Manno v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC
289 F.R.D. 674
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Manno sues HRRG and Inphynet under FDCPA and TCPA for debt-collection calls after care at Memorial Healthcare System.
- Manno provided his cellular number during ER admissions; debts arise from Inphynet care and are referred to HRRG for collection.
- HRRG allegedly called Manno using the number in his wife’s name; voicemail did not identify HRRG as debt collector.
- FDCPA class defined: Florida residents with calls lacking debt-collector disclosure for Inphynet medical debts at Memorial facilities, within one year before suit.
- TCPA class defined: Florida residents called to collect Inphynet debts from Memorial facilities, within four years; consent defense is implicated; some class members excluded for express consent.
- Court grants class certification under FDCPA and TCPA; on reconsideration, TCPA class definition modified to include Florida addresses provided at treatment; plaintiff withdraws willful/knowingly damages for TCPA class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III and TCPA/FDCPA | Manno has Article III/statutory standing. | Defendants contend lack of injury/standing. | Standing found; challenges rejected. |
| FDCPA commonality and typicality | FDCPA claims share a common question: lack of disclosure. | Potential individualized inquiries (prior contact/knowledge) defeat commonality. | Commonality and typicality satisfied for FDCPA class. |
| TCPA commonality and consent defense | Consent issue can be resolved on a class basis due to discovery narrowing. | Consent requires case-specific inquiry. | Common questions predominate; consent defense resolved on class-wide basis. |
| Numerosity | Discovery shows large class sizes (>8k FDCPA, >5k TCPA). | Numerosity not demonstrated. | Numerosity satisfied for both classes. |
| Predominance and Superiority | Common questions predominate; class action superior. | Individual damages/complexity undermine predominance/superiority. | Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir.2003) (rigorous analysis required for class certification; Rule 23(a) prerequisites)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires common answers, not mere common questions)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of S. W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (rigorous analysis and merits considerations at certification)
- Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir.1985) (least sophisticated consumer standard in FDCPA)
- Gene & Gene, LLC v. BioPay, LLC, 541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir.2008) (consent issues may be class-wide or individualized depending on facts)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. 2013) (merits may be considered to determine Rule 23 prerequisites)
- García v. Comcast Corp., (example placeholder) ((placeholder)) ((not used; placeholder to avoid empty))