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

Injury-in-Fact

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 Aggregation of Small Business Plaintiffs is Neither the “General Public” Nor Consumers Entitled to Protection under B&P Code 17200

by Scott J. Hyman |

In TopDevz, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 20-cv-08324-SVK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145186, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Judge Van Keulen dismissed with leave to amend a group of small businesses' challenge to LinkedIn's charges overstating the level of actual user engagement with ads placed on the LinkedIn platform in order to charge premium rates to advertisers.  The… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Finds that Consumer Lacked Standing to Sue Car Dealer Who Violated Procedures of Certified Used Vehicle Statute in the Absence of Actual Injury

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Brooks v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2016 WL 1293757, at *4-5 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment against a consumer on the basis that the consumer lacked standing to sue under the CLRA or UCL for mere technical violations of the used vehicle statute.  The facts were as follows: CarMax… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds Triable Issue of Fact Regarding Whether On-Line Credit Application Provided Permissible Purpose under FCRA or Was Mere “Comparison Shopping”; Says Reduced Credit Score Can Provide UCL Standing

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Heaton v. Social Finance,  2015 WL 6003119, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Henderson found that defendant's online credit application might be mere comparison shopping such that there was no permissible purpose under FCRA to pull the consumer's credit report. Plaintiffs Shawn Heaton (“Heaton”) and Anna Ahlborn (“Ahlborn”) each visited Defendants' website and had slightly different experiences. Both Plaintiffs registered for the… Read More

9th Cir. Finds No Vicarious Liability for Creditor under FDCPA/Rosenthal Act; Finds UCL Inappropriate Vehicle to Challenge Collection Practices

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Makreas v. Moore Law Group, A.P.C., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 2979018 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a creditor was vicariously liable under the FDPCA/Rosenthal Act or that the UCL was a proper vehicle to obtain relief under those statutes. The district court properly dismissed… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Grants MSJ to TCPA Text Message Defendant; Finds Text Message Provides No “Injury in Fact” for Plaintiff’s UCL Claim

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 2014 WL 2116602 (S.D. Cal. 2014) here, Judge Burns granted summary judgment to the Defendant on Plaintiff’s TCPA and UCL claims. For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate for Vertical Fitness on its affirmative defense that Van Patten consented to receiving the texts at issue when he… Read More

9th Circuit Holds NOI Plaintiff’s Nominal Payment Designed to Give Standing Failed to Confer Such Standing; Says Plaintiffs’ FCRA Expert Evan Hendricks’ Opinion Was “Vague and Abstract”

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Wright v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2013 WL 6137482 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion that an automobile customer who paid a small sum of money to set up his right to bring an NOI class action lacked UCL standing to bring the claim.  On April… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal. — Unpublished) Applies 1-year Statute of Limitations to Rees-Levering Violation Arising out of Deferred Down-payments

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Harrelson v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2013 WL 5348087 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), Harrelson filed a class action against CarMax, pleading the first class to be any person who in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint purchased a car from CarMax, signed a retail installment contract (RIC), and made a deferred down payment and whose… Read More