Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co.
704 F.3d 489
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- This appeal concerns whether counsel misconduct by Anderson + Wanca requires denial of class certification under Ashford Gear II (serious doubt standard).
- The case centers on data recovered from Caroline Abraham’s B2B fax campaigns used to identify hundreds of potential plaintiffs under the TCPA/Junk Fax Act.
- Anderson + Wanca allegedly used B2B data to solicit new class members and filed numerous TCPA actions based on that data.
- Defendants challenge whether the district court properly applied the Ashford Gear II standard to deny certification given the ethical lapses.
- The district court found misconduct non-prejudicial to the class and thus not alone enough to deny certification, leading to the appeal.
- This court ultimately affirms the district court’s class certification while denying the motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel misconduct requires denial of class certification | McKnight argues serious doubt standard applies | Reliable Money Order contends misconduct is not prejudicial to the class | No; certification affirmed under serious doubt standard |
| Whether the district court properly applied Ashford Gear II | McKnight asserts the court erred in not denying certification | Reliable Money Order contends no denial required by the record | District court did not abuse discretion; proper standard applied |
| Whether the solicitation letters misled recipients | McKnight claims misleading to class prospects | Letters were not deceptive given targeting and markings | Not fatal to certification; not enough to deny class adequately |
| Whether the $5,000 payment to a witness tainted the proceedings | McKnight argues improper witness compensation | Payment lacked proven contingent motive; no denial warranted | Not shown to require denial of class certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashford Gear, Creative Montessori Learning Ctr. v. Ashford Gear, LLC, 662 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2011) (serious-doubt standard governs class-counsel adequacy)
- Culver v. City of Milwaukee, 277 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2002) (counsels' integrity as fiduciary considerations)
- Wagner v. Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc., 646 F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (witness bribe-like conduct may deny certification)
- Kaplan v. Pomerantz, 132 F.R.D. 504 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (ethical breach jeopardizing proceedings warranted denial)
- Halverson v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 458 F.2d 927 (7th Cir. 1972) (slight breach not always denial; depends on prejudice/integrity)
- Susman v. Lincoln Am. Corp., 561 F.2d 86 (7th Cir. 1977) (preliminary view on attorney conflicts and integrity)
- Ashford Gear II, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard to evaluate serious doubt in class-counsel adequacy)