Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In Re Rodriguez)
695 F.3d 360
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Countrywide appeals a bankruptcy court order certifying a narrow injunctive class alleging Rule 2016(a) violations during Chapter 13 cases.
- Bankruptcy court held Rule 2016(a) applies to fees assessed post-petition but collected post-discharge and approved via court order.
- Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class and denied damages class certification; narrowed the class to about 125 members.
- Injunction would prevent collection of certain post-petition fees lacking Rule 2016(a) approval, without affecting valid fees.
- Countrywide argues class certification was improper under Wilborn II, that the class is fail-safe, and that reconsideration was moot after a consent judgment.
- Court affirms certification, class definition, and denial of reconsideration
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the injunctive class proper under Rule 23(b)(2)? | Rodriguez argues common practice violated Rule 2016(a) | Countrywide contends individualized issues predominate | Yes; common practice supports injunctive relief predominance |
| Is the class a valid non-fail-safe definition? | Plaintiffs rely on cohesive injury from general practice | Countrywide contends class definitional flaws | Yes; court approves non-fail-safe, narrowly tailored definition |
| May damages be certified with injunctive relief or must they be incidental? | Damages not sought or appropriate for class | Damages could be included in a broad class | Damages were incidental; no damages class certified |
| Was reconsideration proper given the FTC consent judgment? | Consent judgment mootness should be considered | No newly discovered evidence; judgment not mooted | Reasonable denial of Rule 59(e) reconsideration |
| Did Wilborn II require decertification or affect this class definition? | Wilborn II supports class as to injunctive relief | Wilborn II requires individualized analysis for damages | No abuse of discretion; Wilborn II applied to limit damages, not injunctive class |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilborn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Wilborn), 609 F.3d 748 (5th Cir. 2010) (guides Rule 23(b) analysis; distinctions between injunctive and damages classes)
- Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Maldonado, 365 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2004) (class certification and manageability; commitment to common issues)
- Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2000) (requirement that most of the class benefit from injunctive relief)
- James v. City of Dallas, Tex., 254 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2001) (injunctive relief predominance considerations; pure injunctive relief need not worry about damages)
- Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998) (Rule 23(b)(2) standards; common behavior over common questions)
- Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality and typicality; support for class-wide injunctive relief)
- Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 994 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1993) (defense of non-fail-safe classes against overly narrow definitions)
- Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999) (rejects per se prohibition on fail-safe classes)
- Beeson v. Beeson, 22 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. 2000) (recognizes fail-safe concerns in class definitions)
- In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2004) (cites as authority on class action management and injunctive relief)