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.18: "Called Party" -- Unintended Recipients

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.

ACA’s petition was filed on January 31, but was accepted for filing by the FCC on February 11.  ACA’s petition is broad-based, asks the FCC to accomplish the following objectives: • Confirm that not all predictive dialers are categorically automatic telephone dialing systems. •Confirm that “capacity” under the TCPA means present ability. •Clarify that prior express consent attaches to the… Read More

In Whaley v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc., 2013 WL 5155342 (E.D.Ky. 2013), Judge Bunning ordered a TCPA/Unintended Recipient case to arbitration based on an arbitration clause that the defendant actually had with the recipient on an unrelated account.  Beginning in July 2012 T–Mobile used an automatic dialing system to call plaintiff regarding a debt purportedly owed by a third person, Thomas… Read More

In Iniguez v. The CBE Group, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 4780785 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Mendez addressed the propriety of a class-action lawsuit brought against a debt collection agency under TCPA by an “unintended recipient” of collection calls.  The lawsuit was based on Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant placed numerous calls to her cell phone seeking to collect a debt owed… Read More

In Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., 2013 WL 3071334 (D.Md. 2013), Judge Quarles refused to certify his opinion that a call to a land-line made over VoIP Protocol fell within the TCPA’s “charged call” liability provisions rather than the TCPA’s “land-line” exemption. The facts, recited in more detail below, were that the Plaintiff set up his land-line through VoIP… Read More

In Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2558012 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Hamilton found a Rule 68 offer insufficient to moot a TCPA plaintiff’s federal law suit, and found an ‘unintended recipient’ of calls to her cellular telephone pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim under the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Richard Chen (“Chen”) filed the original… Read More

In Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 1141009 (W.D.Wis. 2013), Judge Snyder found that ‘preview dialing’ triggered the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Beginning in March or April 2010 defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc., an automobile finance company, began making calls to 608–512–xxxx in an attempt to collect the debt from those loans. At… Read More

In Swope v. Credit Management, LP, 2013 WL 607830 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Perry followed Soppett, holding that an unanticipated receiver of autodialed calls to a cellular telephone had standing to pursue a TCPA claim.  The facts were as follows: According to the complaint, defendant obtained an account receivable by Charter Communications and began making phone calls to collect the debt.… Read More

1 2 3