In Ikuseghan v. MultiCare Health System, 2015 WL 4600818, (W.D.Wash.,2015), Judge Settle found that the TCPA affords Article III standing to litigants, and certified a TCPA class. As to standing, Judge Settle found:
MultiCare first argues that Ikuseghan lacks Article III standing to bring this suit. . . . In addition to economic injury, Ikuseghan alleges that MultiCare violated her statutory rights under the TCPA. Dkt. 37 at 7–8. “The injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.’ “ Fulfillment Servs. Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 614, 618–19 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975)). “Essentially, the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff’s position a right to judicial relief.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 500. Congress enacted the TCPA to protect individuals from receiving unwanted and privacy-invading phone calls. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740, 745 (2012). The TCPA provides a private right of action for individuals who receive unsolicited, automated calls to their cell phones. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Ikuseghan alleges that Hunter Donaldson made multiple automated calls to her cell phone on behalf of MultiCare without her prior consent. Comp. ¶¶ 17–19, 33–39. She further alleges that these calls invaded her privacy. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. Other district courts in this circuit have recognized that a violation of the TCPA may serve as a concrete injury for Article III standing. See Meyer v. Bebe Stores, Inc., No. 14–cv–00267, 2015 WL 431148, at *1–2 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 2, 2015); Olney v. Job.com, Inc., No. 1:12–cv–01724, 2013 WL 5476813, at *5–6 (E.D.Cal. Sept. 30, 2013); Smith v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11–cv–1958, 2012 WL 2975712, at *3–6 (S.D.Cal. July 20, 2012). For these reasons, the Court concludes that Ikuseghan has demonstrated injury in fact for the purposes of Article III standing.
Judge Settle found that common issues predominated, and that the class action device was the superior mechanism to decide the dispute.
MultiCare again argues that individualized issues of consent predominate. Dkt. 35 at 18. As discussed above, the issue of whether MultiCare’s standardized forms constitute express consent can be resolved on a class-wide basis because of the narrower class definition. MultiCare nevertheless argues that some class members may allege a lack of consent “under the theory that the consent of a spouse or other individual who accompanied them to the hospital and signed the paperwork does not transfer.” Dkt. 35 at 18. This argument is entirely speculative and thus insufficient to defeat class certification. See Agne, 286 F.R.D. at 567. On the current record, the Court finds that common issues predominate. In light of the modified class definition, Ikuseghan and the putative class members all signed MultiCare’s standardized forms and all received automated calls to their cell phones from Hunter Donaldson. Ikuseghan and the class members will either prevail or lose together on their TCPA claims. Thus, the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Vinole, 571 F.3d at 944. . . . In considering the Rule 23(b)(3) factors, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of superiority. “Where damages suffered by each putative class member are not large, [the first] factor weighs in favor of certifying a class action.” Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1190. Statutory damages under the TCPA are limited to $500 per phone call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Because individual damages are small, it is unlikely that class members would litigate TCPA claims on their own. See Agne, 286 F.R.D. at 571 (“Five hundred dollars is not sufficient to compensate the average consumer for the time and effort that would be involved in bringing a small claims action ….”); see also Booth, 2015 WL 1466247, at *13; Kavu, 246 F.R.D. at 650. *8 The second factor also weighs in favor of superiority. Neither party has identified any other TCPA suit arising from Hunter Donaldson’s phone calls on behalf of MultiCare. As to the third factor, the majority of class members will be located in this particular forum because MultiCare’s facilities are located in Washington. Comp. ¶ 7. Finally, it appears that this case is manageable as a class action. As discussed above, the class members’ claims can be resolved by common evidence, as can the issue of consent. If the issues in this case prove unmanageable, the Court “retains the flexibility to address problems with a certified class as they arise, including the ability to decertify.” United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.2010). In sum, the Court finds that the superiority requirement is satisfied.