Compressor Engineering Corp. v. Manufacturers Financial Corp.
292 F.R.D. 433
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Three TCPA class certification motions, including this action, were argued March 14, 2013, and all denied.
- This opinion relies on Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co. for context on class action ethics and certification.
- Anderson + Wanca and Bock & Hatch solicited fax recipients and obtained discovery data from B2B; conduct questioned as to confidentiality, mislettering, and improper payments.
- Three TCPA cases before the court—Machesney, APB Associates, and Compressors Engineering—seek certification for classes based on alleged unsolicited faxes to numerous recipients.
- The court raises standing concerns, ascertainability issues, and the inherent individualized defenses under the TCPA (e.g., consent/established business relationship), leading to denial of class certification.
- The court discusses potential but insufficient modification of class definitions and emphasizes that the TCPA requires only unresolved, targeted analysis of standing and unsolicited transmission issues for certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the proposed classes ascertainable? | Plaintiffs claim data from B2B enables exact class member identification. | Defendants argue class definitions are imprecise and fail ascertainability due to ownership, changes in ownership, and shared use of numbers. | No; class definitions are amorphous and not administratively feasible. |
| Do statutory standing requirements defeat class certification? | Plaintiffs contend recipients of faxes have standing as injured by unsolicited faxes. | Defendants allege only owners of the fax machines have standing and many proposed members may not own or control the receiving device. | Standing requires ownership of the fax machine; many proposed members lack standing. |
| Is there a predominance of common issues under Rule 23(b)(3) given consent/EBR defenses? | Plaintiffs argue common course of conduct justifies class treatment. | Defendants assert individualized inquiries required to assess consent or established business relationships as defenses. | No; EBR/consent defenses create individualized issues that predominate. |
| Do ethical concerns about proposed class counsel justify denying certification? | Plaintiffs argue that misconduct does not automatically bar certification per Reliable Money Order. | Defendants emphasize ethical concerns and potential conflicts/undisclosed conduct. | Ethical concerns alone do not mandate denial; however, adequacy/appointment considerations remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., 704 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2013) (ethics and adequacy of class counsel; “serious doubt” standard for counsel)
- Critchfield Phys. Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011) (class definitional precision; avoid multiple plaintiffs from one fax)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous Rule 23(a) analysis; common questions; manageability)
- Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (U.S. 2012) (statutory standing and TCPA interpretation considerations)
- Kopff v. World Research Group, LLC, 568 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2008) (standing considerations in TCPA class contexts)
- Critchfield Phys. Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285, 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011) (see above (duplicate for completeness))