Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

preemption

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.

Today, the Dept. of Treasury issued an analysis of the CFPB's Arbitration Rule, entitled Limiting Consumer Choice, Expanding Costly Litigation: An Analysis of the CFPB Arbitration Rule.  The Dept. of the Treasury concluded that In view of these defects, it is clear that the Rule does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for banning the use of arbitration agreements under the… Read More

In McGill v. Citibank, 2017 WL 4382034, at *3 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal put its gloss on the Supreme Court's decision in McGill and what is left for the trial court to decide on remand. The Supreme Court concluded its opinion with the following paragraph: “Our invalidation of the arbitration provision insofar as it purports to waive McGill's… Read More

In McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2017 WL 1279700, at *1 (Cal., 2017), the California Supreme Court side-stepped whether the Broughton/Cruz rule survives Concepcion.  See Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat. Ass'n, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 718344 (9th Cir. 2012) ("the Broughton–Cruz rule does not survive Concepcion because the rule “prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim”—claims for broad public… Read More

In DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 2015 WL 8546242, at *1-2 (U.S.Cal.,2015), the Supreme Court of the United States once again affirmed its preference for arbitration, and killed the "poison-pill" argument that had gathered fancy amongst the plaintiff's bar. Petitioner DIRECTV, Inc., and its customers entered into a service agreement that included a binding arbitration provision with a class-arbitration waiver. It specified… Read More

In Gillespie v. Svale Del Grande, Inc., 2015 WL 7307139, at *5-6 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., 2015) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal issued a lengthy opinion after remand from the Supreme Court in Sanchez that the Arbitration clause was enforceable.  The Court rejected the argument that neither the Arbitration Clause's choice of law or poison-pill provisions negated FAA pre-emption. The California Supreme Court disagreed… Read More

In Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., 2015 WL 7302268 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2015), the California Court of Appeal found a TCPA/Call Recording case to be within the scope of an enforceable arbitration clause:= We conclude that Brinkley's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement is enforceable, with the exception of one provision… Read More

Today, the California Supreme Court handed car dealers and auto finance companies an important victory, upholding the arbitration clause in the standard form automobile purchase contract used by most dealers in the Golden State.  (Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC. (S199119; Aug. 3, 2015).)  A copy of the California Supreme Court's decision can be found here.  The California Supreme Court… Read More

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sanchez (Gil) v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119. (B228027; 201 Cal.App.4th 74; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC433634) on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempts state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions… Read More

In McGill v. Citibank, N.A., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 7202035 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the California Court of Appeal held that Concepcion overruled California’s Broughton-Cruz rule. Citibank petitioned to compel McGill to arbitrate her claims based on an arbitration provision in her account agreement. The trial court granted the petition on McGill's claims for monetary damages and restitution, but… Read More

1 2 3