Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Financial Services

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker 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.

The Rosenthal FDCPA (Civ. Code 1788.15(a))  forbids collecting consumer debt by judicial proceedings when the collector knows that service of process, if necessary to establish personal jurisdiction, was not properly effected.  This decision holds that the absolute litigation privilege does not apply to immunize the debt collector from liability under the cited section, which is more specific that Civ. Code… Read More

This decision holds that usury savings clauses are unenforceable as against public policy except when the loan agreement would otherwise violate usury restrictions only due to some unanticipated post-agreement event.  A usury savings clause is a provision stating that if the loan agreement would otherwise require payment of usurious interest, it is to be construed to charge only the maximum… Read More

Under Civ. Code 1943, an agreement to rent or lease real property is presumed to be month-to-month unless stated otherwise in writing, except that for real property used for agricultural or grazing purposes, the presumed term is year-to-year unless otherwise expressed in the rental agreement or lease.  Here, assuming arguendo that a cannabis grower (of plants in pots set on… Read More

Reversing an Anti-SLAPP order striking plaintiff's complaint, this decision holds that Civ. Code 1788.17 incorporates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the strict liability standard of 15 USC 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt.  Thus, the debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for… Read More

A plaintiff may state a viable CLRA claim based on the defendant's nondisclosure in any of the four circumstances that Limandri allows a fraud claim based on nondisclosure.  Here, plaintiff states a viable CLRA claim based on the defendant hospital's failure to disclose to emergency room patients that it would charge an evaluation and management services fee that could amount… Read More

The district court correctly dismissed this suit, invoking Younger abstention.  Plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant district attorney from prosecuting it in state court for employing a vendor to make harassing collection calls in violation of state law.  The four Younger factors all weighed in favor of abstention.  The state action was ongoing as no proceedings of substance had yet… Read More

Under the 2019 Tenant Protection Act (Civ. Code 1946.2), a landlord may not terminate the tenancy of a tenant who has occupied the premises for more than 12 months absent "just cause."  Under section 1946.2(b)(1)(K), "just cause" includes the tenant failing to move out after having given the landlord written notice of the tenant's intention to terminate the tenancy or… Read More

The trial court correctly granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit because plaintiff could not show a likelihood of prevailing on the claim.  Civ. Code 1788.17 incorporates provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including 15 USC 1692e which forbids false statements in attempts to collect debts and misrepresentation of the… Read More

The trial court correctly granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit because plaintiff could not show a likelihood of prevailing on the claim.  Civ. Code 1788.17 incorporates provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including 15 USC 1692e which forbids false statements in attempts to collect debts and misrepresentation of the… Read More

Neither a doctor nor his medical practice were "debt collectors" within the meaning of the Rosenthal FDCPA, as the doctor and medical practice did not regularly engage in the business of debt collection but instead hire third party billing services to bill and collect for their medical services.  To be regularly engaged in the business of debt collection, a person… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction under the CLRA against defendants continuing to sell puppies which they falsely claimed were healthy but in fact were not and died in many cases within days after sale.  Defendants' main argument on appeal was that the evidence didn't show that they sold the puppies that plaintiffs'… Read More

Civ. Code 1962 requires a residential landlord to give the tenant notice of the name, phone number and street address of each owner and manager of the premises and to update that information if it changes, as by sale of the property to a new owner.  The statute forbids service of a notice to quit or commencement of an unlawful… Read More

Though not limited by US Const. Art. III case or controversy standing requirements, California court apply prudential standing requirements.  Absent a statutory grant of standing to represent the general public, a plaintiff must generally show that he has a beneficial interest in the claim he pursues.  A statute like FCRA that allows for statutory damages that are intended to compensate… Read More

Landlord's taking possession of premises and re-leasing it to a third party did not moot defendant's appeal from denial of its motion to set aside the default judgment in the landlord's unlawful detainer against it.  The appellate court could still grant relief in the form of restitution under CCP 908 either in kind (i.e., restoration of possession) or in money. Read More

Reversing an Anti-SLAPP order striking plaintiff's complaint, this decision holds that Civ. Code 1788.17 incorprates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the strict liability standard of 15 USC 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt.  Thus, the debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for… Read More

Following Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (9th Cir. 2020) 971 F.3d 834, this decision holds that even in a diverity case, a federal court may exercise equitable jurisdiction only if the plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy.  Here, plaintiff's remedies under the UCL were all equitable, and the federal court lacked equitable jurisdiction over them because the CLRA offered the… Read More

Plaintiff stated viable UCL and CLRA claims against Walmart based on its deceptive advertising of its "white baking chips." A reasonable consumer was likely to think, wrongly, that the product contained chocolate because the product was formed into chips that looked like chocolate chips, they were called "white" which could be understood as short for white chocolate, and were placed… Read More

Plaintiff stated viable UCL and CLRA claims against Target based on its deceptive advertising of its "white baking chips."  The product's price tag said "WHT CHOCO" while the product's label didn't clearly say whether the white baking chips contained or did not contain chocolate.  A reasonable consumer could read the price tag and believe that the chocolate chip-like white baking… Read More

LA's COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Ordinance which banned evictions for reasons other than the tenant's fault was not preempted by state law.  A demurrer was properly sustained to the owner's unlawful detainer action which alleged no tenant default but instead claimed the owner wanted to move into the unit himself. Read More

1 2 3 4 10