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.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.09: Jurisdiction

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.

District Court (Pa.) Refuses to Bi-furcate/Stay TCPA Class Action Based on Primary Jurisdiction

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Hartley–Culp v. Credit Management Co., 2014 WL 4630852 (M.D.Pa. 2014), Judge Blewitt rejected a TCPA defendant's request for a stay/bifurcation of discovery. Defendant CMC seeks the Court to bifurcate discovery into two phases with the first phase limited to the issue of whether Plaintiff expressly consented to receiving calls on her cell phone. Defendant CMC maintains that if it proves… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Embedded Federal Questions in Rees-Levering and CLRA Claims Were Insufficient to Confer Federal Jurisdiction

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Muller v. Auto Mission, Ltd., 2013 WL 1996916 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Magistrate Judge Cousins remanded a removed state court action that alleged a host of Rees-Levering Automobile Sales & Finance Act violations, many of which included embedded federal claims.  Judge Cousins found an absence of substantial federal question, and rejected the defendants’ contention that a defense of compliance with federal… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Penalty-only Sought in TCPA Claim Still Conferred Article III Standing

by Scott J. Hyman |

We had hoped the issue would be addressed by the Supreme Court (as to RESPA) in Edwards v. First American Corp. 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), but SCOTUS dismissed cert. as improvidently granted.  So, the district court in Smith v. Microsoft Corp. 2012 WL 2975712 (S.D.Cal. 2012) addressed the issue whether a TCPA Plaintiff who otherwise had suffered no… Read More

SCOTUS Says TCPA’s Permissive Grant of Jurisdiction to State Courts Does Not Deprive US Courts of Federal Question Jurisdiction

by Scott J. Hyman |

The Supreme Court issued the Mims v. Arrow Financial Services decision today.  According to the syllabus, the Supreme Court held: The TCPA’s permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not deprive the U. S. district courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits. Pp. 7–18.  (a) Because federal law creates the right of action and provides the rules of… Read More

SCOTUS to Determine Whether TCPA Creates Federal Jurisdiction

by Scott J. Hyman |

The Supreme Court will resolve whether federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). The circuit courts are split on whether jurisdiction exists for private TCPA claims.  Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 2010 WL 4840430 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010) cert granted Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 131 S.Ct.… Read More

Third Circuit Allows TCPA Case in Federal Court Based on Diversity Jurisdiction, Remands for Further Discovery on Class Certification Issues

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1226371 (3d Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a 2-1 split decision joined with other circuits and district courts to find that the TCPA’s exclusive grant of federal question jurisdiction in the state courts did not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction… Read More