Mohamed v. American Motor Company, LLC
1:15-cv-23352
S.D. Fla.Jan 12, 2018Background
- Plaintiff sued Off Lease Only under the TCPA, alleging agent-sent texts from InstantCarOffer.com via Twilio after Craigslist ads; class certified covering U.S. subscribers who received such texts from Sept 4, 2011 to certification.
- Plaintiff proposed a notice plan: email to addresses Craigslist can produce, postcards for those without emails identified via reverse-lookup by KCC, a case website with long-form notice, and an IVR phone line.
- Plaintiff provided AMC’s list of phone numbers allegedly texted; Craigslist will cross-check those numbers against Craigslist ad records to identify potential class members.
- Defendant objected that Plaintiff’s notice plan is over-inclusive, misleading, and that class members should be required to opt in or otherwise affirmatively identify themselves before trial.
- The court evaluated notice under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), emphasizing the requirement of individual notice where class members are reasonably identifiable and due process protections.
- The court approved the notice plan with limited edits (avoid saying recipients “are” class members; change “will share” to “may share”; add a concise statement of Defendant’s denials), denied requiring opt-in or documentary proof at notice stage, and set deadlines for notice certification and opt-outs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed notice methodology is appropriate | KCC-assisted email/postcard/website/IVR best practicable notice; Craigslist cross-check suffices to identify potential members | Plan is over-inclusive and does not show reasonable efforts to identify only actual class members | Court: Method is a fair starting point and satisfies Rule 23 after limited edits; cross-check is adequate at notice stage |
| Whether class members must affirmatively opt in / self-identify before merits | Not required; receipt verification not necessary at notice stage; burdensome to demand documentary proof | Requests that class members affirmatively opt in or submit documents to prove receipt | Court: No special circumstances to require opt-in or documentary proof now; affidavit or website checkbox can verify later if needed |
| Whether notice language is misleading about class membership and recovery | Current notices inform recipients of class status and potential benefits | Language stating recipients "are a member" and that they "will share" is misleading because some may not have received texts and recovery is not guaranteed | Court: Modify language to avoid definitive "are" and change "will share" to "may share"; otherwise acceptable |
| Whether notice sufficiently states Defendant's defenses | Plaintiff's notices need not detail defenses extensively | Notices should state key defenses (denial of liability; AMC not acting for Off Lease; consent) | Court: Require a brief, clear statement listing Defendant's denials and key defenses as edited |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1977) (individual notice required for identifiable class members under reasonable effort)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (due process requires individual notice to identifiable class members)
- Macarz v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 201 F.R.D. 54 (D. Conn. 2001) (slightly over-inclusive notice permissible when it captures the universe of potential class members)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (Eleventh Circuit adopts pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent)