Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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.

In BIN LU, Plaintiff, v. ENIGMA MPC, INC., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Can Kisagun, Guy Zyskind, No. 23-CV-02152-LB, 2023 WL 8360052, at *4–6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2023), Judge Beeler dismissed a CLRA claim premised on the argument that cryptocurrency was a "tangible good" under the CLRA.  The facts were as follows: The plaintiff resides in Singapore.  The… Read More

In Sharlene Shu v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-04661-LB, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68626, at *20-22 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2023), Judge Beeler dismissed a CLRA class action due to failure to give proper pre-suit notice. First, Ms. Shu did not provide the written notice required by the CLRA. If a plaintiff sues for damages under the CLRA, she… Read More

In Quillen v. Car City, No. B318046, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1759, at *10-13 (Mar. 27, 2023), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision reversed the trial court's conclusion that a used vehicle sale violated the CLRA. "The CLRA proscribes particular 'unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices' in transactions for the sale or… Read More

In Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC, No. 22-cv-03596-RS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31215, at *17-18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2023), Judge Seeborg discussed how the CLRA/UCL apply to claims pleaded as a nationwide class. Plaintiffs may proceed, however, with their claims on behalf of the putative Nationwide Class. As this Court has elsewhere noted, "California courts have concluded that '[the… Read More

In Fierro v. Capital One, N.A., No. 22-cv-00493-BAS-BLM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25253, at *6-9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2023), Judge Bashant allowed a UCC claim to proceed for a "totaled" vehicle, despite no "disposition" of it. In dismissing Plaintiff's first attempt to raise a claim under California's Commercial Code, the Court expressed doubt that Plaintiff could plead a violation… Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2 3