In Harper v. The Law Office of Harris & Zide, LLP, 2016 WL 2344194, at *5 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Gilliam certified an FDCPA class, despite the impact of the statutory cap on class certification. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant, acting to collect debts from the putative class on behalf of BOA, failed to provide the exact disclosure required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4). Section 1692g(a)(4) requires that debt collectors send certain “validation notices” to debtors when attempting to collect a debt that advise debtors about their rights to dispute the debt and to request, “in writing,” that the debt collector provide verification of the debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4). Unless this information is included in the initial communication with a debtor, a debt collector must provide notice within five days. Id. § 1692g(a). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to inform them that verification of their purported debt could be requested in writing only, thereby insinuating that an oral request for verification of the debt is valid. Judge Gilliam certified a class action over 1,000 potential class members.
The Court finds that superiority is met in this case. From a case management perspective, concentrating over 1,000 individual actions into a single class action is the most economical tack because each “separate action would involve the same evidence—the debt collection letter—and the same legal theory.” Schuchardt, 2016 WL 232435, at *7. The only factor that could weigh in theory against using the class action mechanism in this case flows from the structure of the statutory damages regime under the FDCPA and RFDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a), FDCPA actions can yield a significantly larger recovery of statutory damages (a maximum of $1,000) for individual plaintiffs as compared to a class action (a maximum aggregate recovery of the lesser of $500,000 or one percent of the net worth of the debt collector). 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k)(a). While the parties do not address this aspect of the superiority analysis, a court in this district recently discussed it in detail. See Datta v. Asset Recovery Sols., LLC, No. 15-CV-00188, 2016 WL 1070666, at **7-10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016). In the context of a contested certification motion, the Datta court held that the “efficacy of a single class action lawsuit…outweighs the possibility of a small class recovery,” a common feature of FDCPA class actions. Id. Putative class members are protected because they have the right to opt out of the class settlement if they wish to pursue their own potentially larger claims. Id. at *8. The Court finds Datta persuasive and adopts its reasoning, and finds that superiority is satisfied.