On February 3, 2023, Judge Sykes of the Central District of California denied Goodyear's motion to transfer venue and its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CIPA claim. Byars v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 522CV01358SSSKKX, 2023 WL 1788553 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023). On the motion to transfer venue, the Court held: Where the internet contract falls into the browsewrap… Read More
In Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. 22-431-cv, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3370, at *1-4 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA claim based on allegations that the attorney did not have meaningful involvement in reviewing the debt. As relevant here, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from making… Read More
In Fierro v. Capital One, N.A., No. 22-cv-00493-BAS-BLM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25253, at *6-9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2023), Judge Bashant allowed a UCC claim to proceed for a "totaled" vehicle, despite no "disposition" of it. In dismissing Plaintiff's first attempt to raise a claim under California's Commercial Code, the Court expressed doubt that Plaintiff could plead a violation… Read More
In Barton v. Delfgauw, No. 3:21-cv-05610-JRC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21804, at *11-14 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2023), Judge Creatura allowed a TCPA claim to proceed for standing purposes despite a defendant's arguments that the claims were manufactured and that the Plaintiff suffered no invasion of privacy. Defendants also argue that plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring this TCPA… Read More
In Moore v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. 1:21-cv-20481-KMM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20201, at *4-9 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023), Judge Moore dismissed an FDCPA/FCRA class action grounded on a debt collection firm's filing a pleading that included Plaintiff's unredacted credit score. Judge Moore found no FCRA violation. Courts have routinely held that debt collectors may obtain and use a… Read More
In Pedregon v. Titlemax of N.M., No. A-1-CA-39466, 2023 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 24, at *3-6 (Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2023), the New Mexico Court of Appeal refused to enforce an automobile title lender's arbitration clause. We first review the district court's determination that the arbitration agreement was presumptively unconscionable—on its face—based upon the unfairness of the terms contained therein.… Read More
In Schaired v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 22-cv-0736-BAS-MDD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12339, at *18-22 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023), Judge Bashant denied leave to amend to add a theory that a debt collector's subsequent communications did not say, "This communication is from a debt collector" but, instead, said, "This is an attempt to collect a debt.". So, some… Read More
In December 2022, in People vs. Capital One (L.A. Sup. 22STCV36914),California's Debt Collection Task Force entered into a settlement with Capital One, obligating Capital One to pay a civil money penalty of $1.45 million, $300,000 in investigative costs, and $250,000 in restitution arising out alleged call-frequency and cease-and-desist violations. The Capital One settlement includes a specific requirement that Capital One… Read More
In Mollaei v. Otonomo, Inc., Judge Thompson found that a vehicle's TCU did not constitute an "Electronic Tracking Device" because it was not "attached' to the vehicle and tracked the location only of the vehicle, and not the 'person', within the meaning of Penal Code 637.7. Penal Code 637.7 provides that (a) No person or entity in this state shall… Read More
In Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. H049860, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 22 (Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023), the California Court of Appeal found that the Rosenthal Act incorporated the federal FDCPA’s materiality standard, and affirmed an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a debt collector. Whether the nature of the relationship between OneMain Financial and OneMain Financial Issuance Trust is… Read More
In Mader v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., Nos. 20-3073, 21-2171, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 79, at *11-17 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2023), the Court of Appeals found that pure legal disputes cannot form the basis for an "inaccuracy" under the FCRA. The Court of Appeals summarized the issue as follows: The district court assumed that the kind of inaccuracy alleged… Read More
In Bank v. Icot Holdings, No. 18-CV-02554 (AMD)(PK), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 676, at *15-19 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2023), Judge Kuo denied class certification in a TCPA class based on ascertainability grounds. The Plaintiff's claim sounded as a "customary user" of a cell phone for which his mother was the subscriber and had been a member of a previous class… Read More
OneTrust Data Guidance, a global leader in privacy and data protection, published an article today authored by Severson shareholders Genevieve Walser-Jolly and Scott Hyman on the proportionality doctrine under the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") and the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"). Specifically, the CPRA amended the CCPA to provide additional consumer regarding their data, but a company should not… Read More
In Samson v. United Healthcare Servs. Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00175, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229000, at *2-4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 20, 2022), Judge Pechman lifted her previous stay of the case. The procedural history is as follows: Plaintiff Frantz Samson filed this suit against Defendant, United Healthcare Services ("United"), in 2019 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47… Read More
In Brickman v. United States, No. 21-16785, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35286, at *4-6 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022), the Court of Appeals found no ATDS was used, and found no basis to distinguish its Borden decision. This case arises from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Colin R. Brickman's class-action claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.… Read More
On May 20, 2022, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PRO 03-21) to adopt Article 5, including sections 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, and 1075 of Title 10, Chapter 3, Subchapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations, to implement, interpret, and make specific Financial Code section 90008 of the California Consumer Financial… Read More
In Weisbein v. Allergan, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-00801-SSS-ADSx, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217844, at *4-7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2022), Judge Sykes granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant in text message class action. The crux of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendants sent automated text messages that violated the TCPA, specifically § 227(b)(1)(A) of the TCPA, which prohibits calls made using… Read More
In Frengel v. McLaren Auto., Inc., No. 3:22-cv-0664 W (RBB), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220983, at *7-9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2022), Judge Whelan dismissed, with leave to amend, a Song-Beverly claim because the vehicle was not leased in California, despite Plaintiff's claims that it was delivered to them in California. The Court finds that the Lease Agreement can be… Read More
In Sanders v. Am. Coradius Int'l LLC, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-2652 (JXN)(CLW), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214456, at *10-11 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2022), Judge Neals confirms that 15 USC 1692f's "catch-all" provision cannot be used as a fallback for conduct that already is regulated by other provisions of the FDCPA, such as call frequency and dunning letter disclosures. Plaintiff alleges… Read More
In Ringenbach v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 4:21 CV 1400 CDP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214026, at *2-4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2022), Judge Perry denied a debt collector's motion to compel discovery of settlements with other co-defendants because she held that offset is not an affirmative defense under the FCRA/FDCPA. I.C. System's motions will be denied as it cites no… Read More
