CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.35: Class Actions

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.

In Costa v. Dvinci Energy, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-11501-NMG, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130208, at *4-6 (D. Mass. July 22, 2022), Judge Gorton declined to strike a TCPA class action at the pleadings stage despite complaints that it is a "fail-safe" class. Dvinci contends that the proposed class is fail-safe—and thus must be struck—because it defines its membership in… Read More

A federal district court in Arizona has certified a nationwide “non customer” class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) against Citibank, N.A. TCPA class actions carry enormous potential liability, as the statute provides for recovery of $500 to $1,500 per call for unconsented autodialed or prerecorded calls to cellular telephones. The case is Head v.… Read More

In Brown v. DirecTV, LLC, No. CV 13-1170 DMG (Ex), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231014, at *15-23 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021), Judge Gee discussed how wrong number codes might impact class certification. But that does not mean that Plaintiffs' procedure is otherwise improper—if done in the proper sequence. The Class is defined to include only non-customers, and DirecTV has… Read More

In Estate of O'Shea v. Am. Solar Sols., Inc., No. 14cv894-L-RBB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199171 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021), Judge Lorenz substituted a deceased TCPA Plaintiff’s estate as Class Representative. Next, substitution may be made by a successor only if the claim is not extinguished by the death of the named party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1). The issue of survivability… Read More

In Buell v. Credit.com, No. 4:21-cv-01055-KAW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142763, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2021), Judge Westmore refused to strike TCPA class allegations following Barr v. APAC.  On April 19, 2021, Defendant Credit.com, Inc. filed a motion to strike Plaintiff Angela Buell's class allegations on the grounds that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Barr… Read More

Usually, when the Court starts out this way, it doesn’t end well for the defendant: After Navient Solutions, LLC and its affiliate, Student Assistance Corporation ("SAC"), called Joel Lucoff's cell phone almost 2,000 times concerning his unpaid student loan, Lucoff sued Navient and SAC alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The… Read More

In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Servs., No. 18-cv-05623-BLF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224999, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020), Judge Freeman approved a class administration plan in a TCPA class action that included "reverse lookup". First, Intero objects to TransUnion running a reverse lookup on the bases that this method is not reasonably calculated to notify class members… Read More

In Neff v. Towbin Dodge LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00261-JAM-DMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217045 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2020), Judge Mendez found that a TCPA Plaintiff properly sued in his home venue. The parties agree venue is not proper in the Eastern District of California under § 1391(b)(1), as neither Defendant is a resident of California. See FAC ¶¶ 7-10; Towbin's… Read More

In Yates v. Checkers Drive-in Rest., Inc., No. 17 C 9219, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205241, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2020), Judge Harjani ordered class notice be given by text message in a TCPA class action. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that "providing notice via text would not be appropriate in this case, as it would potentially… Read More

In Grant v. Regal Auto. Grp., No. 8:19-cv-363-T-23JSS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91897, at *7 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2020) , the District Court certified a 'ringless voicemail' TCPA class. The plaintiff proposes administratively feasible methods for ascertaining class members. First, the plaintiff aims to use third-party records, which should determine the scope of the potential class with precision. Although… Read More

In Sandoe v. Bos. Sci. Corp., Civil Action No. 18-11826-NMG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183886, at *9 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2019), Judge Gorton denied class certification of a TCPA wrong-number class. Implicit in Rule 23 is consideration of whether the identification of potential class members is "administratively feasible." Shanley v. Cadle, 277 F.R.D. 63, 67 (D. Mass. 2011). All… Read More

In Sliwa v. Bright House Networks, No. 2:16-cv-235-FtM-29MRM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167805, at *56-63 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2019), the District Court denied class certification. Plaintiff identifies the following common questions of law or fact which he asserts will predominate over any individualized issues: whether (1) an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice technology was used; (2) Defendants'… Read More

In Moser v. Health Ins. Innovations, Inc., No. 17-cv-1127-WQH-KSC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132790 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2019), Judge Hayes certified a TCPA class. Under the TCPA, each plaintiff was injured when an autodialed or prerecorded call was sent to their wireless or residential phone. Whether the autodialed or prerecorded call came from a device located in the offices… Read More

In Revitch v. Citibank, N.A., No. C 17-06907 WHA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72026, at *11-14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2019), Judge Alsup denied class certification in a TCPA "wrong number" class action. District courts have split on the propriety of class certification in similar "wrong number" TCPA actions. Plaintiff heavily relies on a line of decisions that includes West… Read More

In McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52173 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2019), Judge Bashant certified a TCPA-telemarketing class. In the wake of Van Patten and McKesson, it is clear that the evidence Royal offers as evidence of consent "strongly affects" the Court's predominance analysis. McKesson, 896 F.3d at 932; see also Makaron, 324… Read More

The Court should have just denied class cert.  But, having already certified a class, the Court had to then wrestle with a class notice with regard to an unascertainable class.  In Lavigne v. First Cmty. Bancshares, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00934-WJ/LF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37724 (D.N.M. Mar. 7, 2019), Judge Johnson ignored those errors in the process and allowed a “reverse-lookup”… Read More

In Wilson v. Babcock Home Furniture, No. 8:17-C-02739-T-02AAS, 2018 WL 6660029 (M.D. Fla. December 19, 2018), Judge Jung denied class certification in a TCPA “wrong-number” class due to lack of ascertainability or common questions of law/fact. At the most fundamental level, the parties’ experts dispute the precise amount of “wrong numbers.” Based on Plaintiff’s analysis, Defendant made 8,253 calls marked… Read More

In Brodsky v. HumanaDental Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6295126, at *5–6 (7th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied class certification in a TCPA Blast-Fax case. We agree with the D.C. Circuit (and the Sixth and Ninth) that, at a minimum, it is necessary to distinguish between faxes sent with permission of the recipient and those… Read More

1 2 3 9