Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.
691 F.3d 218
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Hecht appeals district court holding that her FDCPA claim is precluded by Gravina class action judgment.
- Gravina settled a nationwide class including absent members; Gravina used USA Today publication notice.
- Gravina sought monetary damages; class definition focused on past harm with no forward-looking injunctive relief.
- Gravina Settlement Order approved November 29, 2010; named class representatives received $1,000.
- Gravina notice provided to absent members was a single USA Today publication; Hecht argued it violated due process.
- District court held notice satisfied due process; Hecht appeals arguing due process required more robust notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absent class members have due process right to notice and opt out when money damages predominate | Hecht: yes, due process requires notice and opt-out rights | Gravina/defendants: no constitutional requirement beyond publication notice | Yes, due process right exists and was violated by the notice |
| Whether USA Today single publication notice satisfied due process | Hecht: the notice was insufficient | Gravina/defendants: publication enough | No, single USA Today notice did not satisfy due process |
| Whether res judicata precludes Hecht's FDCPA claim | Hecht: not barred due to inadequate notice | Gravina settlement would preclude | Gravina notice did not bind Hecht; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (due process notice and opt-out in class actions)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (importance of monetary claims in class actions; notice implications)
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (guides on whether monetary relief predominates for due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice standard; notice must be reasonably calculated to inform)
- Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (due process as to absent class members; actionable notice requirement)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief standing and ongoing injury considerations)
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987) (publication notice considerations in complex class actions)
- Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 787 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1986) (notice adequacy and class action settlements; reaction to notice)
- In re MetLife Demutualization Litig., 689 F. Supp. 2d 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (notice and class action considerations in settlements)
- Buxbaum v. Deutsche Bank AG, 216 F.R.D. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (notice adequacy in class action settlements)
- In re GAC Corp., 681 F.2d 1295 (11th Cir. 1982) (extensive publication notice in settlements)
- Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997) (dues process and opt-out rights in FDCPA context)