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.


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 West Loop Chiropractic & Sports Injury Center, Ltd. et al., v. North American Bancard, LLC et al,  2017 WL 404896, at *1–2 (N.D.Ill., 2017), Judge Gilbert allowed TCPA discovery in a blast-fax case as to other faxes besides those that the Plaintiff received. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information they seek is relevant to a decision concerning the… Read More

In Lathrop v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 WL 3648596, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Tygar deferred ruling on Uber's summary judgment motion until Plaintiff had an opportunity to do a bunch of discovery. Plaintiffs have satisfied the criteria for granting a Rule 56(d) motion. First, Plaintiffs have timely submitted, with their Rule 56(d) motion, a supporting declaration specifying the reasons… Read More

In Central Alarm Signal, Inc. v. Business Financial Services, Inc. 2016 WL 3595627, at *2 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Whalen allowed a TCPA class action plaintiff to conduct discovery of faxes beyond the scope of what was attached to the complaint or defined by the class. That Plaintiff attached only a single fax to the FAC does not circumscribe the class allegations… Read More

In Beaulieu v. Wells Fargo, Judge Kelly granted a Motion for a Protective Order that broadly sought discovery of other complaints against the defendant in order to refute the Defendant’s anticipated arguments regarding the fact they have little, if any, business records supporting Plaintiff’s alleged oral revocations.  The Court found the deposition and document requests to be overbroad.   Read More

In O'Shea v. American Solar Solution, Inc., 2016 WL 701215, at *3 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Magistrate Judge Brooks ordered discovery to be produced by the TCPA defendant.   Magistrate Brooks ordered outbound dial call lists to be produced.  Specifically, these requests generally concern the total number of call recipients and the total number of phone calls made to them. (See Mot.… Read More

In St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2015 WL 9451046, at *2 (E.D.Mo., 2015), Judge White refused to strike a TCPA blast-fax class action definition as being overlord, but then limited the Plaintiff's discovery solely to the faxes sent -- not to all faxes possibly sent during the 4-year SofL period. Plaintiff served a subpoena on Windstream Communications, LLC (“Windstream”)… Read More

In Key v. Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 8178055, at *3 (E.D.Mich. 2015), Judge Cohn issued pre-certification class discovery on a TCPA class action. Integ says that Plaintiffs intend to circumvent the Court's order limiting discovery with the main intent to determine class members from a reverse phone search in order to strength their case. Specifically, Integ relies on… Read More

In Gossett v. CMRE Financial Services, 2015 WL 6736883, at *1 (S.D.Cal.,2015), Magistrate Judge Stormes followed her previous decision on a motion to compel in Thrasher v. CMRE Financial Services, since the same defendant was involved, and the same counsel were involved as in Thrasher.   The parties presented this court with a discovery dispute regarding CMRE's responses to Gossett's first set of… Read More

In Al-Zaharnah v. Innovative Loan Servicing Company, 2015 WL 5897685, at *2 (M.D.Fla., 2015), Judge Sneed once again denied a TCPA Plaintiff a site inspection request. Plaintiff contends that a site inspection of Defendant's call center to examine the equipment used by Defendant in making calls to consumers is necessary for Plaintiff to meet his burden of establishing that Defendant used… Read More

In Bill v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 2015 WL 5715402, at *2 (M.D.Fla., 2015), Judge Sneed denied a TCPA Plaintiff discovery of a site inspection of defendant's facilities. Plaintiff contends that a site inspection of Defendant's call center to examine the equipment used by Defendant in making calls to consumers is necessary for Plaintiff to meet her burden of establishing that… Read More

1 2 3 4