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.54 -- Vicarious Liability

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 Reygadas v. DNF Assocs., LLC, No. 19-3167, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38989 (8th Cir. Dec. 14, 2020), the Court of Appeals held that a debt buyer was subject to the FDCPA. Emphasizing that the Supreme Court in Henson overruled the so-called "default test," DNF argues that the debt buyer is a creditor -- a person "to whom a debt… Read More

In Bennett v. Cielo Homeowners Ass'n, No. 19-cv-2131-WQH-BLM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78850, at *17-20 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2020), Judge Hayes addressed principal/agent liability under the FDCPA. "Seeking somewhat to level the playing field between debtors and debt collectors, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors 'from making false or misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair practices.'"… Read More

In FTC v. The Primary Group, Inc., 2017 WL 4329713, at *2 (C.A.11 (Ga.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit established what must be proven to establish respondent superior liability on the corporate owner under the FDCPA. We have not yet decided what suffices to show that a corporation's owners, officers, or employees had knowledge of its violations… Read More

In Devine v. The Judge Law Firm, No.: 16-CV-02999-AJB-MDD, 2017 WL 3118777 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2017), the Court found that a creditor is not vicariously responsible for the actions of its attorney under the FDCPA if the credit is not itself subject to the FDCPA. Presently, the Court is persuaded by the weight of authority limiting FDCPA liability to… Read More

In Bird v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., 2017 WL 661375, at *8 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Davila dismissed claims against a creditor and the creditor's law firm arising under the FDCPA. Here, Mr. Reyes is an attorney at the law firm Ericksen Arbuthnot, which was retained as defense counsel for Real Time in the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff. Nowhere in the… Read More

In Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 2016 WL 1382174, at *4-5 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debt collection law firm failed to clearly identify the creditor in its debt collection validation letter and, accordingly, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate materiality by extrinsic evidence. It is true that for claims… Read More

In Bartell v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, 2015 WL 1907337 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Seeborg found that an FDCPA plaintiff stated a claim against the debt collectors. On September 19, 2013, Bartell received a telephone voice message including neither the caller’s identity nor a clear indication of the caller’s purpose. Upon tracing the number, she discovered the call… Read More

In Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 1037700 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Freeman granted summary judgment to a credit buyer and it’s debt collection agency, and struck Plaintiff’s expert on credit reporting to the extent he attempted to opine on debt collection issues.  Judge Freeman found expert Evan Hendricks unqualified to testify about debt collection issues.… Read More

In Makreas v. Moore Law Group, A.P.C., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 2979018 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a creditor was vicariously liable under the FDPCA/Rosenthal Act or that the UCL was a proper vehicle to obtain relief under those statutes. The district court properly dismissed… Read More

In Basich v. Patenaude & Felix, APC, 2013 WL 1755484 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Davila explained – and limited – the “continuing violation” exception to the FDCPA’s and Rosenthal Act’s statute of limitations, found no harassing conduct for merely calling a debtor after they said to stop, and refused to apply vicarious liability against a Creditor under the Rosenthal Act. In… Read More

1 2