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.

Pleading Requirements

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 Taylor v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1303430 (N.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Spero applied Iqbal/Twombly to find that (1) determination of whether a form letter violates the FDCPA/Rosenthal Act can be decided as a matter of law, and (2) the debt collector’s letter, which stated that defendant was represented by an attorney from New Jersey who was not licensed… Read More

In Marseglia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 4595549 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Houston put to rest questions about the common law torts of invasion of privacy and “tort-in-se”, as well as the question regarding whether the Rosenthal Act provides multiple penalties for debt collection torts.    As to the invasion of privacy claim deriving from purportedly… Read More

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 2010 WL 3238969 (N.D.Cal.), Judge Fogel held that, under Iqbal and Twombly, an FDCPA plaintiff failed to state a claim for lack of meaningful attorney involvement or for violating the Camacho  standard for debt validation warnings.  As to the former, Judge Fogel explained,   Plaintiff contends that her allegations that (1) Defendants sent the… Read More

In Day v. American Home Servicing, Inc. 2010 WL 2231988 (E.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Burrell held that a consumer stated a Rosenthal Act claim under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard for communicating with a represented party notwithstanding the fact that notice was not given in writing.  Judge Burrell explained:   Since the Rosenthal Act incorporates violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection… Read More

In Elliott v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1495402 (S.D.Cal. 2010) Judge Sabraw applied the more stringent pleading standard of Iqbal and Twombly to find that a debt collector’s use of the term “Warning Notice” with its debt validation letter neither overshadowed the debtor’s validation rights nor constituted an unfair debt collection practice.    In two recent opinions, the… Read More

In Osei v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 2010 WL 727831 (E.D. Cal. 2010), Judge Karlton discussed the pleading standards for a Rosenthal Act claim.  However, Judge Karlton did not discuss the heightened pleading standard for FDCPA claims as some other district courts have under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twonbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ascroft v. Iqbal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). … Read More

In Korzeniowski v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. 2010 WL 466162 (D.Conn.2010), Judge Eginton held that a bare bones Complaint merely setting forth the FDCPA's legal requirements failed under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twonbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ascroft v. Iqbal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), explaining: [P]laintiff's complaint lacks any factual allegations entitled to deference under Iqbal by the Court. As the Supreme… Read More

In Puttner v. Debt Consultants of America, 2009 WL 1604570 (S.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Hayes applied a liberal pleading standing to the FDCPA under FRCP 8.  The Plaintiff argued that “foundational facts need not be pled with particularity in order to state a claim under the FDCPA or the RFDCPA” and that “the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support claims for… Read More

In Sullivan v. CTI Collection Services, 2009 WL 1587588 (M.D.Fla. 2009), Judge Moody held that threadbare recitals of the FDCPA fail to meet the pleading standard of FRCPs 8 and 12(b)(6).  Judge Moody explained:      While the Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled Conley, it has explicitly rejected the language relied on by Plaintiff in Bell Atlantic Corporation v.… Read More

1 2 3 4