Consumer Finance

In Lewis v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2015 WL 5672650, at *8-9 (M.D.Tenn.,2015), Judge Haynes granted summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant on the basis that mere volume of collection calls, without more, did not constitute harassment. Defendant called Plaintiff only nineteen times after May 1, 2012. (Docket Entry No. 37–3 at 30–32). Although Plaintiff disagrees “wholeheartedly” with Defendant's phone records,… Read More

In Camacho v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, 2015 WL 5569082 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Freeman granted an FDCPA Plaintiff's summary judgment motion despite the Defendant's claim of bona fide error protection. According to Defendant, the collection letters sent to Plaintiff actually contained two violations of the FDCPA and RFDCPA. The first violation resulted from Defendant sending a letter directly to Plaintiff in violation… Read More

In Danehy v. Time Warner Cable Enterprise LLC, 2015 WL 5534285, at *2-3 (E.D.N.C.,2015), Judge Flanagan adopted a Magistrate's ruling on summary judgment in favor of a TCPA defendant. In his objections, plaintiff takes issue with the magistrate judge's determination that SkyCreek did not utilize an ATDS when making calls to plaintiff's telephone. The court does not reach the merits of… Read More

In Martha A. McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, et al., 2015 WL 5561297, at *4-6 (D.Ariz., 2015), the District Court analyzed how to apply the FDCPA statute of limitations to violations that continue over time. The Supreme Court has adopted a different approach, however, for hostile work environment claims under Title VII. It has explained that such claims: "are different… Read More

In Walker v. Credit Protection Ass'n, LP, 2015 WL 5522000, at *3-4 (M.D.Fla.,2015), Judge Sneed refused a TCPA Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a site inspection of the Defendant's call center and telephone system. Specifically, the Notice of Site Inspection requested "[t]hat Defendant permit Plaintiff to enter Defendant's Call Center and to inspect and to photograph, examine Defendant's telephone system and… Read More

In Derby v. AOL, Inc., 2015 WL 5316403, at *4-6 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Whyte dismissed a TCPA claim challenging AOL's AIM and the Plaintiff's receipt of three unsolicited text messages that plaintiff received through defendant's AOL Instant Messenger (“AIM”) service, and a confirmation text from AOL to plaintiff following plaintiff's request to block future messages from AIM.  Judge White found that a… Read More

In McKenna v. WhisperText, 2015 WL 5264750, at *1 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Grewal dismissed Plaintiff's TCPA class action because no TCPA was used. The facts were as follows: Defendants WhisperText, LLC, and WhisperText, Inc. operate an anonymous sharing service called Whisper. The idea is to allow users to share their ideas, hopes and fears without attribution. Like many services accessed primarily… Read More

In Clark v. C.I.R., 2015 WL 5243760, at *2 (U.S.Tax Ct.,2015), Judge Cohen held that an automobile finance company's charge-off of a post-repossession deficiency was taxable income to a debtor.  The facts were as follows, and were not uncommon. Petitioner resided in California when she filed her petition.  On December 22, 1999, petitioner entered into a retail installment contract with an… Read More

In Peters v. Credit Protection Association, 2015 WL 5216709, at *5-6 (S.D.Ohio, 2015), Judge Marbley found that a TCPA Class Action defendant's Rule 68 offer was inadequate and did not moot the class action anyway.  And, Judge Marbley refused to stay the case pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's case in Campbell-Ewald.  Such is a merits-based argument regarding the type of relief… Read More

In Watkins v. Synchrony Bank, 2015 WL 5178134, at *3-4 (M.D.Pa.,2015), Judge Brann declined hear a counter-claim filed in response to a TCPA claim. Applying the “logical relationship” test to the instant counterclaim, this Court finds that Defendant's breach of contract claim is not logically related to Plaintiff's federal TCPA claim. This conclusion is reached based on an analysis of case… Read More

In Wasvary v. WB Holdings, LLC, 2015 WL 5161370, at *6-7 (E.D.Mich., 2015) , Judge Cox found that a TCPA class action plaintiff could not avoid a Rule 68 "pick-off" offer by filing a premature, pre-emptive Motion for Class Certification. In cases involving statutory damages that are small in amount, like TCPA cases, Defendants often attempt to “pick off” the named… Read More

In Ossola v. American Express Company, 2015 WL 5158712 (N.D. Ill. 2015), Judge Cole found that a TCPA plaintiff, whose liability theory against a Defendant proceeded solely based on vicarious liability, was not entitled to "call data" from that Defendant because it was irrelevant since since that Defendant did not place any calls.  Instead, the discovery appeared to be improperly tailored… Read More

In Prosser v. Navient Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 5168635 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Conti found that a student loan lender conducted a reasonable re-investigation under FCRA after the Plaintiff claimed to be a victim of identity theft. Parties agree that there is only a private right of action to pursue claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b), under §§ 1681n &… Read More

In Yaakov v. Varitronics, LLC, 2015 WL 5092501, at *1 (D.Minn.,2015), Judge Montgomery stayed a TCPA-fax class action pending the outcome of the SCOTUS' decision in Campbell-Ewald.  The facts were as follows. This putative class action stems from eight unsolicited fax advertisements Bais Yaakov received between November 2013 and February 2014. See Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶ 10; Ex. A (the “Fax… Read More

In Blair v. CBE Group, Inc. 2015 WL 5086375 (S.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Anello denied certification of a TCPA class defined as "Skip Trace Class: All persons within the United States to whom CBE placed a call to a cellular telephone at a number that CBE did not obtain either prior express consent from the debtor, and that call was made using… Read More

In Soular v. Northern Tier Energy LP, 2015 WL 5024786, at *8-9 (D.Minn.,2015), Judge Nelson denied a Motion to Dismiss because the matters raised by the Defendant regarding an ATDS and consent were outside the pleadings.  That discussion of the case won't be otherwise summarized here.  But, Judge Nelson denied the Defendant's Motion to Strike, finding both that it was… Read More

In Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., 2015 WL 5047611 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2015), the California Court of Appeal found that a car dealer who lost at trial nevertheless was not responsible for $171k in attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff because the dealer had offered full relief in response to the 30-day CLRA letter at the inception of the… Read More

August 25, 2015 2015 Marks the 70th Anniversary of Severson & Werson “To be trusted as “Counselor” to our clients - that is what it's all about.” James B. Werson We at Severson & Werson are both proud and humbled to celebrate our 70th Anniversary as a firm of Counselors at Law - providing consistent, reliable, unwavering support to those… Read More

In Gaza v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., 2015 WL 5009741, at *4 (M.D.Fla.,2015), Judge Moody granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant whose calls were only dialed manually. With respect to the ATDS definition, the FCC, in its July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order noted: "We reaffirm our previous statements that dialing equipment generally has the capacity to store… Read More

In Huricks v. Shopkick, Inc., 2015 WL 5013299, at *1 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Chesney granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant based on the FCC's 2015 order. In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), plaintiffs allege that Shopkick “operates a shopping application for Apple and Android devices that urges consumers to purchase retail goods for sale close to… Read More