FCRA Class Action Review – 2025

the Elliott/Midland class, which included individuals against whom judgments were entered: (i) in favor of Midland Funding, LLC, without specifying an interest rate, and (ii) individuals from whom Mary Jane E. Elliott, P.C. collected money indicating interest over 3.484% from April 11, 2011, onwards. The second class was the Elliott/LVNV class, which included individuals against whom judgments were entered in favor of LVNV Funding, LLC, without specifying an interest rate, and from whom Mary Jane E. Elliott, P.C. collected money indicating interest over 3.484% from April 11, 2011, onwards. As an initial matter, the court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the claims. As to the class certification analysis, the court ruled that there were numerous lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against defendants in a single district court, and therefore joinder was impractical. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs demonstrated that common legal and factual issues existed among potential class members, including whether the defendants improperly calculated interest in writs of garnishment. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the class, as they alleged the same conduct by the defendants that affected all class members. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ interests were aligned with those of the absent class members, and thus met the adequacy requirement. As to the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, the court found that common questions of law and fact regarding the calculation of interest rates predominated over individual issues, thereby making class certification appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons, the court granted class certification. In contrast, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in Gutierrez, et al. v. Webcollex, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189986 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2024). The plaintiff filed a class action against Webcollex, LLC (doing business as CKS Financial) on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated, alleging violations of the FDCPA and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff claimed that Webcollex sent her a debt collection email that failed to provide required disclosures, in violation of the federal and state laws. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the email did not inform her of her rights to dispute the debt and obtain verification, as required under the FDCPA, nor did it include the proper debtor’s rights notice under California’s Rosenthal Act. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification of two classes, including: (i) a national class of all consumers nationwide who received similar debt collection communications from Webcollex within the past year; and (ii) a California sub-class consisting of consumers in California who received similar communications within the past year. The court denied the motion. It found that the plaintiff’s classes failed to meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a). To establish numerosity, the plaintiff relied on a response from the defendant to a request for admission, where the defendant admitted to sending a similar debt collection communication to more than 40 individuals in the year before the plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed. However, the defendant argued that the response was vague and likely based on a drafting error. The plaintiff argued the response was a clear admission and that she had shown sufficient evidence of numerosity based on the response. The court opined that the response from the defendant was inadequate and did not provide the specificity required to meet the numerosity requirement. In particular, the court noted that the response did not specifically address whether the communications sent to other individuals were legally defective in the same way as the one sent to the plaintiff. The court also held that the term “substantially similar” was too vague and did not clarify whether the other communications suffered from the same legal defects alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at *8. Since the plaintiff failed to provide any additional evidence regarding the number of communications that involved the same violations, such as failing to include required disclosures about disputing the debt, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the numerosity requirement. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In Mack, et al. v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171154 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2024), the plaintiff defaulted on a debt that was later acquired by the defendant LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV) and serviced by the defendant Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (Resurgent). After receiving an initial collection letter, the plaintiff disputed the debt, which triggered a second letter from Resurgent that included a validation notice under the FDCPA. The plaintiff argued that the second letter violated the FDCPA because it repeated the validation language by using false or deceptive methods to collect the debt. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification of a putative class consisting of individuals who had similarly received this second letter after disputing their debt. The court initially certified the class of individuals in Illinois who, between September 14, 2017, and September 14, 2018, disputed a debt and then received a form letter from Resurgent that included the validation notice. However, the court later dismissed the plaintiff’s individual claims, ruling she lacked standing under Article III, and vacated the class certification order. On appeal the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated that the defendants’ violation of the FDCPA caused her financial harm (in the form of a $3.95 postage fee). The Seventh Circuit remanded the case with

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online