Charges for Call

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 Lundstedt v. I.C. System, Inc., 2017 WL 4281057, at *2–3 (D.Conn., 2017), Judge Meyer allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the call pattern alleged in the Complaint. [D]efendant argues that the alleged pattern of calls—29 calls over a period of 24 days—is legally insufficient to show an intent to annoy, abuse, or harass plaintiff as the statute requires.… Read More

In Klein v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 2672290, at *10 (W.D.Pa., 2017), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant against a Plaintiff who received calls over VoiP and through Google. There is no dispute that the challenged calls were made to Klein's VoIP number. Collectcents and Commerce Energy, however, dispute that either of them can be held… Read More

In Ewing v. SQM US, Inc., 2016 WL 5846494, at *2–3 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Bencivengo dismissed a TCPA claim because the alleged harm -- a charge for the call - would have been incurred whether the call was properly placed (manually) or improperly placed (autodialed).  Accordingly, it did not confer "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article III standing. The only allegation in… Read More

In Telephone Science Corporation v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2016 WL 4179150, at *5 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge St. Eve found adequate standing in a TCPA case. TSC operates a service called “Nomorobo,” designed to help consumers avoid incoming computerized telephone calls that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) refers to as “robocalls”—calls made with either an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”)… Read More

In Klein v. Just Energy Group, Inc., 2016 WL 3539137, at *2 (W.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to an energy company who's debt collectors placed wrong-party calls to Klein over Klein's Google VoiP.    Because Klein's VoIP number had been erroneously recorded as the number for P.S., Commerce Energy, Inc. d/b/a Just Energy provided Klein's VoIP number to Collectcents… Read More

In Stavrinides v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2016 WL 1598744, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Alsup held: As an initial matter, plaintiff has not alleged that he was charged for the call, which he must allege to state a claim under the TCPA. Moreover, the complaint does not, in anything other than conclusory fashion, allege that PG&E used an… Read More

In Yount v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2016 WL 554851, at *7-8 (E.D.Tenn., 2016), Judge Greer granted summary judgment to a TCPA plaintiff who received calls to her cellular telephone by use of an ATDS, even though she was not charged for the calls. There is no dispute of fact that FKSC made the six telephone calls to plaintiff's cellular telephone… Read More

  In Abella v. Mozea, LLC, , 2015 WL 6599747, at *4 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Dalzell allowed a TCPA text-message class action past the pleading stage, based on allegations that Defendant SAC is a student loan consolidation and forgiveness service that offers assistance to consumers hoping to alleviate their student loan debt burden. Compl. at ¶ 10. Defendant Mozeo is an… Read More

In Telephone Science Corp. v. Trading Advantage, LLC, 2015 WL 672266 (N.D.Ill. 2015), Judge Guzman found that the TCPA was not limited to consumer protection only; it applied to autodialed calls made to a commercial business' cellular telephones, too. Telephone Science Corporation (“TSC”) brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) seeking relief for telemarketing calls defendants made to… Read More

In Gesten v. Stewart Law Group, LLC, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 7243330 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Cohn denied a TCPA defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint, rejecting the argument that the Plaintiff must plead that she was charged for the call. Defendant first argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the TCPA because Plaintiff has not alleged that… Read More

In Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.--- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 4922451 (4th Cir. 2014), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collector could not rely on the TCPA's land-line/EBR exemption where the debtor was charged for the call. The TCPA specifically prohibits “mak[ing] any call ... using any [ATDS] or an artificial or prerecorded voice ... to any… Read More

In Taylor v. Universal Auto Group I, Inc., 2014 WL 2987395 (W.D.Wash. 2014), Judge Strombom rejected the argument that the TCPA requires the Plaintiff to have incurred a cost for the call, but agreed that Plaintiff’s providing his cellular telephone number to a predecessor business constituted consent to be called by the successor business. Tacoma Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Tacoma Dodge)… Read More

In Markovic v. Appriss, Inc., 2013 WL 6887972 (S.D.Ind. 2013), Judge Magnuss-Stinson found that a Plaintiff properly pleaded a TCPA case by alleging that calls used up minutes on his plan. Appriss contends that Mr. Markovic's Complaint must be dismissed because he has failed to allege that he was specifically charged for the allegedly unlawful call he received from Appriss.… Read More

In Mashiri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2013 WL 5797584 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Lorenz found a TCPA claim adequately pleaded.  First, Judge Lorenz rejected the Defendant’s argument that the TCPA does not apply to debt collectors placing calls to wireless telephone numbers by use of an autodialer: The TCPA contains separate provisions for calls made to residential telephone lines and… Read More

In Levy v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 5310166 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), Judge Bianco found an absence of consent under the TCPA for a debt collector calling a consumer's cellular telephone where the consumer had given a prior cellular number to the creditor. With respect to the issue of prior express consent, both the FCC and various federal courts… Read More

In Iniguez v. The CBE Group, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 4780785 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Mendez addressed the propriety of a class-action lawsuit brought against a debt collection agency under TCPA by an “unintended recipient” of collection calls.  The lawsuit was based on Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant placed numerous calls to her cell phone seeking to collect a debt owed… Read More

In Castro v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 4105196 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), Judge Ramos found that including a GLB Privacy Notice with a collection letter was deceptive.  Judge Ramos also denied the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s TCPA claim.  Judge Ramos found questions of fact that an auto-dailer was used and that trapping a consumer’s… Read More

In Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., 2013 WL 3071334 (D.Md. 2013), Judge Quarles refused to certify his opinion that a call to a land-line made over VoIP Protocol fell within the TCPA’s “charged call” liability provisions rather than the TCPA’s “land-line” exemption. The facts, recited in more detail below, were that the Plaintiff set up his land-line through VoIP… Read More

1 2