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 § 2B.11: Standing

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 Declue v. United Consumer Financial Services Company, 2017 WL 1400144, at *2–4 (S.D.Cal., 2017), the District Court disagreed with the standing decision in Romero.  This court also respectfully disagrees with Romero. “There is no legal rationale for [Defendant's] argument under an Article III analysis: either a plaintiff shows a concrete and particularized harm for Article III standing because of… Read More

In Lemieux v. Lender Processing Center, 2017 WL 1166430, at *3–4 (S.D.Cal., 2017), the District Court addressed whether a TCPA plaintiff had Art. III standing. Finally, in Romero v. Department Stores National Bank, No. 15-cv-193-CAB-MDD, 2016 WL 4184099 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016), the court began from the premise that “[a] plaintiff cannot have suffered an injury in fact as… Read More

In Romero v. Department Stores National Bank, 199 F.Supp.3d 1256, 1265 (S.D. Cal. 2016), the California District Court held that a TCPA plaintiff must show that their injury from autodialed calls was substantively different than had the calls been manually dialed; “Moreover, the specific facts of this case reveal that any harm suffered by Plaintiff is unconnected to the alleged… Read More

In St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2017 WL 1064669, at *2 (E.D.Mo., 2017), Judge White dismissed a TCPA class action because the class representative lacked standing. The Court agrees that SLHC has not alleged a concrete and particularized injury arising from the alleged deficiency in the opt-out notice. Spokeo,, 136 S. Ct. at 1548. Further, the Court… Read More

In Flores v. Access Insurance Company, 2017 WL 986516, at *8 (C.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Snyder found that Plaintiff adequately pleaded use of an ATDS to send a text message and that the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not bar a TCPA Plaintiff's claim against the insurer.  Judge Snyder also said that dual purpose text messages can trigger the TCPA's written consent requirement.… Read More

In Toldi v. Hyundai Capital America, 2017 WL 736882, at *2–3 (D.Nev., 2017), Judge Gordon found that a TCPA plaintiff had standing to sue, and declined to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the ACA Int'l decision. A vast number of cases have addressed whether a plaintiff receiving automated calls that violate the TCPA is the sort of intangible… Read More

In Freeman v. Wilshire Commercial Capital LLC, 2017 WL 714389, at *1 (E.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Shubb rejected the argument that a TCPA plaintiff did not have Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, No. 14-55980, 2017 WL 460663, ––– F.3d –––– (9th Cir. 2017) is dispositive. The Van Patten court found that, in… Read More

In Brinker v. Normandin's, 2017 WL 661372, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Davila dismissed a TCPA case due to lack of Article III standing. Several courts have found that plaintiffs who received automated unsolicited calls have standing to bring TCPA claims. For instance, in Hewlett, the court found that “near daily” calls to the plaintiff's phone over the course of a… Read More

In Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff who alleges he received unconsented to text messages or telephone calls has standing to bring a TCPA claim against the sender. Unwanted messages invade privacy interests that are similar to interests protected at common law and to which Congress gave statutory protection.… Read More

In Cabiness v. Educational Financial Solutions, LLC., 2017 WL 167678, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Tygar denied a TCPA defendant's motion to dismiss based on lack of purported Art. III Standing. Specifically, the Defendant relies on Romero v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank, 15-cv-193, 2016 WL 4184099 (S.D. Cal. 2016). ECF No. 50 at 7. In that case, the court held that… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 9