Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc.
821 F.3d 992
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- MedTox sent an unsolicited single-page fax in Feb 2012 to thousands of fax numbers obtained from an insurer directory; Sandusky Wellness Center received one such fax.
- Sandusky (a chiropractic center owned by Dr. Winnestaffer) was not on MedTox’s contact list; the fax number was provided by a physician (Dr. Montgomery) who worked at Sandusky one day per week.
- Sandusky sued under the TCPA and moved to certify a class defined as all persons sent MedTox lead-testing fax advertisements without a proper opt-out notice within the statute’s limitations period.
- The district court denied class certification as not ascertainable and later entered summary judgment for MedTox, holding a settlement offer mooted Sandusky’s individual claim. Sandusky appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed the denial of class certification and vacated the judgment for MedTox, holding the proposed class was ascertainable and met Rule 23 commonality and predominance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TCPA recipient class is ascertainable | Class is ascertainable using objective fax logs showing numbers that received faxes | Class is unascertainable because identifying the injured "recipient" requires individualized inquiries (owner, subscriber, user, lessee, etc.) | Reversed: fax logs and subscriber records are objective criteria making the class ascertainable |
| Whether commonality and predominance under Rule 23 are met | Common legal/factual questions (whether faxes were unsolicited ads, whether opt-out was present) predominate and are susceptible to classwide proof | Individualized issues about who was injured and entitled to damages defeat commonality/predominance | Reversed: common questions predominate; class meets Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(3) |
| Proper interpretation of "recipient" under the TCPA | "Recipient" can be determined objectively (e.g., subscriber of the fax number); statute focuses on persons/entities receiving faxes | Recipient is not simply the fax number owner; multiple potential claimants per fax create unmanageable individual issues | Court: best objective indicator is the subscriber of the fax number; liability can be adjudicated classwide |
| Effect of defendant’s settlement offer on plaintiff’s individual claim | Settlement offer does not moot class certification; class denial must be proper before accepting mootness disposition | MedTox argued offer mooted Sandusky’s individual claim and justified dismissal | Court vacated judgment for MedTox and remanded; judgment based on mootness was improper because class certification was erroneously denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for class certification)
- In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion legal-error standard)
- EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir.) (recognizing ascertainability requirement)
- Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.) (rejecting heightened ascertainability and emphasizing Rule 23 analysis)
- Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir.) (articulating a two-part, heightened ascertainability test)
- American Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Lake City Indus. Prods., 757 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (fax numbers as objective data satisfying ascertainability)
- Creative Montessori Learning Ctrs. v. Ashford Gear LLC, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir.) (TCPA statutory damages per fax and typical class suitability)
- Holtzman v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir.) (classwide resolution typical in TCPA fax cases)
- Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir.) (judgment on settlement offer only proper when class certification was properly denied)