Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Notice Requirement

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 (Cal.) Rejects Common CLRA Practice; Says Filing Suit for Injunctive Relief and Then Amending to Add a Claim for Damages Does Not Satisfy CLRA’s Pre-Suit Notice Requirement for Recovery of Damages

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Sharlene Shu v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-04661-LB, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68626, at *20-22 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2023), Judge Beeler dismissed a CLRA class action due to failure to give proper pre-suit notice. First, Ms. Shu did not provide the written notice required by the CLRA. If a plaintiff sues for damages under the CLRA, she… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says CLRA Plaintiff Who Sought Injunctive Relief Only, and Disclaimed Prayer for Damages, in Order to Avoid CLRA 30-day Pre-Suit Notice Requirement Could Not Recover Attorneys’ Fees under CLRA Due to Absence of Damages

by Scott J. Hyman |

It’s a bit convoluted, but in Mikki v. Lifemark Grp., No. D076885, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 309 (Jan. 20, 2021), the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, denied any attorneys’ fees to a CLRA Plaintiff.  The facts were as follows: Mikki's operative complaint sought solely injunctive relief under the CLRA. After accepting Lifemark's Code of Civil Procedure section… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Benson Tender Was in Bad Faith Because it Imposed Unreasonable Conditions on the Consumer; Says As to Holder Who Tendered Back the RISC, “Once a Holder, Always a Holder”

by Colin T. Murphy |

In Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales, Inc., 2017 WL 6333871, at *8 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a car dealer's Benson-tender did not insulate the dealer from liability. In this case, Quantum's pre-litigation offer went far beyond a willingness to take corrective action as contemplated by the drafters of the CLRA. We… Read More

Benson Update: Another California Court of Appeal Distinguishes the “Benson-tender”; i.e. Courts’ Treatment of a CLRA Defendant’s Response to a Pre-Suit Demand Letter

by Colin T. Murphy |

We previously reported and analyzed the so-called "Benson-tender", which is how California Courts treat a CLRA defendant's response to a pre-suit demand for correction under the CLRA vis-a-vis the consumer's later demand for demand for attorneys' fees.  Our Daily Journal Article entitled "Different Approaches to CLRA Damages", authored by Severson attorneys Austin Kenney and Colin Murphy, can be found here:  Benson… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Trial Court Properly Denied Post-Trial Claim for $171k in Attorneys’ Fees under CLRA because Car Dealer Offered Full Correction in Response to Original CLRA Letter

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Directs Trial Court to Enter Summary Judgment for Car Dealer on Plaintiff’s CLRA Claim Because Car Dealer Offered Full Relief within CLRA’s Notice Period

by Scott J. Hyman |

In CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 4533445 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision took the extraordinary step of issuing a Peremptory Writ of Mandate directing the trial court to enter summary judgment to a Car Dealer on a consumer’s CLRA claim on the basis that the Car Dealer had… Read More