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

Indemnity

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.) Says TCPA Affords No Right of Contribution or Indemnity

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Lemieux v. Lender Processing Center, 2018 WL 637945, at *2–3 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court dismissed a third-party counter-claim for indemnity on the basis that the TCPA afforded no right to indemnity or contribution. Here, neither the language of the TCPA, nor the legislative history point to the affirmative creation of a right of indemnity or contribution by Congress. Furthermore, in… Read More

District Court (Nev.) Refuses to Allow TCPA Defendant to Sue Daughter of TCPA Plaintiff Who Allegedly Provided Plaintiff’s Telephone Number in Connection with the Transaction that Lead to the Calls

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Stephens v. Comenity, LLC dba Comenity Bank, 2017 WL 6316630, at *2–3 (D.Nev., 2017), Judge Du struck a third party counter-claim against the daughter of the TCPA Plaintiff.  The daughter allegedly gave the telephone number to the Defendant that lead the Defendant to call the Plaintiff. . . .the Court finds that impleader is improper for three reasons: (1)… Read More

District Court (Tenn.) Permits TCPA Defendant to Counter-Claim Against Third Party Who Provided Defendant with the Number Dialed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Ellington v. First Premier Bank, 2017 WL 2733936, at *1–2 (M.D.Tenn., 2017), Judge Trauger permitted a third party counter-claim to proceed against the party who provided the telephone number that the TCPA defendant dialed. Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant First Premier Bank for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the… Read More

Two TCPA Decisions (Cal.) Discuss Propriety and Effect of Pursuing the Third Person Who Provided the Cellular Telephone Number to the TCPA Defendant that Resulted in Calls to the TCPA Plaintiff

by Scott J. Hyman |

Two recent California District Court decisions suggest the propriety and effect of pursuing the third party who provided the cellular telephone number in an application that turned out to be subscribed to by another. In Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, 2014 WL 2967559 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Donato permitted a TCPA defendant to file a third party claim against… Read More

A New Ally in the TCPA Battle? District Court (Ill.) Finds Cell Phone Carrier Potentially Vicariously Liable for Acts of Collector’s AutoDialer

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Martin v. Cellco Partnership, 2012 WL 5048854 (N.D.Ill. 2012), Judge Guzman found that an in pro per Plaintiff's TCPA claim against his cell phone carrier survived an FRCP 12b6 Motion arising out of autodialed debt collection calls placed by his creditor to his cell phone. Verizon claims the TCPA claims against it must fail because it cannot be held liable for… Read More

7th Circuit Holds that TCPA Consent to Call Cellular Telephone Does Not Transfer from Original Customer/Subscriber to New Holder/Subscriber of the Cellular Phone

by Scott J. Hyman |

Previously, we reported on the Soppett v. Enhanced Recovery Appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=2652)  The Court issued its decision today. In Soppett v. Enhanced Recover Company, LLC, here, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that ‘consent’ under the TCPA to call cellular telephones by autodialer means consent from the person subscribing… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Holds TCPA Affords No Indemnity/Contribution Rights

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. v. Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2011 WL 6156800 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge Gotschall rejected a TCPA defendant's claim for contribution/indemnity under the TCPA, explaining: Instead, the TCPA itself strongly suggests that Congress never intended to create such a right. For instance, the TCPA contemplates treble damages, see 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), which indicates that Congress had no intent to include… Read More