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.


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 Perez v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 4:19-cv-07288-YGR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118267, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Gonzalez Rogers said that Duguid was not much help to an insurance carrier fighting a final TCPA judgment entered against its insured. In this action, Ignacio Perez is now seeking to recover monies against Indian Harbor. (See Dkt. No. 1 at… Read More

In Hufnus v. Donotpay, Inc., No. 20-cv-08701-VC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118325, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Chhabria dismissed a TCPA claim on the basis that defendant did not call using an ATDS. DoNotPay's motion to dismiss is granted. To state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Hufnus must allege that DoNotPay sent messages using… Read More

In Timms v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 3:18-cv-01495-SAL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108083, at *8 (D.S.C. June 9, 2021), Judge Lydon ruled against a TCPA plaintiff on whether an aspect dialer was an ATDS after Duguid.  Defendant's Motion submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the TCPA claim because it did not use an ATDS… Read More

In Horn v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 19-12525, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16279, at *1-3 (11th Cir. June 1, 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for an insurance carrier regarding a dispute over coverage for a TCPA action. This appeal requires us to interpret an insurance agreement between iCan Benefit Group, LLC, a Florida company, and its… Read More

In LaGuardia v. Designer Brands, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-2311, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97396 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2021), Magistrate Judge Morrison rejected the Creasy holding on the constitutionality of the TCPA after Barr.  Since the AAPC decision was issued less than a year ago, district courts have split on the application of AAPC to TCPA claims arising between 2015-2020. Two courts have… Read More

In Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, No. 20-1666, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14897, at *1-3 (3d Cir. May 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a TCPA Plaintiff had no standing. On March 11, 2005, DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., on behalf of Bank of America, called the residential telephone line that Leyse shared with… Read More

In Warren v. Credit Pros Int'l Corp., No. 3:20-cv-763-TJC-MCR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79150, at *20-28 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2021), Judge Richardson ordered a TCPA defendant to produce sweeping discovery in a TCPA class action. Now, as to the first category of documents, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to receive information regarding the hardware, software, and capabilities of… Read More

In Mey v. Medguard Alert, No. 5:19-CV-315, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80083, at *13-14 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 27, 2021), Judge Tates found that the SCOTUS' holding in Barr didn't render the TCPA unconstitutional for non-government backed debts. Those courts which have found the TCPA to be valid with regard to non-Government debt calls, even in light of Barr,include McCurley, supra; Less v. Quest… Read More

1 2 3 93