Bassett v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc.
8:16-cv-00449
| D. Neb. | Jun 14, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Kelly M. Bassett, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, brought a class action under the FDCPA and Nebraska Consumer Protection Act against Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J. Tighe arising from a March 14, 2016 collection letter.
- The Court previously certified a class (3,663 members) and the case proceeded to trial preparation; both parties filed multiple motions in limine.
- Defendants sought to exclude evidence of other cases, other collection activities, industry practices, financial condition, and emotional-damages evidence.
- Plaintiff sought to exclude certain characterizations of the Bassetts, preclude mention of attorney-fee awards or prior litigation, and bar discussion of class-certification challenges before the jury.
- The Court resolved the in limine disputes largely by allowing limited or conditional admissibility (other-case evidence for damages if similar; limited industry evidence; net worth admitted only for damages), denying exclusion of the §1692g claim, and granting the plaintiff’s request to bar class-certification argument before the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other lawsuits/collection activities | Other-case evidence is relevant to damages (frequency, persistence, intent) and factual context | Such evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial; only the March 14, 2016 letter is at issue | Denied exclusion; other-case evidence may be admissible on damages/factual-predicate grounds if similarity shown |
| §1692g claim | Bassett contends §1692g claim is raised and tried | Defendants argue §1692g was not pled | Denied exclusion; court had earlier found §1692g invoked and defendants were on notice |
| Industry-wide practices evidence | Background on industry practices may inform damages/context | Industry evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial | Denied exclusion without prejudice; limited background evidence may be allowed at trial |
| Financial condition / net worth | Plaintiff sought to preclude argument that judgment would bankrupt defendants | Defendants sought to bar any net-worth evidence | Net worth stipulated for damages caps and admitted only for that purpose; parties prevented from contradicting stipulation |
| Actual damages / emotional distress evidence | Plaintiff clarified she and class do not seek individual actual damages; will not pursue emotional-distress recovery for herself | Defendants sought to exclude emotional-damages evidence as inconsistent with discovery responses | Denied as moot for class and plaintiff; court will address decedent’s damages issues at trial if raised |
| Preclusion of class-certification discussion before jury | Plaintiff asked to bar mention of certification challenges | Defendants had sought to present certification issues to jury | Granted: class-certification is a court-only determination and should not be argued to the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 1997) (motions in limine proper only for evidence that is clearly inadmissible)
- Walzer v. St. Joseph State Hosp., 231 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir. 2000) (in limine rulings are preliminary and may change at trial)
- United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440 (8th Cir. 1996) (attacks on probative sufficiency go to weight, not admissibility)
- Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998) (FDCPA focuses on conduct of debt collector, not consumer)
- Haynes v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1996) (evidence of similar incidents can be prejudicial)
- Brooks v. Cook, 938 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1991) (attorney fees are for the judge to award, not the jury)