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.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.53 -- Liability -- Class Actions

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 LaRocque ex rel. Spang v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc. 2013 WL 30055 (D.Me. 2013), Judge Hornby declined to expand a state-wide class action into a federal one to protect the FDCPA defendant against multiple $500,000 penalties under the Act. The defendants' central premise is that the Maine-limited scope of Class One “circumvent[s] the statutory cap on damages set forth in the… Read More

In Rose v. Asset Acceptance, 2012 WL 603263 (2012), the California First District Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished decision a denial of class certification of a claim filed under the Rosenthal Act.  The facts arose from a debt collector’s suit against a debtor arising from her telephone bill purportedly beyond the statute of limitations.  The trial court rejected… Read More

In Makreas v. Moore Law Group, A.P.C., 2012 WL 359710 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Chesney found that the Plaintiff stated certain claims against a debt collection attorney, but not against the creditor whose debt the attorney was collecting.  In the context of evaluating a previous Rule 68 offer, the District Court confirmed that the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA penalties are “per… Read More

In Aho v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., --- F.R.D. ----, 2011 WL 5401799 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Sabraw certified an NOI class under the UCL and ASFA for allegedly faulty post-repossession letters ("NOIs") pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2), but refused to do so under the Rosenthal Act.  Judge Sabraw found the ‘damages’ sought under the Rosenthal Act were not incidental to the… Read More

In Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 4430844 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a debt collector’s dunning letters violated the FDCPA, and that recovery could be awarded under both the Rosenthal Act and the FDCPA.    In 2002, Arrow purchased a portfolio of debts owed to health… Read More

In Marshall v. Bonded Adjustment Co., 2011 WL 3882284 (E.D.Wash. 2011), Judge Peterson granted a protective order against discovery targeted towards an FDCPA defendant’s net worth in an FDCPA class action – until a class was actually certified.   Bonded argues that the court should issue a protective order preventing discovery of Bonded's net worth information unless and until a… Read More

In Martinez v. CACH, LLC, 2011 WL 2560251 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Sabraw rejected a debt collector’s Rooker-Feldman argument.  Further, Judge Sabraw rejected the argument that a Rule 68 offer mooted the class-action proceedings because the net worth requirement of a class-action under the FDCPA was not met due to alter ego allegations.    Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred debt… Read More

In Freid v. National Action Financial Services, Inc., Slip Copy, 2011 WL 1547257 (D.N.J. 2011), Judge Chesler denied class certification in an FDCPA claim alleging that debtors were conveyed a false sense of urgency in communications from the debt collectors.  Judge Chesler found that secondary evidence of ‘scripts’ from the debt collector did not create uniformity, and questioned whether the… Read More

1 4 5 6 7