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 Caw v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 30567 (W.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Gaitan found no telephonic harassment for 35 calls in a  year and 100 calls in 10 years.  “A non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct includes, “causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at… Read More

In Travers v. Collecto, Inc., 2013 WL 65452 (D.Mass. 2013), Judge O'Toole found that a voicemail message left for the debtor at a phone number/residence with which he was no longer associated stated a claim under the FDCPA. EOS does not challenge that the automated messages where communications about a debt made to a third party. Rather, EOS asks this Court to… Read More

In Dabney v. Total Relocation Services, LLC, Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL 68727 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2013), the New Jersey appellate court found, in an unpublished decision, complete preemption of common defamation claims by FCRA. Having canvassed the vast array of judicial opinions dealing with FCRA preemption, we conclude that the straight forward total preemption approach of these courts of appeal is most… Read More

In Katzakian v. Collectibles Management Resources, 2013 WL 57712 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O'Neill found that an FDCPA Plaintiff failed to state a claim for harassment under 1692d for continuing to collect after a dispute when the debt collector complied with post-dispute debt validation under 1692g. CMR summarizes that section 1692g(b) authorizes continued debt collection unless a consumer disputes in writing during the… Read More

In Mortimer v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 57856 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Spero rejected a FCRA plaintiff's complaints about a creditor's reporting of his account through and after bankruptcy, but allowed leave to amend as to Plaintiff's CCRAA and UCL claims. Several courts, including two in this district involving closely analogous factual situations, have held that reports, after discharge, of delinquencies… Read More

In Natalani v. Import Motors, Inc., 2013 WL 64611 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2013), the First District Court of Appeal found in an unpublished decision that the arbitration clause in a standard-form automobile RISC to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the dealer's petition to arbitrate. Appellant contends that Concepcion broadly restricts the application of the… Read More

In Simonyan v. Ally Financial Inc., 2013 WL 45453 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Walter required a Plaintiff -- one of a number of Plaintiffs who've sued multiple creditors in the Central District on bald factual FCRA allegations -- must plead more. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court held that “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements… Read More

In Kleiman v. Equable Ascent, 2013 WL 49754 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Snyder allowed an FDCPA-telephonic harassment claim to proceed as adequately pleaded. Defendant's argument that plaintiff must allege the exact time debt collection phone calls occurred and the names of the individuals who made the calls appears to rest on the mistaken assumption that the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule… Read More

In Robles v. Ally Bank, 2013 WL 28773 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Battaglia found, in an FDCPA harassment case, that a cross-complaint for the debt was permissive and that there was supplemental jurisdiction to hear it.  Judge Battaglia, however, declined to exercise that jurisdiction. Although the Ninth Circuit has not specifically addressed “whether a counterclaim for the underlying debt in an FDCPA… Read More

In LaRocque ex rel. Spang v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc. 2013 WL 30055 (D.Me. 2013), Judge Hornby declined to expand a state-wide class action into a federal one to protect the FDCPA defendant against multiple $500,000 penalties under the Act. The defendants' central premise is that the Maine-limited scope of Class One “circumvent[s] the statutory cap on damages set forth in the… Read More

In Mudgett v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 2012 WL 870758 (E.D.Wis. 2012), Judge Edelman held that manually placing a call from a telephone connected to an ATDS did not trigger the TCPA. Mudgett's second argument is based on language of the TCPA that defines “automatic telephone dialing system” as equipment that has the capacity to autodial. See 47 U.S.C. §… Read More

In Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans et al., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2012 WL 6216039 (2012), the Court of Appeal for the First District found a trustee’s action in a non-judicial foreclosure to be exempt from the FDCPA, rejected arguments apparently advocated by the CFPB in other cases. Allen Pfeifer (Allen) and Florence A. Pfeifer (Florence), a son and his mother… Read More

In Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 6684748 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a post-trial petition to enforce arbitration, and found partial pre-emption of the UCL to the extent it conflicted with the business of banking in how a bank applies and computes overdraft fees.  The Court of Appeals… Read More

On December 28, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Services, 2012 WL 6720599  (9th Cir. 2012) denied rehearing of its previous opinion, but amended its opinion in the manner industry requested in its Amicus brief.  (weblog post regarding decision: http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=3193); industry support for re-hearing: http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=3393)) Specifically, industry asked the Court of Appeals to… Read More

In Balthazor v. Central Credit Services, Inc., 2012 WL 6725872 (S.D.Fla. 2012), Judge Cohn denied certification of a TCPA class action, finding the issue of consent to be too individualized. The Court finds the reasoning of Hicks and Gene & Gene, LLC persuasive. Resolution of each putative class member's TCPA claim would necessarily involve an individual assessment of whether each… Read More

In Robinson v. Point One Toyota, Evanston --- N.E.2d ----, 2012 IL App (1st) 111889, 2012 WL 6725904 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2012), the Illinois Court of Appeal found that an automobile lease complied with Regulation M: [The Plaintiffs] maintain that, as a matter of law, their lease agreements violated the disclosure requirements of the CLR and Regulation M in that default… Read More

In Norton v. Ford of Santa Monica et al., 2012 WL 6721400 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2012), the Court of Appeal for the Second District, found in an unpublished decision that an automobile RISC's arbitration was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. As to procedural unconscionability, the Court of Appeal found: The vehicle purchase contract contains elements of surprise. Placement of the arbitration agreement… Read More

In Decohen v. Capital One, N.A. --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 6685767 (4th Cir. 2012), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found no NBA/OCC pre-emption of Maryland's debt cancellation agreement laws as related to an automobile RISC where the National Bank was an assignee as opposed to the original lender.   But, the Court of Appeals went farther, too, find no… Read More

1 113 114 115 116 117 154