LaRocque v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc., 285 F.R.D. 139

Jean LaRocque, an 85-year-old Maine resident, was subjected to TeleCheck/TRS debt-collection procedures after a Rite Aid check transaction on March 2, 2010.
Rite Aid electronically transmitted check information to TeleCheck, which then authorized and guaranteed the check and required a signature for a returned-check fee collection.
TRS sent a RECR3 dunning letter on March 15, 2010, alleging non-sufficient funds and requesting a $25 returned-check fee to be drafted from LaRocque’s account; the $25 fee was later withdrawn and charged again.
LaRocque paid the original $30.34 by check; the paper check was re-presented and cleared a second time, resulting in an overpayment and a second $25 fee collection.
LaRocque, via power of attorney through her daughter, filed a class-action suit against TeleCheck and TRS alleging FDCPA/MDCPA violations and Maine MUTPA issues; defendants later offered refunds for overpayments.
The court analyzes four proposed classes for certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), ultimately certifying three and denying class certification for the duplicative payment (Class 3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Class 1 satisfies Rule 23(a)/(b)(3) for commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority	LaRocque asserts uniform misstatement/illegality of the RECR3 letter.	Defendants argue individualized inquiries due to varying notices and consumer knowledge.	Class 1 certified as to common issues and predominance; adequate representation and superiority shown.
Whether Class 2 satisfies Rule 23(a)/(b)(3) given overshadowing claims	Class 2 addresses a uniform letter and 30-day collection activities causing overshadowing.	Overbreadth and need for transaction-specific analysis defeat commonality.	Class 2 certified with modification to address overbreadth; liability issues common, damages individualized.
Whether Class 3 satisfies Rule 23(a)/(b)(3) given duplicative payment claims	Duplicative payment violations are uniform and actionable under FDCPA	Bona fide error defense requires individualized proof of error and procedures; not common.	Class 3 not certified; bona fide error defense and factual variation prevent common questions and superiority.
Whether Class 4 satisfies Rule 23(a)/(b)(3) for MUTPA fee collection	Returned check fee collection without proper notice violates Maine law and policy; common to all.	Claims depend on specific notice and authority to collect fees.	Class 4 certified as to common legality of the fee collection under MUTPA and Maine law.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous analysis for class certification; commonality was key)
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (adequacy and commonality standards for class actions)
Tuttle v. Equifax Check, 190 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 1999) (authority to impose service charges under FDCPA depends on law and agreement)
Harrell v. Checkagain, LLC, 248 F.R.D. 199 (S.D. Miss. 2006) (illustrates individualized issues defeating class certification)
Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1966) (allowing representative action when plaintiff lacks typical attributes; monitoring by counsel)
Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (class damages under FDCPA; class actions contemplated for enforcement)
Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 164 F.R.D. 391 (D.N.J. 1996) (older authority on adequacy and conflicts in class actions)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (U.S. 2010) (bona fide error defense requires evidence of ongoing, standardized procedures)
Pope v. Harvard Bancshares, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 383 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (illustrates considerations of named plaintiff adequacy)
Smilow v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., 323 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2003) (commonality and predominance in FDCPA contexts)