Herrera v. LCS Financial Services Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58288
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Herrera asserts Ocwen violated Rosenthal Act and FDCPA in attempting to collect on a foreclosure-related debt tied to purchase money loans for a California home.
- She identifies 4,746 loans serviced by Ocwen that could fit her proposed class and seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
- Herrera’s loan involved two purchase-money mortgages; after falling behind, the first mortgage holder foreclosed on the condo in Fremont, CA, and Ocwen sent three collection notices to Herrera thereafter.
- The three notices are alleged to violate FDCPA provisions by mischaracterizing deficiency liability and implying mandatory payment, under California’s Rosenthal Act incorporation.
- Ocwen challenges certification on predominance, ascertainability, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and manageability; Herrera seeks to certify a class defined by California §580b eligibility, foreclosure, and post-foreclosure notices.
- The court grants class certification, appoints class counsel, and determines the class definition is ascertainable and predominated by common FDCPA issues; a class is certified as defined in the Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the class ascertainable and properly defined? | Herrera contends URLA data and public records suffice; definition is objective. | Ocwen argues ascertainability and reliance on merits; claims require individualized determinations. | Yes; class ascertainable and defined by objective criteria not dependent on merits. |
| Do Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) apply to certify the class? | Herrera shows large class size, common FDCPA questions, typical injuries, adequate representation. | Ocwen contends some individualized issues undermine commonality and typicality. | All four requirements satisfied; class certification proper. |
| Do common questions predominate over individualized issues under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Predicate issue is whether Ocwen’s notices violated the FDCPA; damages and defenses are largely class-wide. | Individualized membership, damages, and defenses could predominate. | Predominance shown; central liability issue common to the class. |
| Is a class action the superior method to adjudicate the claims? | Class action promotes efficiency and uniform decisions under the FDCPA. | Manageability concerns due to membership, damages, and defenses. | Class action is superior method for adjudicating the claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (framework for Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority)
- In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 291 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ascertainability and class certification standards)
- Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1977) (district court must conduct rigorous analysis for class certification)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) ( Rule 23 requires rigorous analysis; merits may be considered insofar as they relate to Rule 23)
- Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden on class certification and framework for certification)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (permissive standard for typicality under Rule 23(a)(3))