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.

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.

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

1 2 3 … 5