2:23-cv-00088
E.D. Wash.Aug 22, 2025Background
- Jennifer Schultz filed a putative class action against Avenue5 Residential, LLC, alleging violations of the Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA), unjust enrichment, and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
- Schultz contends Avenue5 included illegal and unenforceable provisions in residential lease agreements, affecting a substantial number of tenants statewide.
- The case was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), based on class size, minimal diversity, and amount in controversy.
- The challenged lease terms include early late fees, unauthorized legal fees, service notice fees as rent, pest control charges in multi-family units, construction liability waivers, and class action waivers.
- Schultz moved to certify a main class of affected tenants and a subclass for those charged specific illegal fees or costs, seeking damages, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
- Avenue5 opposed certification on grounds of adequacy, typicality, commonality, and superiority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity | Enough leases with illegal terms meet class threshold | Did not challenge numerosity | Satisfied |
| Commonality | Challenged lease terms are common to all class members | Lease provisions vary significantly across tenants | Satisfied |
| Typicality | Schultz suffered same statutory injury as other tenants | Plaintiff’s claims atypical due to prior settlement | Satisfied |
| Adequacy | Schultz, with counsel, has no conflicts; will vigorously represent class | Settlement with prior landlord undermines adequacy | Satisfied |
| Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3)) | Class action is most efficient, avoids duplicative cases | Individualized damage and fee questions predominate | Satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (rigorous analysis required for class certification under Rule 23)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality requires questions that can drive resolution for the class)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (typicality requires representative's injury be similar to class)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (adequacy of representation requires no significant conflicts)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (predominance under Rule 23(b) satisfied if central issues are common)
- Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 F.3d 1150 (individual damages calculations do not defeat class certification)
- Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227 (efficiency and lack of realistic alternatives favor class certification)
- Zinser v. Accufix Rsch. Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (class action is not superior if numerous individual issues must be litigated)