In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation
3:11-md-02286
S.D. Cal.Jun 28, 2017Background
- Dana A. Doyer sued Midland Credit Management alleging FDCPA and TCPA violations; action was filed in D.N.J. and later transferred into the In re Midland MDL in S.D. Cal.
- The MDL class settlement (final approval Dec. 2, 2016) released TCPA claims for calls from Nov. 2, 2006 through Aug. 31, 2014; class members could opt out.
- Doyer did not timely opt out and contended she never received notice of the MDL settlement; she nevertheless identified TCPA and FDCPA claims remaining after final approval.
- Midland moved to dismiss: (1) Doyer’s TCPA claims as released by the MDL settlement; and (2) any FDCPA claims that depend on the use of an ATDS or prerecorded/artificial voice.
- The court found MDL notice satisfied Rule 23’s “best practicable” standard (publication, mail, web, press, toll-free number) and concluded Doyer’s TCPA claims were released and must be dismissed with prejudice.
- The court held Doyer’s FDCPA claims do not require proof of ATDS use and were not released; it denied dismissal of those FDCPA claims and suggested the JPML remand the remaining FDCPA claims to the District of New Jersey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doyer's TCPA claims are barred by the MDL class settlement | Doyer says she never received notice and thus should not be bound | Midland says the settlement released TCPA claims and Doyer did not opt out | TCPA claims released by settlement; dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Rule 23 notice was adequate | Doyer argues notice was inadequate (no postcard) | Midland says MDL notice program satisfied Rule 23(c)(2) | Notice was the best practicable; adequate despite lack of postcard |
| Whether FDCPA claims based on ATDS are released by the TCPA settlement | Doyer contends her FDCPA claims do not depend on ATDS use | Midland contends FDCPA claims that rest on ATDS overlap and should be dismissed | FDCPA claims that do not depend on ATDS survive; court declines piecemeal dismissal and refuses to dismiss entire FDCPA claim set |
| Whether the case should remain in MDL or be remanded to D.N.J. | Doyer requests remand to original forum (D.N.J.) | Midland argues if FDCPA alleges ATDS use it should remain for MDL coordination | Court suggests JPML remand the remaining FDCPA claims to the District of New Jersey |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to pleading assumption)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (Rule 23 notice requirements)
- Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120 (release may cover claims sharing identical factual predicate)
- Hesse v. Spring Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (preclusion requires identical factual predicate)
- In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 688 F.2d 1297 (effect of class settlement on non-opt-outs)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (weight given to plaintiff's choice of forum)
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)