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.

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.

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

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

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

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

In Rodenburg LLP v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, No. 20-2521, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 25516, at *2-4 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit found no coverage for FDCPA claims under an attorneys' insurance policy.  The facts were as follows: Rodenburg, whose primary business is debt collection, obtained a default judgment on… Read More

In Keller v. Northstar Location Servs., No. 21-cv-3389, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157820, at *4-6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), Judge Johnson-Coleman kept jurisdiction over an FDCPA-Hunstein case despite the consumer's objection that the SCOTUS' decision in Ramirez deprived her of Article III standing. With this standard in mind, the Court turns to an Eleventh Circuit opinion where that court concluded… Read More

On August 19, 2021, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued a request for comments as it considers a second rulemaking related to the Debt Collection Licensing Act. The first rulemaking, issued earlier this year relates to the license application process and requirements for debt collectors who may begin to apply for a debt collection license starting in… Read More

In Ward v. Nat'l Patient Account Servs. Sols., No. 20-5902, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24369, at *9 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found no Article III standing for a pure procedural violation of the FDCPA. To establish that the statutory violations here constitute concrete injury, Ward must show that NPAS, Inc.'s failure… Read More

In Canady v. Kaps & Co. (USA) Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 4:20-CV-1253-CLM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148878, at *7-9 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2021), Judge Maze found that an FDCPA Plaintiff stated a 1692e(8) claim. Kaps also argues that Canady's complaint fails to state a claim under § 1692e(8) because Canady alleges that she disputed the debt only after Kaps… Read More

In In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases, Civil Action No. 21-2312, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139848, at *14-19 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2021), Judge Brown dismissed a series of Hunstein-based cases due to lack of standing under Ramirez.  Each case addressed herein invokes a recently-developed "mailing vendor" theory - alleging that the defendant debt collector employed an outside firm to print and… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 93