Hartman v. United Bank Card, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 591

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second motion for class certification and to conduct additional class-related discovery in a WA-DAD case against UBC and IPS.
The court earlier denied class certification (Oct. 4, 2012) due to lack of commonality and typicality, and found individualized hearings necessary for several issues.
ConnecTel data and Mr. Peralta declarations formed the evidentiary core for the initial class certification briefing, with questions about their completeness and reliability.
Plaintiffs moved to supplement the record and later to reconsider; the court required timely discovery and found ConnecTel’s records insufficient to identify which messages were played.
Plaintiffs now request a revised class definition and extensive additional discovery, including deposing Peralta and inspecting vendor equipment and scripts.
The court denies both the motion to reopen class discovery and the motion for leave to file a second motion for class certification, citing excusable neglect and timing concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to reopen class discovery under Rule 6(b)(1)(B).	Plaintiffs argue excusable neglect due to need for deposition and new analysis.	Defendants contend delay prejudices defense and was tactical rather than excusable.	No excusable neglect; discovery not reopened.
Whether to grant leave to file a second motion for class certification.	Proposed revised class and new evidence will address court’s concerns.	No changed circumstances justify a second certification motion; issues remain unresolved.	Denied; no changed circumstances warrant a second motion.
Whether Plaintiffs’ proposed WADAD statutory construction is necessary to avoid individualized inquiries.	Calls must be viewed by their intended Washington reach, not actual location of recipient.	Construction would violate dormant Commerce Clause and is not compelled by text.	Court rejects Plaintiffs’ construction; individualized hearings remain necessary.
Whether constitutional notice requirements under Rule 5.1 apply to this challenge.	Constitutionality is implicated and must be addressed; AG should be notified.	No final ruling of unconstitutionality; notice and potential intervention acceptable but not required now.	Court will certify and notify the Washington Attorney General; intervention possible within 60 days.

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (four-factor excusable neglect test)
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.2011) (merits may overlap with Rule 23 analysis in certification)
Carolina Trucks & Equipment, Inc. v. Volvo Trucks of North America, Inc., 492 F.3d 484 (4th Cir.2007) (statutory interpretation to avoid extraterritorial reach under the dormant Commerce Clause)
Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (1989) (dormant Commerce Clause limits on state regulation of interstate commerce)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (overlaps between merits and class certification; rigorous analysis)
K anawi v. Bechtel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 102 (N.D. Cal.2008) (district courts may reconsider class certification after initial denial)