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

Expectation of Privacy

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.) Allows Call Recording Class Action to Proceed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Fishman v. Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., 2018 WL 1242076, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Alsup allowed a call-recording class action to proceed. Tiger argues that plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the sales calls — namely that (1) the parties discussed plaintiffs’ PG&E account information, (2) the calls were not made in a public setting, and (3) many other telemarketers disclose that… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Affirms De-Certification of Call-Recording Class

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Kight v. CashCall, Inc. 2014 WL 5573457 (2014), on remand from a prior appeal in the same case, the defendant successfully moved to decertify the plaintiff class that alleged eavesdropping on telephone calls by CashCall's supervisors in violation of Penal Code 632.  The opinion on the earlier appeal established that an objective test is applied to determine whether a call… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Affirms Denial of Class Certification of Call Recording Case under Pen. Code § 632 Because Individual Factual Questions Predominate

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 667381 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification in a call-recording case filed under Penal Code § 632. The facts were as follows: A customer placing an inbound call to First American is… Read More

9th Cir. Finds Plaintiff Does Not Adequately Plead Privacy Expectation under California’s Call-Recording Statute

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 174368 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff failed to properly plead an expectation of privacy.   On March 4, 2010, John Faulkner contacted his security provider, ADT, by telephone to dispute a charge assessed by ADT. Faulkner was transferred to ADT's… Read More