Vandervort v. Balboa Capital Corp.
287 F.R.D. 554
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Balboa Capital Corp sent fax advertisements (2008–Feb 2011); no fax permission policy; CRM tracked contacts; ProFax transmitted faxes with opt-out language; one unsolicited fax to plaintiffs in 2010; plaintiffs seek TCPA (and CA) class certification; three proposed classes (A, B, C); Class B includes all faxes with opt-out notices; court grants part and denies part of motion.
- CRM universe identified recipients; opt-out notices central to liability; class certification focused on opt-out notice adequacy rather than consent/established relationship.
- Plaintiffs argue opt-out notices violated TCPA/regulations; Class A/ B differ by unsolicited vs solicited status; Class C mirrors Class A for CA claim; disputes over ascertainability and individualized defenses.
- Court analyzes Rule 23 prerequisites for Class B; determines ascertainability for Class B; declines ascertainability for Class A and Class C; proceeds to Rule 23(b)(3) certification for Class B.
- Court ultimately certifies Class B under Rule 23(b)(3); appoints class representatives and class counsel; directs notice plan and dissemination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of Class B | B's universe is CRM; common traits identify class | Need individualized consent data | Class B ascertainable; common proof on opt-out notices suffices |
| Ascertainability of Class A | CRM lacks consent evidence; scalable | Consent/ERO requires individualized inquiry | Class A not ascertainable; denied certification |
| Ascertainability of Class C | CA opt-out issue; similar to A | Same problems as A | Class C not ascertainable; denied certification |
| Rule 23(b)(3) certification for Class B | Common opt-out issues predominate; superior method | Individual defenses and variations hinder class | Class B certified under Rule 23(b)(3) with appointment of reps and counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (predominance and class certification framework; common questions)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (cohesiveness; predominance standard)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (rigorous analysis for class certification; common issues)
- Gene & Gene LLC v. BioPay, LLC, 541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008) (need for individual consent defenses; relevance to ascertainability/predominance)
- Saf-T-Gard Int’l, Inc. v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 312 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (ascertainability concerns in TCPA class actions)