Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.33: Attorneys Fees

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 (Cal.) Says TCPA Affords No Right to Attorneys’ Fees: Says Nationwide Class Allegations Survive Bristol-Myers

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141400 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2019), Judge Spero confirmed that the TCPA affords no right to attorneys fees. It is undisputed that attorneys' fees are unavailable under the TCPA and Plaintiff has pointed to no source of authority that would allow him to recover attorneys' fees in this action.… Read More

District Court (Conn.) Refuses to Strike Attorneys’ Fee Prayer or Class Allegations from TCPA Complaint

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Owens v. Starion Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 2838075, at *8–9 (D.Conn., 2017), Judge Bolden refused to strike an attorneys' fee prayer from a TCPA class action. In Bell v. Survey Sampling International, LLC, a TCPA case, this Court rejected a similar motion to strike the plaintiff's reference to attorney's fees. Id. The Court in Bell stated as follows:  "[The… Read More

District Court (Wash.) Applies 30% of Recovery as Benchmark for Attorneys’ Fees in TCPA Class Action

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Ikuseghan v. Multicare Health System, 2016 WL 4363198, at *2 (W.D.Wash., 2016), Judge Settle surveyed TCPA class action settlements and found that 30% of the recovery was a proper benchmark for awarding attorneys fees in a TCPA class action. Here, the requested attorneys' fees represent 33% of the settlement fund. Ikuseghan argues district courts frequently grant fee awards of… Read More

7th Cir. Says TCPA Class Action Plaintiffs’ Counsel Can’t Base Fees Off of Total Value of Settlement Fund, Only the Value of Claimed Payments; Otherwise, It Would Make the TCPA a Fee Shifting Statute, Which It is Not

by Scott J. Hyman |

It's sort of fact specific, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Holtzman v. Turza, 2016 WL 3648390, at *1-2 (7th Cir. 2016) held that the residue of a supersedeas bond goes back to the Defendant, and Plaintiff's counsel can't base its fees on the entire amount of the fund, only that which was paid out. Attorney Gregory… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Denies TCPA Text-Message Class Certification; Class Action Lacked “Superiority” Because, among other things, Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Class-wide Consent Due to Inadequacy of Defendant’s Vendor’s Records

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Smith v. Microsoft Corp., --- F.R.D. ----, 2014 WL 323683 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Sammartino denied class certification in a TCPA text-message case arising from Microsoft’s sending unauthorized text messages promoting Microsoft's Xbox to cellular telephones in purported violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Judge Sammartino was neutral on whether the Plaintiff’s interest was paramount and, in doing so,… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds TCPA Vicarious Liability Adequately Pleaded, Refuses to Strike Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Attorneys’ Fees

by Scott J. Hyman |

In In re: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, here, Judge Houston held that the Plaintiff had adequately pleaded vicarious liability under the TCPA, and refused, at the pleadings stage, to strike Plaintiff’s prayer to recovery attorneys’ fees under the TCPA to the extent permitted by Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. In opposition, plaintiffs contend their… Read More