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.35: Class Actions

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 Tomeo v. CitiGroup, Inc., 2018 WL 4627386, at *9–12 (N.D.Ill., 2018), Judge Ellis declined to certify a wrong-number TCPA class. Here, Citi has put forth specific evidence establishing that a significant percentage of the putative class consented to receiving calls. Hansen intentionally avoided stating an opinion on the issue of consent in the Hansen Report, Doc. 121 Ex. 6… Read More

In Morgan v. U.S. XPRESS, Inc., CHRISTOPHER MORGAN,  2018 WL 3580775, at *2–3 (W.D.Va., 2018), Judge Moon found that a TCPA Plaintiff had to distinguish between cell phone lines and land-lines. To start, Plaintiff's characterization of the cell phone as a “residential, cellular telephone line” is not determinative of this question. These are not factual allegations, but legal terms drawn… Read More

In Reyes v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., 2018 WL 3145807 (S.D.Fla. 2018), the District Court certified a TCPA class action. On that question, the Court agrees with Reyes that she has presented an administratively feasible method of identifying class members. Although “B” flags or “WN” notations may not incontrovertibly establish that BCA dialed a wrong number, and thus would not conclusively… Read More

In Karpilovsky v. All Web Leads, Inc., Case No. 17-C-1307, 2018 WL 3108884 (N.D. Ill. 2018), Judge Leinenweber certified a TCPA class. The Plaintiffs, however, retained an expert, Young, who testified that the AWL website was not materially changed during the class period and, for that reason, all members of the proposed class experienced the same information-submission and click-through procedure when… Read More

In Lavigne v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., 2018 WL 2694457, at *7–8 (D.N.M., 2018), Judge Johnson certified a TCPA 'wrong-number' class. Plaintiff proposes that the class includes all individuals, according to Defendants records, who (1) called in to Defendants and were coded as “Bad/Wrong Number”, and were (2) subsequently called again by Defendants, and were coded as “Bad/Wrong Number.” Plaintiff proposes… Read More

In Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, Inc., 2018 WL 2446607 (11th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that text messages sent by automobile finance company after its customer had paid her RISC in full were not subject to the RISC’s arbitration clause and class-action waiver. NEAF also argues that the Arbitration Provision is broad enough… Read More

In Makaron v. Enagic USA, Inc., 2018 WL 1311400, at *2 (C.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Pregerson certified a TCPA class against a telemarketer, finding that class-certification was not the time to determine whether an ATDS was used and that administrative feasibility is not a prerequisite to class certification. As an initial matter, the court observes that Defendant devotes a substantial portion of… Read More

In Johnson v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2018 WL 835339, at *1–4 (N.D.Ill., 2018), Judge Shah decertified a TCPA class after the defendant obtained information from a third party provider and compared it to its own records, suggesting that the means by which membership in the class would be determined would be unmanageable. The production of records from Sprint after the close… Read More

In Weller v. AT&T Corp., 2018 WL 748607, at *2–3 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Block struck a TCPA class action because the plaintiff was an inadequate class representative. Dr. Wexler concedes, as she must, that she would have had an interest in a potential fee award to her husband, had he been appointed class counsel. She argues that his withdrawal “mooted” the… Read More

In Ronquillo-Griffin v. Transition Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., 2018 WL 325051, at *3–5 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court denied production of the actual class's call recordings in a call recording class action because the content was private. Plaintiffs assert that the requested audio recordings “are highly relevant to several requirements for a class certification motion,” including numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, predominance, and manageability.… Read More

1 2 3 4 16