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 Panzarella v. Navient Sols., Inc., No. 20-2371, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16324, at *11-12 (3d Cir. June 14, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that Navient's dialer was an ATDS, but it's ATDS-capacity was not "used" to call .  As to the ATDS question, the Court of Appeals held: Applying this construction here, we find… Read More

In  Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FAA does not preempt California law insofar as it invalidates a waiver of an employee's right to bring PAGA claims arising out of Labor Code violations that affected the plaintiff employee.  However, the FAA does preempt California law (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014)… Read More

In Mina v. Red Robin Int'l, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-cv-00612-RM-NYW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104423, at *10-16 (D. Colo. June 10, 2022), Judge Wang dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage for absence of an ATDS under Duguid. [Defendant] maintains that Duguid does not foreclose a conclusion that the text messaging program used by Defendants constitutes an autodialer under… Read More

In Moskowitz v. Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B., No. 20-15024, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16016, at *8 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022) Moskowitz argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment for ASB because ASB did not have the consent required under the TCPA to send the responsive text messages to Moskowitz. We have already determined that the type of… Read More

In Barnett v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-337-CHB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104029, at *5-8 (W.D. Ky. June 10, 2022), Judge Boom denied a motion to reconsider a finding that the TCPA defendant's LiveVox system was not an ATDS. In his Motion, Barnett claims that the Court failed to consider FNBO's use of the TWX system in… Read More

In Jackin v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00234-SMJ, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104273, at *5-6 (E.D. Wash. June 10, 2022), Judge Mendoza adopted the Hunstein analysis in determining whether debt collectors can share consumer debt-related information with commercial mail vendors. Upon review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b)… Read More

In United States v. Thompson, No. CR19-159-RSL, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101558, at *3-7 (W.D. Wash. June 7, 2022), Judge Lasnik denied the Government's Motion in Limine to exclude evidence regarding cyber-security vulnerabilities at the corporate victim or other victim entities that are unrelated to the specific vulnerability that defendant allegedly exploited in the case at hand The government moves… Read More

In Williamson v. Irving K Motor Co. LLC, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-1599-L-BH, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101052, at *15-18 (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2022), Judge Ramirez denied a motion to dismiss a TCPA claim brought on the argument that SCOTUS' AAPC rendered the TCPA unenforceable from 2015 to 2020. A small number of district courts, including the Eastern Districts of Texas… Read More

In Thompson v. Exeter Fin. Corp., No. 2021AP219, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 494, at *1-3 (Ct. App. June 8, 2022), the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a consumer who alleged breach of the peace during the course of an attempted repossession. On June 4, 2017, repossession agents attempted to repossess Thompson's car. Thompson's family members protested and told… Read More

In Demesa v. Treasure Island, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02007-JAD-NJK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98511, at *8-9 (D. Nev. June 1, 2022), Judge Dorsey rejected a TCPA Plaintiff's attempted end-around Duguid, where the Plaintiff argued that a standard text message fell within section 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)'s prohibition against using "artificial or prerecorded voice" without consent. DeMesa's alternative theory of liability fares no better.… Read More

In Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC, No. 21-16351, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14951, at *3 (9th Cir. May 31, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "[t]hough written in terms of wiretapping, Section 631(a) applies to Internet communications."   The facts and procedure below were as follows: Assurance is an insurance platform that owns and operates Nationalfamily.com. On this… Read More

On May 27, 20222, the California Privacy Protection Agency issued its first draft of Proposed Regulations under the California Privacy Rights Act.  The rulemaking timeline is unclear but we expect additional information at the upcoming June 8, 2022 board meeting (agenda: https://cppa.ca.gov/meetings/agendas/20220608.pdf).  The Proposed Regulations can be found here https://cppa.ca.gov/meetings/materials/20220608_item3.pdf  High-level topics in the Proposed Regulations include: Restrictions on the Collection… Read More

In Melcher v. Titlemax of Tex., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-46, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95414, at *11-13 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2022), Judge Brown denied a motion to dismiss under the FDCPA filed by a repossession referral agency. MVTrac argues that despite the plaintiffs' allegations, it is neither a debt collector nor a skip-tracing company. Dkt. 29 at 7. Though there… Read More

The DFPI issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the comment period for which closes on July 5, 2022.  The NPR relates to obligating covered persons to implement and maintain a process for consumers to make complaints and for covered persons to respond to them.  The Notice is here (PRO-03-21-Notice-of-Proposed-Rulemaking-5-17-22 and the Proposed Regulations can be found here https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/2022/05/PRO-03-21-Draft-Text-CCFPL-Complaints-5-2-22.pdf In the Statement of… Read More

The California Supreme Court today ruled on whether the FTC Holder Rule caps the amount fees that a prevailing consumer can recover from the holder of a Retail Installment Sales Contract that contains the FTC's "Holder Rule" language in the RISC.  A copy of the Supreme Court's decision in Pulliam v. TD Auto Finance can be found here. Read More

In Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. CashCall, Inc., Nos. 18-55407, 18-55479, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13810, at *23-25 (9th Cir. May 23, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected CashCall's argument that the Native American Tribal Lender, and not CashCall was the true lender for purposes of determining whether state usury law applied. In substance, all of… Read More

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has long held that as part of their investigation obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) are not required to assess the merits of a legal defense to a payment obligation being reported on a consumer credit report. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 891… Read More

In Castorina v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:21-cv-02004 WBS KJN, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83039, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2022), Judge Shubb dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim under Rule 9(b). The heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to claims under the Rosenthal Act when premised on allegations of fraud, and here plaintiff's… Read More

1 9 10 11 12 13 154