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.

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 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 3