Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Uncategorized

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 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 Danehy v. Time Warner Cable Enterprise LLC, 2015 WL 5534285, at *2-3 (E.D.N.C.,2015), Judge Flanagan adopted a Magistrate's ruling on summary judgment in favor of a TCPA defendant. In his objections, plaintiff takes issue with the magistrate judge's determination that SkyCreek did not utilize an ATDS when making calls to plaintiff's telephone. The court does not reach the merits of… Read More

In Marcotte v. Bank of America, 2015 WL 2184369 (S.D. Tex. 2015), Judge Rosenthal found that an FDCPA Plaintiff failed to state a claim against a credit card issuer under the FDCPA’s “false-name” exception so as to trigger the Act against a creditor. The false name exception does not apply in this case. The billing statement from Barclays that the… Read More

In Hernandez v. W.R. Thomas, Inc., 2015 WL 112799 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2015), the Court of Appeal found in an unpublished decision that a consumer failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the arbitration clause found in the standard for automobile RISC was unconscionable. After considering these submissions, the court issued an order scheduling an evidentiary hearing “on the limited issue… Read More

In two cases from the Northern District of California, Le v. Sunlan corporation, 2014 WL 296032 (N.D.Cal. 2014)and Skinner v. Mountain Lion Acquisitions, et. al., 2014 WL 314425 (N.D.Cal.), borrowers brought a suit alleging FDCPA violations and malicious prosecution against debt buyers.  The two debt buyers purchased the borrowers’ payday loans from the originating lender, and subsequently sued to collect… Read More

In Le v. Sunlan Corporation, 2014 WL 296032 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Breyer awarded over $47,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to a Debt Buyer who had to defend an FDCPA claim grounded on a claim that Financial Code section 22340 (which applies to real estate backed loans) prohibited the sale of a CashCall loan.  "The Court will not revisit its holding that section… Read More

In Bradley v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.--- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 23738 (11th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that charging a percentage-based collection fee violates the FDCPA unless the instrument creating the obligation allowed it: Section 1692f prohibits unfair or unconscionable means of collection. Subsection (1) of this section specifically prohibits “collection of any amount… Read More

In Green v. Creditor Iustus Remedium, LLP, 2013 WL 6000967 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O'Neill denied a debt collection law firm's Motion to Dismiss, finding the Plaintiff's Complaint to adequately state a claim under the Rosenthal Act.  First, Judge O'Neill found Plaintiff's harassment claim adequately pleaded. Defendant next argues that Plaintiff's factual allegations are insufficient to “prove the allegations of his complaint.” Doc.… Read More

"The way in which proposed rules might define “collectors” would be critical to determining the scope of the proposed rules. The Bureau is especially interested in information bearing on whether a rule under the Dodd-Frank Act would be useful to protect consumers from the conduct of creditors collecting in their own names on debts arising out of consumer credit transactions." … Read More

1 2 3 4