Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

unconscionability

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 Eileen J. Dalton v. Santander Consumer Usa, Inc., 2016 WL 5266621, at *6 (N.M., 2016), the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected an unconscionability challenge to an arbitration clause in the standard form RISC. "The self-help and small claims carve-out provisions in the arbitration clause of the finance contracts are not substantively unconscionable. Therefore, Dalton did not satisfy her burden… Read More

Today, the CFPB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to consumer arbitration, here:  CFPB_Arbitration_Agreements_Notice_of_Proposed_Rulemaking.  The CFPB's press release is here:  CFPB Press Release. The CFPB proposal is seeking comment on a proposal to prohibit companies from putting mandatory arbitration clauses in new contracts that prevent class action lawsuits. The proposal would open up the legal system to consumers… Read More

In Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc., 2016 WL 142216, at *9-10 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal addressed Plaintiff's continued post-Sanchez fight against arbitration, finding that the standard form RISC was not unconscionable.  The Court of Appeal also found that that the Defendant's litigation conduct did not waive the right to assert it. We conclude Goodridge has not… Read More

In Trabert v. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., 2015 WL 9271437, at *6-8 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2015) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal addressed for the third time whether an arbitration clause in a standard form RISC was unconscionable.  The Court of Appeal addressed the consumer's argument that Sanchez was distinguishable where cheaper cars purchased by poorer consumers was involved.  The Court of Appeal… Read More

In Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc., 2015 WL 7301781, at *5 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2015) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal found the RISC arb. clause not to be unconscionable.  What's interesting about the opinion is what to do with the class action allegations in granting the petition to arbitration.  The Court of Appeal found that the trial court properly… Read More

In Gillespie v. Svale Del Grande, Inc., 2015 WL 7307139, at *5-6 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., 2015) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal issued a lengthy opinion after remand from the Supreme Court in Sanchez that the Arbitration clause was enforceable.  The Court rejected the argument that neither the Arbitration Clause's choice of law or poison-pill provisions negated FAA pre-emption. The California Supreme Court disagreed… Read More

In Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., 2015 WL 7302268 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2015), the California Court of Appeal found a TCPA/Call Recording case to be within the scope of an enforceable arbitration clause:= We conclude that Brinkley's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement is enforceable, with the exception of one provision… Read More

In Ramos v. Westlake Services LLC, 2015 WL 6605215, at *4 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2015), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision affirmed the denial of a petition to arbitrate because, apparently, the dealer gave the customer the wrong translated form of the RISC -- one without an arbitration clause.  "[T]he trial court found that while he had received a… Read More

Today, the California Supreme Court handed car dealers and auto finance companies an important victory, upholding the arbitration clause in the standard form automobile purchase contract used by most dealers in the Golden State.  (Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC. (S199119; Aug. 3, 2015).)  A copy of the California Supreme Court's decision can be found here.  The California Supreme Court… Read More

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sanchez (Gil) v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119. (B228027; 201 Cal.App.4th 74; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC433634) on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempts state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions… Read More

1 2 3 5