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.

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 Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, No. 20-16900, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9083, at *12-14 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022), the 9th Circuit addressed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement set forth on a website that allowed the consumer to click-through the operator's various policies and the arbitration.  The Court of Appeals stated the rule as follows: The most… Read More

In Eggleston v. Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20928, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022), Judge Wilson dismissed a TCPA "pre-recorded voice" case premised on the theory that the standard text messages that she received did not constitute a "voice" under the TCPA. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's text messages violated § 227(b) because… Read More

A federal district court in Arizona has certified a nationwide “non customer” class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) against Citibank, N.A. TCPA class actions carry enormous potential liability, as the statute provides for recovery of $500 to $1,500 per call for unconsented autodialed or prerecorded calls to cellular telephones. The case is Head v.… Read More

In Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239583, at *23-30 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021), Judge Spero granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used. Based on the undisputed facts relating to Textedly's functionality, Plaintiff does not dispute that the text messages at issue in this case were not… Read More

In Raphael Aus. v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), Judge Wright dismissed a TCPA claim but allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed.  As to the TCPA claim, Judge Wright held: The parties dispute whether alleging that a system calls a prepopulated list of customers or clients is… Read More

In Brown v. DirecTV, LLC, No. CV 13-1170 DMG (Ex), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231014, at *15-23 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021), Judge Gee discussed how wrong number codes might impact class certification. But that does not mean that Plaintiffs' procedure is otherwise improper—if done in the proper sequence. The Class is defined to include only non-customers, and DirecTV has… Read More

In In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 11md02295 JAH - BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216747, at *32-34 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021), Judge Houston denied TCPA plaintiffs' request for further discovery from the dialer manufacturer on whether its product was an ATDS. On May 27, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion seeking to reopen discovery for the limited… Read More

In Estate of O'Shea v. Am. Solar Sols., Inc., No. 14cv894-L-RBB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199171 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021), Judge Lorenz substituted a deceased TCPA Plaintiff’s estate as Class Representative. Next, substitution may be made by a successor only if the claim is not extinguished by the death of the named party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1). The issue of survivability… Read More

In Hogans v. Charter Communs., Inc., No. 5:20-CV-566-D, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182992, at *22-27 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 24, 2021), Judge Dever applied AAPC retroactively, and examined the various options for applying AAPC. In AAPC, a majority of the Court left unanswered the question of retrospective liability under section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) for the time period in which it was unconstitutional. Three possible… Read More

In Lynch v. Aml Network, No. CV 21-3574-GW-RAOx, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187234, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2021), Judge Wu kept jurisdiction over a state-law anti-spam case, disagreeing with the Plaintiff that he did not have Article III standing. Findings (e) and (h) explicitly compare the harms caused by spam emails to injuries caused by junk faxes and… Read More

1 2 3 95