Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Charges for Call

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.

District Court (Mo.) Declines to Certify a TCPA/FDCPA Class Because of Predominance of Individual Issues

by Scott J. Hyman |

In O'Connor v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2013 WL 2319342 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Sippel denied class certification in an FDCPA/TCPA case.  Judge Sippel declined to certify an FDCPA ‘overshadowing’ class, finding that individual inquires predominated. However, a debt collector cannot use collection tactics that lead a debtor to believe he does not have any right to challenge the debt. Such a… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Allows TCPA Class Action to Proceed Beyond Pleadings Stage; Finds Use of ATDS Adequately Pleaded and that Plaintiffs Need Not Plead that They Were Charged for Calls

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Blair v. CBE Group Inc., 2013 WL 2029155 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Anello rejected a debt collector’s home-run FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a TCPA class action at the pleadings stage.  First, Judge Anello found that debt collectors such as CBE Group might be subject to the TCPA, and Plaintiff’s Complaint had pleaded enough. Relying on extensive legislative history and… Read More

District Court (Mo.) Finds 65 Calls in 5 Months Not to be Harassment; Holds Matter over for Trial on Consent to Call Cell Phone under TCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Moore v. CCB Credit Services, Inc., 2013 WL 211048 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Sippel found no actionable FDCPA harassment, but held the matter over for trial on the issue of consent and charges for calls under the TCPA.  The District Court found that the number of calls did not amount to actionable harassment: It is undisputed that CCB made 65… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Finds Art. III Standing for TCPA Claim; Finds that TCPA Plaintiff Need Not Plead Charge for the Call — Distinguishing Knutson v. Reply!, Inc., 2011 WL 291076, at *1 (S.D.Cal. Jan.27, 2011)

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Martin v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2012 WL 3292838 (N.D.Ill. 2012), Judge Lefkow found that a TCPA Plaintiff stated Article III standing under the ‘damages’ pleaded. Defendants argue that “injury in fact” should be equated with “actual damages,” and that plaintiffs' failure to allege actual damages indicates that they lack standing. Leading Edge asserts that plaintiffs must allege… Read More

1 2