Category Archives: Class Certification

Established Business Relationship Defense Dooms Class Allegations

February 17, 2023
and
Class Certification, Established Business Relationship

The Northern District of Illinois recently granted a TCPA defendant’s motion to strike class action allegations, reasoning that individual questions of consent and the availability of the established business relationship (“EBR”) defense made the claims unsuitable for class treatment.  The case is Sorsby v. TruGreen L.P., 2023 WL 130505 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2023).

The plaintiff alleged that, after cancelling her TruGreen lawn-care service and telling TruGreen not to call her, she received numerous calls from TruGreen to a number that was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and should have been on TruGreen’s internal Do-Not-Call list.  TruGreen moved to strike the class allegations, arguing that plaintiff could not satisfy Rule 23’s requirements of typicality, commonality, and predominance.  The court agreed and struck the class allegations.

The court explained that the TCPA does not prohibit solicitations to customers with whom a business has an EBR.  Although the named plaintiff claimed to have terminated her own EBR, the availability of the EBR defense as to other class members was inherently individualized and not capable of being determined on a classwide basis.

Continue reading   »

First Circuit Rejects Classwide Settlement, Finds That Would-Be Class Representatives Could Not Adequately Represent Subclasses With Materially Different Claims

December 28, 2022
and
Adequacy-of-Representation, Class Certification, Incentive Awards, Settlements

The First Circuit recently reversed the District of Massachusetts’s approval of a settlement award that improperly lacked any subclasses within the 4.8-million-person putative class, finding it “too difficult to determine whether the settlement treated class members equitably.”  Murray v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, No. 21-1931, — F.4th — (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2022).

The complaint alleged that defendant Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, d/b/a HelloFresh violated the TCPA through its marketing tactics by (1) calling former customers using an automated dialer, (2) calling former customers that were listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry, and (3) calling former customers that had asked HelloFresh not to contact them.  The named plaintiffs—through a single plaintiff’s attorney that purported to represent the entire 4.8-million-person class—negotiated a $14 million settlement with HelloFresh, which the District Court approved without identifying any subclasses of plaintiffs.

Continue reading   »

Second Circuit Reaffirms that Solicited Faxes are Not Subject to Certain TCPA Protections, Grants Judgment Suggested by Defendant

November 8, 2022
and
Class Certification, Faxes, Professional Plaintiffs, Standing

The Second Circuit recently affirmed a Southern District of New York judgment denying injunctive relief against Educational Testing Service (“ETS”), which was sought by serial TCPA-plaintiff, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley.  See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Educational Testing Service, No. 21-399-cv, No. 21-541-cv, 2022 WL 6543814 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).

Continue reading   »

Eleventh Circuit Applies TransUnion and Vacates Class Certification

August 29, 2022
and
Class Certification, Standing, Text Messages

The Eleventh Circuit recently decertified a TCPA settlement class because the class definition included members who could never have Article III standing under Eleventh Circuit precedent.  Drazen v. Pinto, — F.4th –, No. 21-10199, 2022 WL 2963470, at *4-7 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022).  The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and ruled that all members of a Rule 23(e) settlement class must have Article III standing to recover damages.  Id. at *5-6 (citing TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2208 (2021)).  The Drazen court expressly rejected the proposition that plaintiffs with no standing in the Eleventh Circuit could be part of a nationwide class, even if they may have standing in another circuit.  Id.  As of the date of publication, Drazen is the first and only decision from a federal appellate court that analyzes TCPA claims under the TransUnion rubric.  Although the impact of Drazen outside of the Eleventh Circuit remains unclear, the case demonstrates how courts may analyze Article III standing issues in TCPA class actions going forward.

As readers of this blog are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez last summer.  The decision reaffirmed that plaintiffs must demonstrate a “concrete harm” to establish Article III standing to sue in federal court.  TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2200.  Moreover, in footnote 4 of the TransUnion decision, the Court explicitly stated that it was not addressing the “distinct question whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class.”  Id. at 2208 n.4.

Continue reading   »

Ninth Circuit Vacates Certification of Nationwide Classes, Holding that Defendant Did Not Waive Personal Jurisdiction Challenge by Not Raising It Precertification

August 13, 2021
and
Class Certification, Jurisdiction, Telemarketing

On August 10, 2021, a divided Ninth Circuit panel vacated a trial court’s certification of two nationwide classes, finding that the defendant had not waived its personal jurisdiction objection to class certification by not raising the issue at the pleading stage. See Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., No. 19-56224, 2021 WL 3504041 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021).

This case arose as a putative nationwide class action filed by Kenneth Moser in federal court in California against Benefytt Technologies, Inc., formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (HII), alleging that HII was responsible for unwanted sales calls that violated the TCPA. Moser was a resident of California, whereas HII was incorporated in Delaware and had a principal place of business in Florida.

Continue reading   »

Court denies class certification where question of who is a residential subscriber would predominate litigation

August 5, 2021
and
Actual Harm, Class Certification, Consent, Residential Line, Standing

A court in the District of Oregon recently granted a defense motion to deny class certification, largely because the issue of whether the putative class representative’s phone number was “residential”—a prerequisite to TCPA protection—would predominate the litigation.

In Mattson v. New Penn Financial, LLC, the district court considered plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation regarding defendant’s motion to deny class certification. No. 3:18-CV-00990-YY, 2021 WL 2888394, at *1 (D. Or. July 9, 2021). The magistrate judge had concluded that plaintiff was an inadequate class representative because questions remained concerning whether he alleged a sufficient injury in fact to bring a TCPA claim, and also because issues individual to the plaintiff would predominate the litigation.

Continue reading   »

Business or Residential? Ambiguity Surrounding Number on Do Not Call Registry Can Defeat Class Certification

May 3, 2021
and
Class Certification, Do-Not-Call Rules, FCC, Standing

In an interesting decision from the District Court of Oregon, United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You recommended granting a motion to deny class certification where uncertainty about the appropriate classification of a cell phone number’s use was enough to make the plaintiff an inadequate class representative with atypical claims.  Mattson v. New Penn Fin., LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00990, 2021 WL 1406875 (D. Or. Mar. 8, 2021).

In Mattson, the plaintiff filed a TCPA class action, claiming the defendant, New Penn Financial, LLC, called his cell phone while it was registered on the national Do Not Call Registry in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).  Id. at *1.  As readers of this blog will note, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) prohibits telephone solicitations made to residential telephone subscribers who are registered on the Do Not Call Registry.  New Penn sought denial of class certification, arguing the uncertainty of Plaintiff’s standing made his claims atypical, rendering him an inadequate class representative.  Id.  In considering the motion, the Court identified an issue unique to the plaintiff—whether the cell phone number at issue was properly considered a residential or business telephone number.  Id. at *5.

Continue reading   »

Professional Plaintiff Who Manufactured Claims Can Sue But Can’t Represent Class

December 29, 2020
and
Abusive Lawsuits, Class Certification, Professional Plaintiffs, Standing, Telemarketing, Vicarious Liability

A recent denial of a professional plaintiff’s motion for class certification shows that, irrespective of whether such plaintiffs have standing to sue on their own behalf, courts are increasingly skeptical that contrived claims are amenable to class treatment. See Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00245-P, 2020 WL 7186380, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2020).

Continue reading   »

What’s in a Name? Not a Certified Class

December 10, 2020
and
Class Certification, Robocalling

The Tenth Circuit kicked off the holiday season with a little TCPA humor. In Rivera v. Exeter Finance Corp., No. 20-1031, 2020 WL 6844032, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 23, 2020), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was confronted with a case about “[p]esky robocalls: we all get them, we all hate them, and yet we cannot seem to get rid of them, no matter how many times we unsubscribe, hang up, or share choice words with the machine on the other end of the line.” The plaintiff evidently “share[d] this sentiment” with Justices Tymkovich, Briscoe, and Murphy, but also figured that he was “not the only one suffering from [defendant]’s vexatious robocalls” and brought a putative class action. Id.

Continue reading   »

District Court Decertifies TCPA Class Due to Consent Issues

November 10, 2020
and
Class Certification, Consent

The Central District of California recently decertified a class of TCPA plaintiffs because consent issues were so individualized that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement. Trenz v. On-Line Administrators, Inc., No. 15-8356, 2020 WL 5823565 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). The case highlights that a defendant can defeat certification by showing that class members provided their numbers in different “transactional contexts,” which can give rise to individualized issues regarding the existence and scope of consent.

In 2008, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Volkswagen”) launched its Target and Retain Aftersales Customers (“TRAC”) program. Id. at *1. Through this program, it paid for over 900 dealerships across the country to retain Peak Performance Marketing Solutions, Inc. (“Peak”) to place service reminder calls to their customers. Id. A class action alleging the use of autodialers and automated voices to make calls without the plaintiff’s consent eventually followed. Id.

Continue reading   »