Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125336
| S.D.N.Y. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege a debt-collection scheme by Leucadia entities, Mel Harris, and Samserv to obtain tens of thousands of default judgments.
- Affidavits of merit were generated by computer programs and signed by a staffer who reportedly lacked personal knowledge.
- Process servers allegedly engaged in sewer service, serving at multiple locations simultaneously.
- Default judgments were obtained in New York City Civil Court largely without the debtors appearing.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory, and damages relief and move for class certification.
- Court grants certification of two classes: (i) 23(b)(2) equitable relief class and (ii) 23(b)(3) damages class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed classes satisfy Rule 23(a) prerequisites. | Sykes/putative class meet numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. | Defendants contest size and commonality; argue individualized issues predominate. | Yes; all Rule 23(a) prerequisites are satisfied. |
| Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3). | Unitary conduct yields common legal/factual questions (FDCPA, RICO, GBL, Judiciary Law). | Some issues require individualized causation and damages. | Predominance satisfied; class action appropriate. |
| Whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate for equitable relief only. | Equitable relief warranted for uniform misconduct in state court filings. | FDCPA allows injunctive relief; damages are not incidental. | Certification under 23(b)(2) proper for equitable relief. |
| Whether certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate for damages. | Damages issues can be managed; common liability questions predominate. | Damages may require individualized proof. | Certification under 23(b)(3) warranted for liability/damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re IPO Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) (threshold discovery and factual disputes for class certification)
- Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for class certification in complex litigation)
- Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2010) (ascertainability and general class requirements)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and class-wide resolution)
- Robidoux v. Celany, 987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) (typicality and commonality considerations)
- In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 574 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2009) (typicality and manageability in class actions)
- In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (class certification and common questions; damages management tools)
- Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2007) (predominance and superiority framework for 23(b)(3))
- Charron v. Pinnacle Grp. N.Y. LLC, 269 F.R.D. 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (separate 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) class considerations; notice/opt-out)