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 Jewsevskyj v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., --- Fed.Appx. ----2017 WL 2992499 (3rd Cir. July 14, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected an FDCPA class action that was based on the contention that FDCPA notices were given in too-small of a font. Here, although the format is compressed and the font is small, our inquiry focuses on whether… Read More

In Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 15 C 4498, 2017 WL 2973441 (N.D. Ill, July 12, 2017), Judge Kennelly awarded $43k in attorneys' fees following settlement of an FDCPA case. Katherine Evans sued Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 USC 1692e, by sharing Evans's credit information with a credit reporting agency without… Read More

In Balogun v. Winn Law Group, APC, et. al., No. SA CV 17-0796-DOC (JCGx), 2017 WL 2984075 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017), Judge Carter dismissed an FDCPA lawsuit premised on a creditor obtaining a judgment in another state and domesticating that judgment in California. First, Plaintiff alleges that the Delaware default judgment was improper because Delaware was not a proper venue for… Read More

In Caruso v. Merchant's Credit, 2017 WL 2972415, at *3 (S.D.Cal., 2017), the District Court found limited standing for a TCPA plaintiff. Further, although unwanted telephone calls can create an actual, albeit intangible, injury sufficient to constitute standing, unwanted telephone calls to a relative—even a mother—do not. See Olney v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1225… Read More

In Contreras v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2017 WL 2964012, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Corley held that discrete abusive acts were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine. The FDCPA also prohibits “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 the called number.”… Read More

In Wick v. Twilio, Inc., 2017 WL 2964855, at *4 (W.D.Wash., 2017), Judge Laznik found that Twilio might have used an ATDS, if it was Twilio who placed the call. Contrary to Twilio's argument, the FCC has not created a blanket rule immunizing from TCPA liability cloud-based service providers that transmit third-party content. Rather, the totality of the facts and… Read More

In Demay v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2017 WL 2954629, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Gilliam dismissed an FCRA Plaintiff's class action based on accessing consumer reports after receiving a bankruptcy discharge. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo lacked a permissible purpose for accessing their credit reports after their bankruptcy discharge. FAC ¶ 31. According to Plaintiffs, the discharge eliminated… Read More

In Ritchie v. Lease Finance Group, LLC, et. al., 2017 WL 2963462, at *2 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that it was the substance of the reinvestigation, not the time spent on it, that matters under the FCRA. Ritchie argues that when Experian notified defendants that Ritchie's signature was disputed, FCRA required them… Read More

In Group One Development, Inc., v. Bankof Lake Mills, et. al. 2017 WL 2937709, at *3 (S.D.Tex., 2017), Judge Lake held that a commercial debt did not trigger the FDCPA. Plaintiffs allege that they are “consumers” and that defendant Fora is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA. Fora argues, however, that the debt at issue is not a “debt”… Read More

Well, they didn't actually use the word "devastation".  In Susinno v. Work out World, Inc., 2017 WL 2925432, at *4 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that: Traditionally, a plaintiff's “privacy is invaded” for the purpose of an intrusion upon seclusion claim by telephone calls “only when [such] calls are repeated with such persistence… Read More

In Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC. v. ASD Speciality Healthcare, Inc. d/b/a/ Besse Medical AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group., Inc.,  2017 WL 2953039, at *8–11 (C.A.6 (Ohio), 2017), the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class certification in a TCPA class action. To be sure, courts have been inconsistent in how they have accounted for difficulties in identifying class members, especially within the… Read More

In Slovin v. Sunrun, Inc., 2017 WL 2902902, at *4 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Rogers declared a Rule 68 offer to TCPA class representatives invalid because to let it stand until the end of the litigation created a conflict between the class representative and the putative class. The Court finds that the individual plaintiffs could not accept the Offer without jeopardizing their… Read More

In Gebhardt v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., 2017 WL 2562106, at *2–3 (D.N.J., 2017), Judge Cooper granted summary judgment for a debt collector who called the debtor after "receiving" a notice of representation letter from the debtor's counsel. The sole contention between the parties, and the only question for us to resolve with this count, is whether Defendant had the… Read More

In St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc., 2017 WL 2861878 (E.D. Mo. 2017), Judge Perry found ascertainability problems in certifying a TCPA blast-fax class. As discussed in my prior Memorandum and Order of February 7, 2017, the Eighth Circuit addressed a class action similar to this one in Sandusky, which also involved violations of the… Read More

In Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC, 2017 WL 2861671 (E.D. Mo. 2017), Judge Webber held that there could be due process limitations on the amount of damages recoverable in a TCPA class action. In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Damages [ECF No. 239], Plaintiffs ask the Court to determine the amount of damages to be… Read More

In Clayton v. Ford Motor Company, 2017 WL 2859628 (4th Dist., Div. 2 2017) (unpublished), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's cut of a consumer's attorney fee request in a Song-Beverly case, finding that the trial court properly set the consumer lawyers' rate at $275/hour and reduced the fee claim for work done on matters for which… Read More

In Daubert v. NRA Group., LLC, 2017 WL 2836808, at *4–5 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a medical debt servicer did not meet its burden of demonstrating that it or its assignor received consent. The Sixth Circuit found prior express consent where the plaintiffs gave their cell numbers to a hospital-intermediary in… Read More

In Owens v. Starion Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 2838075, at *8–9 (D.Conn., 2017), Judge Bolden refused to strike an attorneys' fee prayer from a TCPA class action. In Bell v. Survey Sampling International, LLC, a TCPA case, this Court rejected a similar motion to strike the plaintiff's reference to attorney's fees. Id. The Court in Bell stated as follows:  "[The… Read More

In Schlusselberg v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC., 2017 WL 2812884, at *3–4 (D.N.J., 2017), Judge Wolfson granted summary judgment to a debt collector by means of LiveVox's HCI. Here, Defendant argues that LiveVox's HCI system is not by definition an ATDS under the TCPA. Defendant reasons that because HCI specifically integrates human intervention, the system does not possess the automated… Read More

1 54 55 56 57 58 154