Last week, the Second Circuit, in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, affirmed the denial of class certification in a putative TCPA prerecorded message class action for lack of an ascertainable class. (We previously blogged about this district court decision.) Lifetime, concerned that viewership of its hit show “Project Runway” would suffer due to a channel change, hired a third-party vendor, OnCall Interactive, to contact New York City residents with a prerecorded message from the show’s host informing potential viewers of the channel change. Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, No. 13-cv-5794, 2015 WL 5837897, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015). OnCall, in turn, purchased a list of phone numbers from an unknown third-party vendor; Lifetime never obtained that list. Id. at *2. Continue reading
A much-anticipated TCPA class action trial was set to begin next week in Birchmeier et al. v. Caribbean Cruise Line Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. According to published reports, however, a class-wide settlement was reached yesterday in this protracted litigation with a history of controversial rulings by the District Court.
Under the terms of the agreement, defendants will pay in the range of $56-$76 million, to settle the claims of class including approximately one million people who received robocalls from defendants in 2011-2012. Class members will reportedly receive $500 for each call received, with the total amount paid to be determined based on how many claims are made.
The case has a long history, including controversial decisions by the District Court to certify the class in 2014, and a decision earlier this year to maintain certification despite the United States Supreme Court’s affirmation in Spokeo v. Robins that a mere statutory violation does not support Article III jurisdiction. The upcoming trial, which had been scheduled to begin on September 12, 2016, appeared to mark one of the few instances in which a TCPA class action would be resolved through trial and potential appeal.
While specific details are yet to arrive, this settlement illustrates the very real risks of TCPA class action litigation given the current uncertainty of the law. While the outcome at settlement is perhaps unique to this litigation, in part due to the District Court’s decisions to this point, further clarity on these key issues arising under the statute remains much needed.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, the Ninth Circuit has held that an offer tendering complete relief, conditioned on the dismissal of a putative class action, is insufficient to moot the action for purposes of Article III jurisdiction.
In Chen v. Allstate, No. 13-16816 (9th Cir. April 12, 2016), the defendant deposited in escrow an amount exceeding the value of the plaintiff’s individual TCPA claim. The escrow instructions conditioned the payment of the funds on the entry of an order from the district court dismissing the action as moot. The defendant asked the Ninth Circuit to supplement the record on its pending appeal, to hold that the tender had mooted the plaintiff’s claims under Article III, and to direct the district court to dismiss the action. Continue reading
An essential requirement for certifying a class under Rule 23 is a means for presently ascertaining who is or is not a member of the proposed class. A trio of recent district court decisions has applied this ascertainability requirement to proposed TCPA class actions. The cases reach different conclusions as to whether a list of telephone numbers is a necessary or sufficient means of ascertaining class membership.
On August 20, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC, No. 14-10414, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14632 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015), affirming an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on August 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected a challenge to a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 14-4168, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14703 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2015). In both cases the definition of “prior express consent” was at issue, and in both cases the plaintiff’s attempt to shrink the definition was rejected.
While various petitioners are challenging the FCC’s July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling before the D.C. Circuit, a recent district court decision is one of the first to address its impact on a pending TCPA claim. See Luna v. Shac, LLC, No. 14-cv-00607-HRL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109841 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015). The decision confirms that even after the Declaratory Ruling, if the platform requires human intervention to send text messages, it will not be deemed an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”).