Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.36 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Required Notices from the Debt Collector -- California

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.

California’s 2022 Validation Requirements for Assignees of Delinquent Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

That California legislature last year passed last year SB 531, which became effective July 1, 2022, imposing additional validation requirements on certain debt collectors under the Rosenthal Act.  The bill was designed to do as follows: This bill would require a debt collector to which delinquent debt, as defined and specified, has been assigned to provide to the debtor, upon… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Itemization of Fees as “$0.00” With Language that Fees May Accrue Was Not Deceptive

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Maclean v. Collection Bureau of Am., Ltd., No. 3:20-cv-00426-JLS-DEB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233508 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020), Judge Sammartino dismissed an FDCPA claim based on language in a validation letter regarding fee accrual. Defendant contends that the language included in the collection letter is appropriate and is nearly identical to the language relied on by multiple circuits… Read More

2nd Cir. Says FDCPA Dunning Letter Must State that Fees and Interest Will Accrue Only If Fees and Interest Actually Accrue

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Derosa v. CAC Financial Corp., Case No. 17-3189, 2018 WL 5344906 (2nd Cir. October 29, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in an unpublished decision that a dunning letter is deceptive under the FDCPA for failing to state that interest will and fees will accrue only if, in fact, interest and fees actually will and… Read More

2d Cir. Says FDCPA Not Designed to Reach Every Violation of State Law; Agrees that District Court Properly Denied Class Certification Where Class Received Basically Nothing

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Gallego v. Northland Group Inc., 2016 WL 697383, at *3-4 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2016), the Court of Appeals was called on to review the District Court's denial of class certification in an FDCPA class action.  The Court of Appeals first expounded on whether there was a substantial federal question, because the FDCPA claim was grounded in a violation of state law --… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Debt Collector Could Collect Pre-Judgment Interest without a Judgment and that Rosenthal Act Disclosures Need Not Be on Front Page; But, Finds Inconsistency in Dunning Letter Stating Creditor has “Given you all the extension of time they feel is justified”

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Provo v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego, 2015 WL 3648845, at *2-3 (S.D.Cal.,2015), Judge Miller granted in part and denied in part a debt collector's motion to dismiss an FDCPA plaintiff's claim based on collection of a medical debt. Judge Miller found that the letter did not unlawfully seek to collect prejudgment interest without a judgment. Plaintiffs contend that a debt… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds FDCPA Plaintiff Must Plead by Clear and Convincing Evidence that Plaintiff Did Not Receive Debt Validation Letter

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Smith v. Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., 2014 WL 3695473 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Hayes found that a debtor must plead by clear and convincing evidence that the debtor did not receive a debt validation letter from the debt collector. Congress enacted the FDCPA to “eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting… Read More

Northern District Denies Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion under Foti

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Reed v. Global Acceptance Credit Company, 2008 WL 3330165 (N.D.Cal. 2008), Judge Whyte rejected plaintiff's claim under Foti v. NCO Fin. Systems, Inc. 424 F.Supp.2d 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) and Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs, Inc. 337 F.Supp.2d 1104 (C.D.Cal. 2005) that a debt collector's failure to identify itself as a "debt collector" under 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11) violated that provision.  Here,… Read More