Lewis v. ARS National Services, Inc.
2:09-cv-01041
| M.D. Ala. | Sep 6, 2011Background
- Griffin Lewis sued ARS National Services and LVNV Funding alleging FDCPA privacy-notice violations in debt-collection letters.
- Debt originated from JC Penney, Lewis’s balance $476.24; LVNV assigned to ARS for collection.
- Letter dated Nov. 14, 2008 contained a privacy notice at issue in this suit.
- Lewis sought class certification for Alabama residents who received identical letters with the privacy notice.
- Proposed class timeframe: Nov. 12, 2008 to Nov. 12, 2009 (one year prior to filing).
- Court granted Lewis’s motion for class certification under Rule 23.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(a) is satisfied | Lewis shows numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy. | Defendants contest class scope and manageability; seek broader class. | All four prerequisites satisfied. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominates and superiority apply | Common FDCPA issues predominate; damages are modest per member; class superior. | Potential individualized issues if class broadened; manageability concerns. | Predominance and superiority met; class certified. |
| Whether the class is artificially restrictive and should be broadened | No authority requiring broadest class; scope limited to Lewis's defined class. | Broader nationwide scope more efficient; LVNV subject to serial suits. | Court declines expansion; remains limited to Lewis’s defined Alabama class. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (policy on class-action certification standards)
- Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (Rule 23(b) and commonality guidance)
- Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (predominance and superiority considerations in class actions)
- Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985) (least sophisticated consumer standard for FDCPA class actions)
- Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997) (no requirement to certify the broadest possible class under FDCPA)
- Swanson v. Mid Am, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 665 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (commonality shown where class received same letter)
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court may probe merits to determine Rule 23 suitability)