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 Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-cv-00751-WHO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175700, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2021), Judge Orrick dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage. I recognize that some courts have considered the determination of whether a plaintiff has plausibly shown the use of an ATDS covered by Duguid to be more appropriately resolved on summary… Read More

In Borden v. Efinancial, LLC, No. C19-1430JLR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153086, at *13-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2021), Judge Robart dismissed a TCPA case based on Duguid.   In this context, Mr. Borden's allegations are insufficient to establish that eFinancial's system is an ATDS. He alleges that eFinancial's system uses a sequential number generator to select which stored phone numbers to… Read More

In Hufnus v. Donotpay, Inc., No. 20-cv-08701-VC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118325, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Chhabria dismissed a TCPA claim on the basis that defendant did not call using an ATDS. DoNotPay's motion to dismiss is granted. To state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Hufnus must allege that DoNotPay sent messages using… Read More

In Timms v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 3:18-cv-01495-SAL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108083, at *8 (D.S.C. June 9, 2021), Judge Lydon ruled against a TCPA plaintiff on whether an aspect dialer was an ATDS after Duguid.  Defendant's Motion submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the TCPA claim because it did not use an ATDS… Read More

In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (No. 19-511) (2021), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that The question before the Court is whether that definition encompasses equipment that can “store” and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.” It does not. To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system,” a device… Read More

In In Stoutt v. Travis Credit Union, No. 2:20-cv-01280 WBS AC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57392 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2021), Judge Schubb certified the Creasy TCPA issue for review by the 9th Circuit.  The facts were as follows: In this putative class action, plaintiff Shawntel Stoutt claims that defendant Travis Credit Union violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone Consumer Protection… Read More

In Ewing v. Freedom Forever Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 20-cv-880-JLS (AHG), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53561 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021), Judge Sammartino dismissed part of a TCPA claim, but let the balance proceed.   Judge Sammartino held that some of the calls were barred by the statute of limitations, but still remained relevant. Defendants argue that "most of Plaintiff's… Read More

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

1 2 3 21