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.

UCL -- Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

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 Chowning v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 2018 WL 3016908, at *1–2 (9th Cir.  2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit discussed the limited parameters of what is recoverable under California's UCL. Wendy Chowning appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl’s Corporation (collectively “Kohl’s”) in her putative class action regarding… Read More

In Chaiwong v. Hanlees Fremont, Inc., 2017 WL 3838106 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017), Judge Gilliam dismissed a Rosenthal Act/UCL claim filed against an automobile lender by a consumer and the dealer to whom the customer traded in their vehicle. The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff leased a Chevrolet Equinox from Fremont Chevrolet on June 22, 2010.… 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 Brooks v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2016 WL 1293757, at *4-5 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment against a consumer on the basis that the consumer lacked standing to sue under the CLRA or UCL for mere technical violations of the used vehicle statute.  The facts were as follows: CarMax… Read More

In Heaton v. Social Finance,  2015 WL 6003119, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Henderson found that defendant's online credit application might be mere comparison shopping such that there was no permissible purpose under FCRA to pull the consumer's credit report. Plaintiffs Shawn Heaton (“Heaton”) and Anna Ahlborn (“Ahlborn”) each visited Defendants' website and had slightly different experiences. Both Plaintiffs registered for the… Read More

In Overholt v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 403873 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Burrell granted summary judgment to a car dealer who allegedly had falsely stated that the vehicle was “certified” and allegedly had failed to disclose that the vehicle was prior daily rental. On December 31, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Jeep Liberty (the “Jeep.”) from CarMax.… Read More

We previously reported that Judge Maria Elena James denied CashCall’s summary judgment motion on the issue of whether CashCall’s loans were unconscionable. (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=5208) CashCall filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that to deny summary judgment on the Unconscionability Claim was incorrect because the UCL cannot be used as a basis for Plaintiffs' Unconscionability Claim because ruling on that claim would… Read More

In de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 3752796 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge James granted partial summary judgment to class-action Plaintiffs on their allegation that CashCall’s the loans violated the UCL because they were conditioned on the debtors were required to check a box indicating that they authorized CashCall to withdraw their scheduled loan payments from their… Read More

In Makreas v. Moore Law Group, A.P.C., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 2979018 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a creditor was vicariously liable under the FDPCA/Rosenthal Act or that the UCL was a proper vehicle to obtain relief under those statutes. The district court properly dismissed… Read More

In Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 2014 WL 2116602 (S.D. Cal. 2014) here, Judge Burns granted summary judgment to the Defendant on Plaintiff’s TCPA and UCL claims. For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate for Vertical Fitness on its affirmative defense that Van Patten consented to receiving the texts at issue when he… Read More

1 2 3 4 7