Eager v. Credit Bureau Collection Services, Inc.
1:13-cv-00030
W.D. Mich.Jul 16, 2014Background
- Consolidated FDCPA and MOC/MCPA consumer-debt cases against CBCS and VHA in the Western District of Michigan (Cases 1:13-CV-30, -84, -173, -261).
- Plaintiffs allege false statements in state-court complaints suggested assignments of claims from multiple creditors to a single named plaintiff.
- Plaintiffs also contend some provider-plaintiffs were nonexistent or misidentified, potentially violating FDCPA and MOC.
- Amended complaints added VHA and asserted MCPA claims; motions to dismiss and to certify class were filed by CBCS and Provider Defendants.
- Court previously dismissed some claims and some defendants; remaining issues include class certification for four proposed classes.
- Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, finding issues with ascertainability, commonality/typicality, predominance, and misnomer classes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability and fail-safe risk for Assignment Class | Class definable by records readily identifiable from defendants’ files. | Class cannot be ascertained without individualized fact-finding and is a fail-safe class. | Assignment Class cannot be certified due to ascertainability fail-safe concerns. |
| Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality for Assignment Class | Common misrepresentation issues affect all class members. | Individualized inquiries (e.g., actual assignments) vary, undermining commonality/typicality. | Commonality and typicality not satisfied; individualized proof needed. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance for Assignment Class | Common issues predominate over individual inquiries. | Liability hinges on individualized determinations of assignments for each member. | Predominance not met due to need for fact-specific assignment determinations. |
| Viability of Misnomer Classes and pleading sufficiency | Misnomer theories should be certified; allegations sufficient to support misidentification claims. | No pleadings or class definitions identifying Misnomer Classes; inadequately pled. | Misnomer Classes not certified; pleading deficiencies and lack of class definitions preclude certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beattie v. CenturyTel., Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (typicality and commonality intertwined; class actions require aligned claims)
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (requirement of rigorous analysis for class certification)
- In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litg., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (common questions must be capable of classwide resolution)
- Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and predominance principles; class certification standards)
- Randleman v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011) (predominance and individualized issues in class actions)
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (illustrates concerns over fail-safe and ascertainability in class actions)