Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Injunctive Relief

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.) Addresses How to Value “Public Injunctive Relief” Claims for Purposes of Removal Jurisdiction

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Enriquez v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-1240 AWI BAK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178999, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2022), Judge Ishii remanded a UCL public injunctive relief claim for lack of sufficient monetary controversy to support removal jurisdiction. Much of SXM's argument depends on valuing the injunction from its perspective, i.e. the cost of complying with… Read More

9th Cir. Says No UCL Injunction May Lie When Adequate Remedy at Law “Would” Have Existed under CLRA Claim — Even Though CLRA Claim Was Barred

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Guzman v. Polaris Indus., No. 21-55520, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27293, at *7 (9th Cir. Sep. 29, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that a litigant could not bring his equitable UCL claim in federal court because he had an adequate legal remedy in his time-barred CLRA claim. We agree with the district court that… Read More

9th Cir. Says Injunctive Relief that Benefits Defined Class is Not “Public Injunctive Relief” under Blair/McGill

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Capriole v. Uber Techs., No. 20-16030, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22738, at *35-40 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that injunctive relief designed to benefit only a defined class of individuals is not "public" injunctive relief under Blair.   Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that their request for preliminary relief classifying them as employees is one… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Allows UCL Claim to Proceed against Google Arising from Alleged Improper Collection of Data

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Calhoun v. Google, LLC, Judge Koh allowed part of a claim against Google to proceed based Google Chrome's sharing of data with Google. Plaintiffs are users of Google’s Chrome browser who allege that they “chose not to ‘Sync’ their [Chrome] browsers with their Google accounts while browsing the web . . . from July 27, 2016 to the present.”… Read More

9th Cir. Says Consumer Bound to Website Arbitration Clause

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Stover v. Experian Holdings, Inc., No. 19-55204, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33176 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s arbitration order. Rachel Stover appeals the district court's order compelling arbitration of her claims based on her purchase of the Experian Credit Score subscription service in 2014. Two versions of… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says FDCPA Plaintiff Need Not Unequivocally Plead Debt’s “Consumer” Nature; FDCPA Plaintiff Could Pursue UCL Injunctive Relief Despite “Zero” Chance Conduct Could Happen Again to Plaintiff

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Norton v. Lvnv Funding, No. 18-cv-05051-DMR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146863, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019), Magistrate Judge Ryu held that equivocal pleading of a debt's consumer nature survived an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. Defendants essentially argue that a plaintiff's allegations about consumer debt must be unequivocal and ironclad in order to withstand a Rule 12 challenge. This… Read More