Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Consumer Finance

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 Meyer v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, 2014 WL 1744284 (W.D.Wash. 2014), Judge Jones denied to stay a TCPA action based on the primary jurisdiction argument, denied Plaintiff’s motion for discovery as to dialer-lists, and denied Plaintiff’s request to delay filing a Motion for Class Certification. The District Court declined to stay the Action based on the Primary Jurisdiction argument.… Read More

In Masuda v. Citibank, N.A., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 1759580 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Hamilton allowed a Rosenthal Act and Intrusion on Seclusion claim to proceed by a third party who was not the debtor (but was alleged to be). Citibank contends that the first cause of action fails to state a claim because Masuda has not alleged facts showing… Read More

In Dayhoff v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (M.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 466151, Judge Dalton found that collection on a promissory note was a permissive counter-claim to a Plaintiff’s TCPA claim, and, therefore, the District Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over the collection claim. Here, the Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s TCPA claim. Mims… Read More

In Mega RV Corporation v. HWH Corporation, 2014 WL 1691371 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), here, the California Court of Appeal held that the Song Beverly Act does not apply to component part manufactures unless they gave an express warranty.    Civ. Code section 1792, part of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, provides that every retail sale of consumer goods is accompanied… Read More

In Hunt v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 2014 WL 1664288 (N.D.Ala. 2014), Judge Acker allowed Plaintiff’s TCPA expert Robert Biggerstaff to offer opinion testimony that the Defendant did not manually dial the calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. Judge Acker’s decision was flavored by the fact that the Defendant installed a new dialer system within days after Plaintiff’s counsel’s wife filed the… Read More

In Elkins v. Melco Health Solutions, Inc., here, Judge Adelman found no TCPA violations for calls to a consumer about her health care prescriptions and/or needs. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s TCPA claim is barred because she gave her express prior consent to be called at the number she provided when she gave that number at the time of enrollment as… Read More

In Strobel v. RJM Acquisitions, Inc, here, Judge Seybert found that a debt collector’s reference to it’s A+ rating with the BBB was not a deceptive or unfair act under the FDCPA. Here, Plaintiff argues that the Letter’s inclusion of an A† rating from the BBB bolsters Defendant’s reputation and decreases the likelihood that the least sophisticated consumer would question… Read More

In Andersen v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 2014 WL 1600575 (E.D.Wis. 2014), Judge Stadtmeuller found that a TCPA defendant met its burden of proof of demonstrating that the Plaintiff provided express consent to be called on his cellular telephone, and rejected the Plaintiff’s self-serving ambiguous evidence to the contrary. As mentioned above, H & H cannot have violated the TCPA… Read More

In Grochowski v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 2014 WL 1516586 (W.D.Wash. 2014), Judge Zilly addressed the impact of a “charge-off” on a creditor and debt collector’s right to collect the contractual rate and the state pre-judgment interest rate. Plaintiff contends that, in “charging off” plaintiff's debt, Capital One waived its right to collect interest at the contractual rate and, as… Read More

In Swelnis v. Universal Fidelity L.P., 2014 WL 1571323 (N.D.Ind. 2014), Judge Cherry addressed discovery in an FDCPA class action.  First, Judge Cherry required disclosure of “Training Materials”: Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 9 and Document Request Nos. 4–6, 8, and 11 each seek infor-mation—specifically: training manuals and other relevant documents—that relate to Defendants' Af-firmative Defense of bona fide error. Defendants objected… Read More

In Gillespie v. Svale Del Grande, Inc., 2014 WL 1509813 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2014), the Sixth District Court of Appeal found that Concepcion trumped the CLRA’s anti-class action waiver, but remanded the matter to the superior court to determine whether other unconscionable provisions could be severed. In this case, pursuant to Concepcion, supra, 131 S.Ct. 1740, we determine that the… Read More

In Lamont v. Furniture North, LLC, 2014 WL 1453750 (D.N.H. 2014), Judge McCafferty found that a Husband, whose wife had provided his cellular telephone number in connection with a purchase transaction, still stated a claim under the TCPA because the husband had not given prior express consent to be called on his cellular telephone number. Except where otherwise indicated, the… Read More

In Heinrichs v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Alsup stayed a TCPA class action based on the Primary Jurisdiction of the FCC and its intention to rule on pending petitions relating to the issues raised by the 7th Circuit's Soppet decision and the 11th Circuit's Osorio decision. A copy of Judge Alsup's Order is here.  The Plaintiff had argued that there… Read More

In Cox v. Community Loans of America, Inc., 2014 WL 1216511 (M.D.Ga. 2013), Judge Land found that a private right of action existed against a vehicle title-loan company under the Military Lending Act, and found that class certification would be appropriate for charging loans that exceed the MLA’s 36% limit. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of active duty military… Read More

In Sojka v. DirectBuy, Inc., 2014 WL 1304234 (N.D.Ill. 2014), Judge Feinerman found a TCPA class action adequately pleaded.  The facts were as follows: In this consolidated suit, Stephanie Sojka, Daniel Hartowicz, and Kenyatta Gilliam, on behalf of three putative classes, and Mark Sojka, individually, allege that DirectBuy, Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227… Read More

In Little v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2014 WL 1400660 (D.Kan. 2014), Judge Martin denied in part and granted in part a debt collector’s Motion to Dismiss an FDCPA claim based upon call frequency.  Judge Marten detailed the law on the number of calls permitted and/or permitted per day, and found that, at the Motion to Dismiss stage, the Plaintiff… Read More

In Matlock v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., 2014 WL 1155541 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Englund stayed a TCPA case based on the Primary Jurisdiction argument in a wrong-party TCPA case. The crux of Plaintiff's complaint is that Defendant violated the TCPA when it initiated calls to his cell phone without his consent. Defendant purportedly nonetheless had the consent of the prior… Read More

In Imburgia v. DIRECTV, Inc.--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 1347748 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal found that an arbitration clause that determined enforceability of a class action waiver by reference to state law was not inconsistent with Concepcion, and found the class action waiver prohibited by the CLRA. In addition to stating that the parties waive their rights… Read More

In Gusman v. Comcast Corp. 2014 WL 1340192 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Judge Bartik issued orders on discovery rulings in a TCPA class action. The facts were as follows. Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on May 2, 2013 by filing a complaint alleging that Comcast violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (ECF No.… Read More

1 98 99 100 101 102 154