Bridgeview Health Care Center v. Jerry Clark
816 F.3d 935
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Affordable Digital Hearing (Clark) hired B2B, a marketing firm, to send fax ads; Clark approved the ad copy and instructed B2B to send about 100 faxes within a 20-mile radius of Terre Haute, Indiana.
- B2B instead sent 4,849 unsolicited fax advertisements across Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio; one recipient, Bridgeview (near Chicago), sued under the TCPA as a class action.
- Magistrate Judge Valdez certified the class and granted summary judgment for class members located within 20 miles of Terre Haute, awarding $500 per recipient (32 recipients; $16,000 total) against Clark.
- The district court held a bench trial on liability for faxes sent beyond the 20-mile radius and found Clark not liable for those out-of-radius faxes.
- Bridgeview appealed the trial ruling and an evidentiary ruling; Clark cross-appealed class-certification and decertification rulings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed all district-court rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency liability for faxes sent beyond 20 miles | Clark authorized the campaign and thus is liable as the sender for all faxes B2B sent on his behalf | Clark limited instructions to 100 faxes within 20 miles; B2B exceeded authority and acted independently, so Clark not liable beyond 20 miles | No agency established for out-of-radius faxes; Clark not liable for those faxes |
| Impeachment with prior interrogatory answer | Clark's interrogatory answer (“Not Applicable”) contradicted his trial testimony about instructing B2B, so he should have been impeached | The interrogatory asked about directions to construct recipient lists; Clark’s answer and trial testimony are consistent (he gave scope, not a list) | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying impeachment; no reversible error |
| Class certification / need for subclass of within-20-mile recipients | Clark: plaintiffs within 20 miles have distinct interests and Bridgeview (outside 20 miles) cannot adequately represent them; subclass required | Single class appropriate; Bridgeview’s interests align with majority of class and all seek statutory penalties | District court did not abuse discretion in certifying a single class (no subclass required) |
| Decertification and vacating $16,000 judgment | Clark: because the named plaintiff lost, the class should be decertified or judgment vacated/limited to in-radius plaintiffs | Decertification would not change Clark’s liability to in-radius claimants; judgment already limited by proof | Court declined to decertify; affirmed denial to vacate or limit the existing judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc., 288 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for bench-trial factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Moriarty v. Glueckert Funeral Home, Ltd., 155 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 1998) (defines express, implied, and apparent agency)
- Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for class-certification decisions)
- CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc., 637 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (context on junk-fax litigation and TCPA enforcement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards: must plead factual basis for claims like agency)
- E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1977) (class actions: subsequent events undermining named plaintiff's claim need not moot class members' claims)