Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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.

It was largely a run-of-the-mill letter case, regarding whether the Defendant complied with Camacho’s validation notice requirements (it didn’t).  But, Judge Koh took time from her busy schedule in the Apple v. Samsung mega-trial to find that California’s elder-abuse statute allowed trebling of a statutory penalty under the Rosenthal Act.  (Johnson v. CFS II, Inc., 2013 WL 1809081 (N.D.Cal. 2013)… Read More

In HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. v. Aguilar, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2012 WL 1813379 (Cal.Super.A.D. 2012), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court required the superior court clerk to enter default judgments in debt collection cases.  Once a default has been entered on proper service of process, no further prove-up is necessary and the court clerk’s requirement as a condition of… Read More

In an unpublished decision involving a purportedly defective yacht, the California Court of Appeal held in Andersen v. Pacific Asian Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 130473 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2012) that the Song-Beverly Act does not afford loss-of-use damages in the absence of actual expenses expended to cover.  The facts were as follows.  In April 2003, Andersen entered into a contract… Read More

In Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 6144191 (3rd Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that fear of identity theft is not a compensable loss conferring Article III standing litigants in federal court.  The case arose from the following facts.  Ceridian is a payroll processing firm.  To process its commercial business customers'… Read More

In American Home Services, Inc. v. A Fast Sign Co., Inc., --- S.E.2d ----, 2011 WL 1782083 (Ga.App. 2011), the Georgia Court of Appeal held that the measure of damages under the TCPA (in a fax case) is based on receipt, not sent.   In reviewing a $459 million verdict, the Court of Appeal explained:    Even assuming—without deciding—that the evidence… Read More

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2010 WL 2779307 (2010), the California Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of re-written contracts, the “single-document rule”, and remedies available under the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act.  In Nelson, the Dealer sold car to buyer on Day 1.  The original contract was signed that day and the customer drove… Read More