Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

TCPA

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 Sandoe v. Bos. Sci. Corp., Civil Action No. 18-11826-NMG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183886, at *9 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2019), Judge Gorton denied class certification of a TCPA wrong-number class. Implicit in Rule 23 is consideration of whether the identification of potential class members is "administratively feasible." Shanley v. Cadle, 277 F.R.D. 63, 67 (D. Mass. 2011). All… Read More

In Johnson v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 18-cv-62058-BLOOM/Valle, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178160, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2019), Judge Bloom found a TCPA Plaintiff's handwritten call-logs to be admissible as a party-opponent admission.  (For you trial lawyers out there, they probably could at least have been referred to under FRE 612 to refresh the witness' recollection, anyway).… Read More

In Tuck v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., No. 19-CV-1270-CAB-AHG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179274, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019), Judge Bencivengo dismissed a TCPA and FDCPA claim for failure of proper pleading. First, she dismissed the TCPA claim. To "make" a call under the TCPA the person must either (1) directly make the call, or (2) have an agency… Read More

In Ammons v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., No. 2:18-cv-06489-ODW (MAAx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175842, at *12-14 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019) , Judge Wright held that LiveVox' manual dial requirement disqualified it from being an ATDS, and nothing in Marks changes that conclusion. The parties agree that all calls DAS placed to Ammons's 3436 Cell Phone used LiveVox HCI. (DSUF… Read More

In Bodie v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02558-L-NLS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172998, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) , Judge Lorenz found "use" of an ATDS adequately pleaded. In addressing the second issue, the Ninth Circuit clarified that a total lack of human intervention was not required for a device to qualify as an ATDS. Marks, 904 F.3d at… Read More

In Sliwa v. Bright House Networks, No. 2:16-cv-235-FtM-29MRM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167805, at *56-63 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2019), the District Court denied class certification. Plaintiff identifies the following common questions of law or fact which he asserts will predominate over any individualized issues: whether (1) an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice technology was used; (2) Defendants'… Read More

In DeNova v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-2204-T-23AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163014 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 24, 2019), Judge Merryday overruled the Magistrate’s ruling that an Aspect dialing system was an ATDS. Denise DeNova alleges (Doc. 2) that between April 2013 and May 2016, Ocwen Loan Servicing, attempting to collect DeNova's delinquent mortgage, used an "Aspect predictive dialing system"… Read More

In Smith v. Premier Dermatology, No. 17 C 3712, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152887 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 9, 2019), Judge Alonso found that no ATDS was used to send text messages and granted summary judgment against a TCPA Plaintiff. While this Court might quibble with the grammatical analysis of Pinkus in some particulars, it agrees with its central insight that… Read More

In Brown v. Ocwen Loan Servicing Llc, No. 8:18-cv-136-T-60AEP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151236, at *11-15 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 5, 2019), Judge Barber granted in part and denied in part summary judgment brought by a TCPA defendant, distinguishing between pre-recorded and non-prerecorded calls. Ocwen contends summary judgment on the Browns' TCPA claims is warranted because its Aspect dialer is not… Read More

1 2 3 86