LADY DI'S, INC. v. ENHANCED SERVICES BILLING, INC., 1:09-cv-00340

ESBI and ILD are billing aggregators that forward third‑party charges to AT&T for Indiana customers' bills.
Plaintiff Lady Di's, Inc., an Indiana company and AT&T customer, challenges charges described as ABS-EFAX SVC MTHLY and MYLOCALREACH-ONLINE YP LISTNG MTH FEE.
Plaintiff alleges the charges were unauthorized and that Defendants failed to maintain Indiana‑required authorization documentation.
Plaintiff’s refunds were issued in part, but she contends some payments were unjustly retained and seeks recovery under unjust enrichment and commercial deception theories.
Court addresses Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, then grants Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the merits; the class certification ruling is dispositive for subsequent proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3)	Plaintiff maintains common, class‑wide facts predominate.	Individual authorization questions defeat predominance.	Denied; predominance lacking; certification inappropriate.
Whether the voluntary payment doctrine bars Plaintiff's claims	Doctrine does not apply because Plaintiff lacked full knowledge of authorization issues.	Doctrine applies; Plaintiff paid with recognized uncertainty, barring recovery.	Doctrine bars recovery; summary judgment granted on related claims.
Whether Plaintiff's unjust enrichment and statutory deception claims survive summary judgment	Plaintiff seeks restitution for retained benefits and deceptive billing practices.	No measurable benefit retained; no intent to deceive shown; no facts support claims.	Both claims fail; grants of summary judgment for ESBI and ILD.
Whether Indiana Administrative Code violations equate to unjust enrichment or deception claims	Code violations support class claims for statutory deception.	Code violations do not transform into unjust enrichment or deception claims.	Not equivalent; does not sustain class claims; certification denied for this theory.
Whether the Court should defer ruling on summary judgment pending class certification	Deferred ruling requested to allow class certification before merits.	No basis to defer; merits can be resolved now.	Denied as moot; class certification resolved first, then merits.

Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P. v. Whiteman, 802 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. 2004) (voluntary payment doctrine—recognition of uncertainty governs applicability)
Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utilities, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641 (Ind. 1995) (evidence in support of breach/ fraud when regulation at issue is implicated)
Beattie v. Centurytel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (certification issues in state-law claims; reliance on Beattie for class issues)