Bright v. Asset Acceptance, LLC
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108432
D.N.J.2013Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Bright sued Asset Acceptance, LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging Asset placed calls to New Jersey consumers from number 443‑550‑7962 while caller ID displayed the name "Warranty Services," misleading recipients about the caller’s identity.
- Asset used a third‑party, Omega Services, to manage CNAM (caller name) registrations; evidence shows Asset requested the CNAM be updated to "ASSETACCEPTANCE" but some carriers (e.g., Comcast) may have displayed an outdated CNAM. Omega had previously associated "Warranty Services" with the number under a prior owner.
- Bright received a voicemail on June 13, 2011 that correctly identified Asset and testified he would have answered if the display had shown "AssetAcceptance." Two prior consumer complaints reported the 7962 number showing "Warranty Services." Asset made 8,383 calls from 7962 to New Jersey numbers in the class period (Oct. 7, 2010–Aug. 23, 2011).
- Bright sought certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class defined as all New Jersey consumers called by Asset from 7962 during the period. He alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6), 1692e(10) and 1692e(14).
- Asset opposed certification, arguing the class is not ascertainable and that individual issues (who had caller ID, which carriers were used, whether a live inquiry returned current CNAM, whether Asset left identifying messages, and individualized damages) predominate. Asset also contested numerosity and typicality in light of unique defenses.
- The court denied class certification and granted Bright’s unopposed motion to seal two confidential exhibits (the Asset–Omega Master Services Agreement and a non‑party account note) under local rule criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of class membership | Bright: class defined by calls from 443‑550‑7962 in NJ during the period is objective and administratively feasible. | Asset: definition omits the actual harm (display of "Warranty Services") and membership cannot be determined without individualized fact‑finding (who had caller ID and what name displayed). | Court: Class is not ascertainable; definition overbroad and no objective, feasible method to identify members. |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Bright: common questions (whether Asset provided meaningful identification and used an incorrect name) predominate; individual damages models need not block certification. | Asset: individualized issues (presence of caller ID, phone carrier, live database queries, whether message disclosed Asset, whether caller answered) and individualized actual‑damages calculations predominate. | Court: Predominance not satisfied; carrier‑specific and individual factual questions and lack of classwide damages methodology defeat certification. |
| Typicality and adequacy under Rule 23(a) | Bright: his claims arise from same course of conduct and he will fairly represent the class; counsel is experienced. | Asset: Bright faces unique defenses (he received an identifying voicemail; he would have answered even if CNAM showed "AssetAcceptance"). | Court: Typicality and adequacy met—voicemail defense not unique to Bright and his deposition fact is not shown to make him an inadequate representative. But this did not cure other deficiencies. |
| Motion to seal confidential exhibits | Bright: two exhibits designated confidential under discovery order should be sealed. | Asset: unopposed; sealing appropriate to protect business and non‑party privacy interests. | Court: Motion to seal granted; exhibits contain sensitive business and non‑party information and redaction is not feasible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23 requires rigorous, evidentiary showing of commonality and other prerequisites)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (plaintiff must supply a reliable, classwide damages methodology; individual damage issues may defeat predominance)
- Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden to prove Rule 23 elements by preponderance; actual conformance required)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (predominance requires that elements be provable with classwide evidence rather than individualized proof)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance tests whether proposed class is sufficiently cohesive for representation)