Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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 Conrad v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, here, Judge Godbey denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in a TCPA cellular telephone case, holding that issues of consent presented individualized inquiries.  Judge Godbey explained: Even if the Court were to have found the putative class sufficiently numerous and that it satisfied the remaining Rule 23(a) requirements, the class would fail under both… Read More

In Silbaugh v. Viking Magazine Services, 2012 WL 76889 (N.D.Ohio 2012), the District Court certified a class under the TCPA related to text-messages sent to cellular telephones.  The facts were as follows.  Plaintiff Andao Silbaugh sued Viking Magazine Services under the TCPA, which prohibits the making of a phone call to a cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system… Read More

In Local Baking Products, Inc. v. Kosher Bagel Munch, Inc., --- A.3d ----, 2011 WL 2793214 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2011), the New Jersey Court of Appeal affirmed denial of a TCPA class action in a junk fax case, after surveying the dozens state and federal decisions on TCPA class certification. The Court of Appeal explained: While no New Jersey case has been… Read More

In Frickco Inc. v. Novi BRS Enterprises, Inc., 2011 WL 2079704 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Zatkoff denied class certification in a TCPA-fax case, explaining:   In considering Plaintiff's motion, the Court does not agree that common issues predominate over the individual ones under Rule 23(b) (3). While Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of 3,787 individuals who received facsimile transmissions… Read More

In Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, 2011 WL 1458779 (D.N.J. 2011), Judge Thompson allowed a TCPA class action to proceed in the district court under CAFA.   Here, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) o n the grounds that “the matter in controversy concerning the TCPA exceeds t he sum… Read More

In Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1226371 (3d Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a 2-1 split decision joined with other circuits and district courts to find that the TCPA’s exclusive grant of federal question jurisdiction in the state courts did not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction… Read More

In Versteeg v. Bennett, Deloney & Noyes, P.C., -- F.R.D. – 2011 WL 159805 (D. Wyo. 2011), the Court denied class certification due to an absence of predominance of questions of fact and law common to classmembers, explaining:   For Plaintiff's TCPA claims, the Court does not find that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over… Read More

In Vance v. Bureau of Collection Recovery LLC, 2011 WL 881550 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge Dow found that Plaintiff had pleaded enough facts to proceed on a TCPA claim arising out of debt collection calls to his cellular telephone. The facts recited in the opinion were scarce, but, basically, it appears that the Plaintiff alleged that she received multiple automated debt… Read More

1 7 8 9