Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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 Mortimer v. Bank of America, N.A.  2012 WL 6218004 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Spero addressed the interplay between bankrupt debt and credit reporting, finding that Plaintiff stated no FCRA or CCRAA claim.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Mark Mortimer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Bank of America, N.A., (“Defendant”) FN1 seeking redress for Defendant's alleged inaccurate reporting of his… Read More

In Grantham v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL 5904729 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge James held that a Plaintiff stated a claim against a Bank for post-bankruptcy discharge credit reporting. In February 2011, Grantham sent a dispute letter to Experian requesting an investigation of the 1051 Account, disputing the alleged delinquencies reported in her credit report while her bankruptcy petition was… Read More

Sorry good readers; I couldn't resist this case. Does the UCL or CLRA protect virtual characters in a virtual world existing only on-line against virtually fraudulent transactions?  Magistrate Judge Ryu in San Francisco said, for the most part, no.  (Evans v. Linden Research, Inc. 2012 WL 5877579 (N.D.Cal. 2012)). This putative class action involves the internet role-playing virtual world entitled Second… Read More

In  Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 3804370 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a credit card company’s on-line TILA disclosures identifying that an annual fee would be required provided a safe-harbor against a false advertising claim based on a claim that a retailer’s advertisements failed to disclose… Read More

In Mortimer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 2012 WL 3155563 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Wilken addressed the impact of a now commonly-pleaded claim that a creditor continued to report late payments that were not made during a bankruptcy.  Judge Wilkens found that Plaintiffs failed to plead an inaccuracy – meaning that they actually made the payments during the bankruptcy… Read More

In Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Inc., 2012 WL 2589965 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Chen held in consolidated proceedings alleging multiple claims of ‘sewer’ or ‘gutter’ service of process by a debt collector that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring a UCL claim based on the FDCPA.  The defendant collected no money from the defendants, so restitution was not… Read More

In Subhani v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 2012 WL 1980416 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Alsup found FCRA pre-emption of the UCL and Song-Beverly Act, except where such claims arose from Civil Code § 1785.25(a) under Gorman.  Judge Alsup explained: In the wake of Gorman, at least two courts in this district have held that claims brought under California's UCL predicated… Read More

  In Koller v. West Bay Acquisitions, LLC, 2012 WL 1189481 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Breyer held that vague references to ‘further action’ in the collection context could be interpreted by the least sophisticated consumer as threats to make false credit reporting.Yes, that’s what he held. Section 1692e(5) prohibits “threat[s] to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that… Read More

In Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood, 2012 WL 1021692 (2012), the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s finding that a Plaintiff had no UCL standing against a motorcycle dealer because the motorcycle did not have a ‘hanger-tag’ on the handlebars – loosely, the motorcycle equivalent of a “Monrone sticker” -- under Vehicle Code section 11712.5 and 24014.… Read More

In Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 688552 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a federal statute (the FDCPA) embedded in Nevada’s state law UDAP statutory claim did not raise a ‘substantial federal question’ sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.    Here, the Complaint raises exclusively state law claims.… Read More

In El-Aheidab v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 2012 WL 506473 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Chen carved out an exception from FCRA pre-emption of the UCL that we had fought so hard to win in the Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank case.   Judge Chen found no impediment to maintaining a UCL claim with an embedded CCRAA claim because Gorman had held that… Read More

In Makreas v. Moore Law Group, A.P.C., 2012 WL 359710 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Chesney found that the Plaintiff stated certain claims against a debt collection attorney, but not against the creditor whose debt the attorney was collecting.  In the context of evaluating a previous Rule 68 offer, the District Court confirmed that the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA penalties are “per… Read More

In Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 WL 6322200 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ CLRA and UCL class action based on the claim that an automobile manufacturer failed to disclose the risk that ignition locks in its Focus vehicles from model years 2000 through 2006 would fail after the warranty expired. The… Read More

In Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc., 2011 WL 2207477 (2011), the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a dealer’s use of non-OEM parts to repair a new vehicle damaged in shipment did not negate the safe harbor of Vehicle Code 9990-1.  In a previous opinion, the Court had held that   In Bourgi I, we… Read More

In Arellano v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2011 WL 1842712 (N.D. Cal. 2011),  Judge Alsup held that the United States Supreme Court meant what it said in Concepcion – state laws can not impose impediments to arbitration lest such laws be preempted. Judge Alsup took the next step beyond Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts any state-law impediment to arbitration… Read More

In Bailey v. Household Finance Corp. of California, 2010 WL 4569950 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Hayes found that a Plaintiff stated a tort claim arising from defendant’s recording of their collection communications, explaining:   Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 630, et seq. by using “a software system that enables [Defendants] to secretly… Read More

In Bankston v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., 2011 WL 89730 (N.D. Cal. 2011), Judge Armstrong rejected a UCL claim based on an allegedly faulty post-repossession NOI letter on the basis that Plaintiff had not met the injury-in-fact prong of the UCL.  With respect to the injury-in-fact requirement, Plaintiff argued that she suffered an injury in two ways: (1) “[h]er payment… Read More

In Watts v. Enhanced Recovery Corp., 2010 WL 4117452 (N.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Koh held that the UCL does not provide standing to a plaintiff hinging the UCL claim on credit reporting problems -- in the absence of the plaintiff being deprived money in which the plaintiff held a property interest. Judge Koh explained: In 2004, California voters limited standing under… Read More

In Janti v. Encore Capital Group, Inc. 2010 WL 3058260 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Sammartino held that the Plaintiff stated a class action claim against a debt collector for allegedly collecting out-of-statute debt.  Judge Sammartino held that the Plaintiff had properly pleaded claims under the FDCPA and UCL, but not the FCRA, explaining that the least sophisticated consumer could have believed… Read More

1 2 3 4