Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CLRA -- Civil Code § 1770

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.

9th Cir. Says No UCL Injunction May Lie When Adequate Remedy at Law “Would” Have Existed under CLRA Claim — Even Though CLRA Claim Was Barred

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Guzman v. Polaris Indus., No. 21-55520, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27293, at *7 (9th Cir. Sep. 29, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that a litigant could not bring his equitable UCL claim in federal court because he had an adequate legal remedy in his time-barred CLRA claim. We agree with the district court that… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Failure to Disclose that Vehicle’s Destination Charge Also Includes Some Profit Was Not Material and Did Not Violate the UCL

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Romoff v. GM LLC, No. 21-cv-00938-WQH-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231369, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021), Judge Hayes dismissed a complaint alleging that a vehicle manufacturer's disclosure of a destination charge was deceptive because it did not also disclose that such charge contained a profit element. Plaintiffs allege that by calling the charge a "Destination Charge," GM… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says CLRA Plaintiff Who Sought Injunctive Relief Only, and Disclaimed Prayer for Damages, in Order to Avoid CLRA 30-day Pre-Suit Notice Requirement Could Not Recover Attorneys’ Fees under CLRA Due to Absence of Damages

by Scott J. Hyman |

It’s a bit convoluted, but in Mikki v. Lifemark Grp., No. D076885, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 309 (Jan. 20, 2021), the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, denied any attorneys’ fees to a CLRA Plaintiff.  The facts were as follows: Mikki's operative complaint sought solely injunctive relief under the CLRA. After accepting Lifemark's Code of Civil Procedure section… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Affirms Defense Verdict for Car Dealer; Says Plaintiff Plays Fast and Loose with Facts Relating to Defendants’ Side of the Case

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Loi Nguyen v. House of Imps., Nos. G056789, G057216, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4006, at *2 (June 25, 2020), the Court of Appeal affirmed a jury trial verdict in favor of a car dealer. The Court had some words for the appellant's briefing. The appellant has the duty to fairly summarize all of the facts in the light… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says CLRA Might Apply to Debt Collection Claims

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Poghosyan v. First Fin. Asset Mgmt., No. 1:19-cv-01205-DAD-SAB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14137 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020), Judge Drozd found that a plaintiff might be able to state a claim for improper debt collection under the CLRA. Although the California Supreme Court has not yet addressed whether the CLRA applies to certain types of financial transactions such as… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.), Critical of Appellate Record, Affirms Trial Court’s Finding that Corporate Purchase Does Not Preclude Consumer Use under CLRA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Kalta v. Fleets 101, No. B292185, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1060 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff was a “consumer” under the CLRA. Defendant does not tell us the standard of review; does not summarize the facts, detailed ante, supporting a finding that the vehicle was purchased for… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Class Claims Plead Non-Arbitratable Claims for “Public Injunctive Relief”, but Such Claims Should Be Stayed Pending Outcome of Arbitration of Individual Claims.

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Eiess v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 19-cv-00108-EMC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144026, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2019), Judge Chen ordered a class action plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration, and stayed the claim for public injunctive relief pending the outcome of Plaintiff's individual claim. The facts were as follows: Ms. Eiess is a customer of USAA and… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Mom’s Straw Purchase of Car for Son Precluded Son From Recovering for Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Vega v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 2018 WL 3216347, at *5 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a son, whose mother purchased a vehicle for him, could not recover for economic loss and personal injuries sustained when the vehicle he drove malfunctioned and had an accident, causing him personal injury and… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Failure to Disclose that Part Was Subject to Recall and Was Not Repaired Violated CLRA

by Colin T. Murphy |

In Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, 2018 WL 627453, at *14–16 (Cal.App. 5 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal found that failure to disclose that a part was the subject of a recall and was not repaired violated the CLRA. Based on the statutory text, legislative history (which includes the National Consumer Act), the judicial decisions and statutes that existed… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Benson Tender Was in Bad Faith Because it Imposed Unreasonable Conditions on the Consumer; Says As to Holder Who Tendered Back the RISC, “Once a Holder, Always a Holder”

by Colin T. Murphy |

In Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales, Inc., 2017 WL 6333871, at *8 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a car dealer's Benson-tender did not insulate the dealer from liability. In this case, Quantum's pre-litigation offer went far beyond a willingness to take corrective action as contemplated by the drafters of the CLRA. We… Read More

Benson Update: Another California Court of Appeal Distinguishes the “Benson-tender”; i.e. Courts’ Treatment of a CLRA Defendant’s Response to a Pre-Suit Demand Letter

by Colin T. Murphy |

We previously reported and analyzed the so-called "Benson-tender", which is how California Courts treat a CLRA defendant's response to a pre-suit demand for correction under the CLRA vis-a-vis the consumer's later demand for demand for attorneys' fees.  Our Daily Journal Article entitled "Different Approaches to CLRA Damages", authored by Severson attorneys Austin Kenney and Colin Murphy, can be found here:  Benson… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Limits “Benson-defense” to Attorneys’ Fees in Auto Finance Litigation

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2016 WL 6135482, at *5–6 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal held that a so-called Benson response to a CLRA letter does not immunize an auto dealer/manufacturer from attorneys' fees incurred to prosecute a claim under the Song-Beverly Act. Both BMW North America and BMW San Diego contend Goglin is… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Finds that Consumer Lacked Standing to Sue Car Dealer Who Violated Procedures of Certified Used Vehicle Statute in the Absence of Actual Injury

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Brooks v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2016 WL 1293757, at *4-5 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment against a consumer on the basis that the consumer lacked standing to sue under the CLRA or UCL for mere technical violations of the used vehicle statute.  The facts were as follows: CarMax… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Confirms that Financial Products are not “Goods” or “Services” under the CLRA

by Scott J. Hyman |

Yes, it's a bit far afield but Judge Chen confirmed the basic principle under California law that the CLRA does not regulate financial products, a principle that the Plaintiff's bar continues to test.  In Kissing v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc, 2015 WL 7283038, at *3-5 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Chen held that vacation timeshares are not "goods" or "services" under the CLRA. The… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Trial Court Properly Denied Post-Trial Claim for $171k in Attorneys’ Fees under CLRA because Car Dealer Offered Full Correction in Response to Original CLRA Letter

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., 2015 WL 5047611 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2015), the California Court of Appeal found that a car dealer who lost at trial nevertheless was not responsible for $171k in attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff because the dealer had offered full relief in response to the 30-day CLRA letter at the inception of the… Read More

9th Circuit Reverses Denial of Class Certification under CLRA against Vehicle Manufacturer

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Edwards v. Ford Motor Co., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2015 WL 847193 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of class certification of a CLRA claim against a vehicle manufacturer. In an action alleging consumer protection claims based on a vehicle defect, commonality is satisfied when “[t]he claims of all prospective… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds that Consumer Stated Claim For Illegal Imposition of Late Fees/Liquidated Damages against Fractional Rental Car Company

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2015 WL 394515 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Henderson found that a Plaintiff stated a claim for the imposition of illegal late fees under a fractional auto renter’s agreement. California law places significant restrictions on a party's ability to use a consumer contract to set what damages it will be entitled to in the event of a… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Grants MSJ to Car Dealer on It’s Representation that Vehicle was “Certified” and that Car Had Been a Prior Daily Rental

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Overholt v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 403873 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Burrell granted summary judgment to a car dealer who allegedly had falsely stated that the vehicle was “certified” and allegedly had failed to disclose that the vehicle was prior daily rental. On December 31, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Jeep Liberty (the “Jeep.”) from CarMax.… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Directs Trial Court to Enter Summary Judgment for Car Dealer on Plaintiff’s CLRA Claim Because Car Dealer Offered Full Relief within CLRA’s Notice Period

by Scott J. Hyman |

In CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 4533445 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision took the extraordinary step of issuing a Peremptory Writ of Mandate directing the trial court to enter summary judgment to a Car Dealer on a consumer’s CLRA claim on the basis that the Car Dealer had… Read More

1 2 3