Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Settlements

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.

6th Cir. Says Payment of Actual Cash, Versus Mere Rule 68 Offer, Does Not Moot TCPA Class Action under Campbell-Ewald

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Mey v. North American Bancard, 2016 WL 3613395, at *3-4 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that payment of actual cash did not moot a TCPA class action under Campbell-Ewald. In an effort to tee up that question, NAB responded to Campbell-Ewald by mailing Mey's attorney a cashier's check for $4,500, apparently for three calls… Read More

District Court (Minn.) Stays TCPA-Fax Case Following Declined Rule 68 Offer Pending Outcome of SCOTUS’ Decision in Campbell–Ewald

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Yaakov v. Varitronics, LLC, 2015 WL 5092501, at *1 (D.Minn.,2015), Judge Montgomery stayed a TCPA-fax class action pending the outcome of the SCOTUS' decision in Campbell-Ewald.  The facts were as follows. This putative class action stems from eight unsolicited fax advertisements Bais Yaakov received between November 2013 and February 2014. See Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶ 10; Ex. A (the “Fax… Read More

District Court (Mo.) Gives Final Approval to $10M TCPA Settlement with Anthem Insurance Companies

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Lees v. Anthem Ins. Companies Inc., 2015 WL 3645208, at *1 (E.D.Mo.,2015), Judge Limbaugh gave final approval to Anthem's settlement of a TCPA class action, described as follows: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”) prohibits making automated telephone calls to cellular telephones without the “prior express consent” of the recipient. Plaintiff alleges that defendant… Read More

SCOTUS to Review 9th Circuit’s Finding that Rule 68 Offer Did Not Moot TCPA Action

by Scott J. Hyman |

We previously reported on the Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald matter (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=5343), wherein the 9th Circuit found that a consumer's failure to accept advertiser's offer of judgment did not render action moot.  Today, the SCOTUS granted cert.  Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, 2015 WL 246885-, -- S.Ct. ---, 83 USLW 3637 (2015).  The Petition for Cert. offered 3 potential issues: 1.Whether a case… Read More

District Court (Tex.) Finds Rule 68 Offer — Later Revised in a Motion to Dismiss to Accommodate for Additional Calls — Mooted Plaintiff’s Individual TCPA Claim, Requiring Dismissal of Class Action under Genesis; Finds TCPA Does Not Allow Dual Recover Under Both TCPA and Texas Statute

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Masters v. Wells Fargo, 2013 WL 3713492 (W.D. Tex. 2013), here, Judge Sparks found that a Rule 68 Offer in a TCPA Class Action – that was amended in a reply brief to accommodate additional calls alleged by the named Plaintiff – mooted a Plaintiff’s individual claim and requiring dismissal of the Plaintiff’s class action. Masters's Response makes much… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Rejects TCPA Class Settlement

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Newman v. GM Financial, Judge Sabraw issued an Order Denying Preliminary Approval rejecting a proposed TCPA class settlement in part on the basis that disparately situated classmembers with different damages claims would obtain the same settlement sums under the class settlement and, due to the claims-made procedure, it was unclear what that sum would be anyway. A class action settlement may be… Read More