Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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 Chien v. Bumble Inc., 641 F. Supp. 3d 913, 927–30 (S.D. Cal. 2022), District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel addressed the sufficiency of California contacts for specific personal jurisdiction in a data privacy case that includes a claim for violation of the CCPA. In the context of a nationally accessible website, “something more” than operating a passive website is… Read More

In Weiner v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 2:14-cv-02597-TLN-DB, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33107, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023), Judge Nunley reconsidered Judge Englund's previous decertification order, finding that Judge Englund erred in his evaluation of whether the class representative must establish class-wide Art. III standing. In the Court's order granting Ocwen's motion for class decertification, the Court stated,… Read More

On February 3, 2023, Judge Sykes of the Central District of California denied Goodyear's motion to transfer venue and its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CIPA claim.  Byars v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 522CV01358SSSKKX, 2023 WL 1788553 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023). On the motion to transfer venue, the Court held: Where the internet contract falls into the browsewrap… Read More

In Maag v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 21cv31-H-LL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196307 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021), Magistrate Lopez ordered production, subject to protective measures, of class discovery in a data breach case.  The Court addressed the standards for pre-certification class discovery. "The propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without discovery, as… Read More

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 3401, at *1-7 (June 25, 2021), the Supreme Court held that every classmember must meet Art. III Standing.  SCOTUS explained in the syllabus: The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates the consumer reporting agencies that compile and disseminate personal information about consumers. 15 U. S. C. §1681 et seq. The Act also creates a cause… Read More

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

In Patel v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-15982, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that a class could be certified under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. The facts were as follows: When a new user registers for a Facebook account, the user must create a profile and agree… Read More

In In re Google Inc., No. 17-1480, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23467, at *2-5 (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the Google class action "cy-pres only" settlement back to the District Court for further evaluation. The defendant, Google Inc., created a web browser "cookie" that tracks an internet user's data (think following… Read More

In Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., No. S246490, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 5696, at *1 (July 29, 2019), the California Supreme Court followed the Seventh Circuit's decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC (7th Cir. 2015) 795 F.3d 654, finding that in California the "ascertainability" requirement is satisfied so long as the class definition is stated in terms of objective characteristics… Read More

In Frank v. Gaos, the SCOTUS today placed further standing impediments to privacy and other purely statutory/no damages class actions, finding, following objections to the class action settlement, that the case should be remanded to determine standing under Spokeo.  The background facts were as follows: Three named plaintiffs brought class action claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act.… 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

In George v. Guitar Center, Inc., 2018 WL 259001, at *1 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2018), the Plaintiffs challenged Guitar Center's practice of requesting and recording personal identification information when customers in its California stores pay using a credit card. The Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision found that the statute prohibits merchants from requesting personal identification information but only if the customer… Read More

In Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, Inc., 2017 WL 659894, at *2 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2017), the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of a 'say-so' class administration class. Leyse argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying, on ascertainability grounds, his motion to certify a class composed of “all persons to whose residential telephone lines [Lifetime] or… Read More

In Ally Financial, Inc. v Trujillo, 2016 WL 4766225, at *6 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that class notice in an NOI class action adequately informed the class members of potential adverse tax consequences. On appeal, Trujillo and Riley contend that the class notice regarding tax consequences violates due process, and is therefore… Read More

In Cox v. Sherman Capital LLC, 2016 WL 274877, at *4-6 (S.D.Ind., 2016), Judge Pratt properly found that a proposed class action was an impermissible fail-safe class.  The allegations were as follows: As a result of securitization, the Plaintiffs contend that LVNV did not own their debts based on three different, but related, arguments. First, as explained above, Plaintiffs argue… Read More

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 WL 228345, at *1 (U.S.,2016), the SCOTUS held that: An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez's complaint.Article III's “cases” and “controversies” limitation requires that “an actual controversy ... be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the… Read More

In Slavkov v. Fast Water Heater Partners I, LP, et. al. 2015 WL 6674575, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Tygar found that efforts made by a FCRA class action defendant were misleading, and ordered curative efforts to be undertaken. [Plaintiffs] challenge two letters sent by the Defendants to the putative class members, offering a settlement payment in exchange for the putative class… Read More