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.23: ATDS

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 Trujillo v. Free Energy Sav. Co., LLC, No. 5:19-cv-02072-MCS-SP, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239730 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2020), Judge Scarsi rejected the argument that Barr created a finite period of constitutional infirmity for the TCPA. Defendant does not present any authority deeming a statute ineffective, in whole or in part, where the statute suffered a finite period of constitutional infirmity… Read More

In Aleisa v. Square, Inc., No. 20-cv-00806-EMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188024 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020), Judge Chen stayed an action pending SCOTUS’ review of what constitutes an ATDS. All three of the Landis factors weigh in favor of granting Square's motion to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in Duguid II. First, and most importantly,… Read More

In Camacho v. Hydroponics, Inc., No. EDCV 20-980 JGB (KKx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174379 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2020), Judge Bernal denied a stay in a TCPA case. The TCPA defines an ATDS as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to… Read More

In Komaiko v. Baker Techs., No. 19-cv-03795-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143953 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020), Magistrate Judge Ryu denied a stay in a TCPA case pending SCOTUS review of the Duguid case. At issue in Duguid is the definition of ATDS in the TCPA, and specifically whether that definition "encompasses any device that can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone… Read More

In Allan v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, No. 19-2043, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23935 (6th Cir. July 29, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit followed Mark’s interpretation of the TCPA as to what constitutes an auto dialer. Here, again, we agree with the Second and Ninth Circuits [*15]  that the structure and context of the autodialer ban support… Read More

In Ruiz v. Hunt & Henriques, No. D075286, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4847 (July 29, 2020), in the context of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the debt collection law firm, the Court of Appeal found that a debtor need not dispute the debt to challenge the amount of the debt stated. Hunt alternatively argues that Ruiz cannot recover under… Read More

In Panzarella v. Solutions, No. 18-3735, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104746 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2020), Judge Tucker granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used under the TCPA. Plaintiffs, in arguing that the ININ system is an ATDS, point to the ININ user manual and a declaration from an expert, Randall Snyder.… Read More

In N. L. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Nos. 19-15399, 19-15938, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17434 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit followed Soppet and Osorio decisions regarding calls to recycled to cellular telephones. Credit One also attempts to draw support from certain orders of the FCC, which has authority to promulgate regulations implementing… Read More

1 2 3 20