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

FDCPA (Fed & State)

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.

9th Cir. Confirms that FDCPA Excludes Creditors Collecting Their Own Debts

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Wolfson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 20-35792, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37864, at *2 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA claim. The district court properly dismissed Wolfson's FDCPA claims because Wolfson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Bank of America, N.A., is considered a debt collector under… Read More

Welcome Aboard: Court of Appeal (Cal.) Holds Bail Bond Premium Financing is a “Consumer Credit Contract” under California’s Consumer Protection Statutes

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Bbbb Bonding Corp. v. Caldwell, No. A162453, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 1100, at *2-4 (Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2021), the Court of Appeal found that bail bond premium financing agreements are "consumer credit contracts". This appeal requires us to interpret a long-standing consumer protection statute in a novel context: whether the requirement under Civil Code section 1799.91 that notice… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Dismisses TCPA “ATDS” Claim, But Allows Rosenthal Act Claim to Proceed on Whether Defendant Regularly Collected Debts

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Raphael Aus. v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), Judge Wright dismissed a TCPA claim but allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed.  As to the TCPA claim, Judge Wright held: The parties dispute whether alleging that a system calls a prepopulated list of customers or clients is… Read More

11th Cir.’s Hunstein Panel Doubles-Down on Prior Decision interpreting 15 U.S.C. 1692

by Scott J. Hyman |

Over a strong dissent, the 11th Cir. Panel that issued the Hunstein decision affirmed the prior decision, holding "(1) that the violation of § 1692c(b) alleged in this case gives rise to a concrete injury in fact under Article III, and (2) that the debt collector’s transmittal of the consumer’s personal information to its dunning vendor constituted a communication “in connection… Read More

California Passes Consumer Debt Validation Bill

by Jason M. Julian |

Governor Gavin Newson approved SB 531 on October 4, 2021. The bill sponsored by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) allows consumers to request verification that debt collectors collecting on delinquent debts have the authority to collect a debt and also prohibits a debt collector from making any written statements to a debtor in an attempt to collect a debt unless the… Read More

District Court (Nev.) Says Debt Collector Who Knew Debtor Was Represented By Counsel Must Communicate with Counsel, Even Before Counsel Formally Appears in the Action

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Shafer v. Moore Law Grp., No. 3:20-cv-00525-MMD-CLB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174185, at *8 (D. Nev. Sep. 14, 2021), Judge Du allowed an FDCPA case to press forward against a debt collector who served a pleading directly on a represented party in an existing lawsuit because the party's lawyer had not formally entered an appearance. Plaintiff alleges that, despite… Read More

District Court (La.) Finds Neither FDCPA Nor FCRA Cover Commercial Transactions

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Weiser v. Castille, No. 20-2043, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173993, at *13-14 (E.D. La. Sep. 14, 2021), Judge Lemmon dismissed FDCPA and FCRA claims arising out of a Plaintiff's investment mobile home properties.   Additionally, an obligation arising from a commercial transaction, as opposed to a transaction "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes" is not a "debt" as defined… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says FDCPA Claim Not Barred by Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, But, Instead, By Collateral Estoppel

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Webb v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 20cv2211-MMA-WVG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173479, at *11-12 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2021), Judge Anello dismissed an FDCPA claim challenging the propriety upon which a state court debt judgment was obtained.  The facts were as follows: On December 11, 2018, Midland filed a state court complaint against Plaintiff "for the principal amount of… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says “Pay-to-Pay” Fees Were Subject to the Rosenthal Act as “Due and Owing” Under the AG’s Opinion, But Did Not Violate the Act Because the Fees Were Permitted By Law and the Deed of Trust

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Mariscal v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, No. ED CV 19-2023-DMG (SHKx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171374, at *4-8 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2021), Judge Gee dismissed, a second time, the Plaintiff's Rosenthal Act Class Action challenging a mortgage company's "pay-to-pay" fees. The fee itself need not be a debt, as long as it is connected to the collection of a… Read More

District Court (Mo.) Finds Third Parties Have No Standing to Pursue FDCPA Claim under 1692c

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Judge Autrey dismissed an FDCPA claim filed by a consumer's lawyer who received a 'dunning' letter from a debt collector attempting to ascertain his possible representation of a consumer. On July 27, 2020, Defendant attempted to collect the alleged consumer debt from the Consumer via mail by sending its initial collection letter to Plaintiff. Plaintiff received this initial collection letter… Read More

1 2 3 … 92