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.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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.

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

In Chulick–Perez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2014 WL 2154479 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Nunley granted a car dealer's motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's claim that a dealer's used-vehicle certification program violated Song-Beverly, the CLRA and the UCL.  The facts were as follows: On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff Michelle Chulick–Perez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) bought a 2003 BMW X5 (hereinafter “the vehicle”) from… Read More

In Wright v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2013 WL 6137482 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion that an automobile customer who paid a small sum of money to set up his right to bring an NOI class action lacked UCL standing to bring the claim.  On April… Read More

In Harrelson v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2013 WL 5348087 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), Harrelson filed a class action against CarMax, pleading the first class to be any person who in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint purchased a car from CarMax, signed a retail installment contract (RIC), and made a deferred down payment and whose… Read More

In People v. Persolve, (2013) 2013 DAR 10915, the Court of Appeal held that the litigation privilege is not a defense to a UCL action brought to enjoin business practices made unlawful by a statute more specific than Civil Code 47(b).  So, in this case, the People stated a good UCL claim against a debt collector for alleged unlawful business practices… Read More

In Grossman v. Capital One Bank, 2013 WL 821167 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision found that a credit card debtor did not have a claim against the credit card company for allowing the ex-wife to continue to charge sums on the Account after the divorce decree.  The facts were not atypical of… Read More

The California Court of Appeal in People v. JTH Tax, Inc. held that vicarious liability could be imposed under the UCL.  (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=3817&preview=true&preview_id=3817&preview_nonce=1b5c4528e1)  However, in  Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc., 2013 WL 595474 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Burrell found that a UCL claim could not be stated against a computer manufacturer for the misrepresentations of the seller.  Toshiba seeks dismissal of… Read More

1 2 3 4 6