Curiel found that the HEA did not preempt the FDCPA, but did preempt the Rosenthal Act -- as to the claims pleaded.  The facts were as follows. Defendant is an accounts receivable contractor authorized to perform collection activities on defaulted student loans on behalf… Read More

Koller v. West Bay Acquisitions, LLC, 2012 WL 2862440 (N.D.Cal. 2012), the District Court held: Plaintiff maintains that because he allegedly acquired extended video rentals and/or the videos themselves without paying for them with late fees or product charges, the Rosenthal Act is applicable. Opp'n at 13. Because there is no binding authority as to whether late fees on video… Read More

In Udo v. Kelkris Associates, Inc., 2012 WL 5985663 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Gonzalez found that collection of towing charges did not meet the ‘transaction’ requirement of the FDCPA nor the “consumer credit” requirement of the Rosenthal Act. “As a threshold matter, a suit brought under the FDCPA must involve a “debt” within the meaning of the statute.” Fleming v. Picard,… Read More

In Hylton v. Anytime Towing, 2012 WL 5498887 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Curiel found that city towing fees were not ‘debts’ under the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act. Courts have held that a motor vehicle impoundment and towing fees arising out of action authorized by state law enforcement agency do not constitute a “debt” within the meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices… Read More

  In Williams v. Emergency Groups' Office, 2012 WL 1032700 (2012), the Court of Appeal affirmed, in an unpublished decision, the trial court’s denial of class certification under the Rosenthal Act for alleged infirmities in the collection of medical bills.The Court of Appeal found, in part, that the Plaintiffs’ class definition was too broad because it necessarily would have included… Read More