Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co.
281 F.R.D. 327
E.D. Wis.2012Background
- Reliable Money sued McKnight in Milwaukee County Circuit Court for TCPA and conversion claims, later removed to federal court.
- On July 1, 2011, Reliable Money moved for Rule 23 class certification, which the court granted.
- April 6–7, 2006, B2B faxed advertisements for McKnight’s Direct Magazine Service; 3,314 faxes allegedly reached class members.
- Plaintiff defines the class as those who were successfully sent the specific faxes offering 20% off magazines or 30% off books.
- Reliable Money was chosen as class representative; class counsel were retained to prosecute TCPA claims.
- Court conducted a rigorous Rule 23 analysis, addressing implicit requirements, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance/superiority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and definability of the class | Reliable Money is a class member and the class is definite. | Reli able Money lacks standing due to lack of memory/receipt and class not definite. | Reliable Money has standing; class defined sufficiently definite. |
| Numerosity | 3,314 faxes to distinct recipients make joinder impracticable. | Not disputed beyond numerosity concerns. | Numerosity satisfied; joinder impracticable. |
| Commonality | Common issue is TCPA violation from same fax campaign; resolution will affect all class members. | Possible individual defenses exist (e.g., consent/ROM). | Commonality satisfied; common issue will drive class-wide resolution. |
| Typicality | Reliable Money’s claim arises from the same fax campaign and legal theory as class members’s. | Potential factual distinctions may exist. | Typicality satisfied; claims share essential characteristics. |
| Adequacy of representation (and adequacy of class counsel) | Counsel have TCPA experience and acted in good faith; Reliable Money is not a mere figurehead. | Counsel engaged in questionable conduct (confidential information, solicitations). | Class representation and counsel are adequate; conduct does not create serious doubt of loyalty. |
| Predominance and Superiority | Common questions predominate; class action is superior due to uniform damages and efficiency. | TCPA claims could be pursued in small claims; concerns about ethics undermine superiority. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; class action is superior method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tele. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (Rule 23 requires rigorous analysis of prerequisites)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (standing and class definitions principles for class actions)
- Bzdawka v. Milwaukee Cnty., 238 F.R.D. 469 (E.D.Wis.2006) (implicit standing and precise class definition standards)
- Hinman v. M and M Rental Ctr., Inc., 545 F.Supp.2d 802 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (defining ascertainable class; duties of class action plaintiffs)
- CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc., 637 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (adequacy of class representative standards; Culver standard)
- Ashford Gear LLC v. Creative Montessori Learning Centers, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard for evaluating class counsel adequacy after misconduct)
- De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1983) (typicality and commonality standards in class actions)