284 F.R.D. 9
D.D.C.2012Background
- Ballard sues BB&T (BBT) under EFTA for failing to place an on-machine fee notice at an ATM in Washington, D.C.
- The ATM at issue is located at 614 H St., NW, and Ballard observed no exterior notice but did see an on-screen fee disclosure before proceeding.
- Ballard alleges BBT violated 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(B)(i)-(ii) by not providing required notices; he seeks statutory damages and class damages under § 1693m(a)(2).
- Ballard moved to certify a class of consumers who were charged a withdrawal fee at the ATM between March 1, 2011 and July 21, 2011; BBT disputes class suitability on commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority grounds.
- The court denies class certification, finding significant manageability problems, individualized inquiries, and the lack of a superior method for adjudication under Rule 23(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class meets Rule 23(a) requirements | Ballard asserts common questions satisfy commonality and typicality; class action efficient. | BBT contends diverse claims and business vs. personal accounts undermine commonality/typicality. | No; predominance issues and practical barriers defeat certification. |
| Whether common questions predominate given timing and notice disputes | Ballard argues the core EFTA notice issue is common across class. | BBT notes timing gaps and unknowns about notice on-machine vs. on-screen across dates. | No; factual fragmentation prevents class-wide resolution. |
| Whether class action is a superior method for adjudication | Conceives class action as efficient for many similar claims under EFTA. | Practical difficulties in identifying consumers and notification undermine superiority. | No; superiority not satisfied due to notification/identification challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality and typicality guidance; high bar for predominance)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance as central to Rule 23(b)(3); cohesion requirement)