These cases, on a consolidated appeal, involved three defendants: a company that purchased consumer debts, a debt collection law firm, and a process server. Plaintiffs had each been sued in various debt collection actions by defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants obtained default judgments against them fraudulently by using a “default judgment mill,” whereby defendants would purchase the debt, issue summonses and complaints en masse, and automatically generate ... Keep Reading »
Typicality Class Action Articles
The latest class action developments and trends in typicality, including news, key cases, and strategies.
The District of Colorado declined to certify a class in a case against Dollar Rent A Car where the Plaintiff alleged Dollar tricked renters into buying Loss Damage Waiver ("LDW"), supplemental liability insurance ("SLI"), and roadside assistance ("Roadsafe") (collectively "Add-On Products") that they had declined, or charged them without proper consent or contrary to disclosure requirements. Plaintiff alleged Dollar violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and ... Keep Reading »
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification citing plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy Rule 23’s ascertainability, commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements. The defendants, a debt collection agency and law firm, had filed state court complaints on behalf of medical providers in order to collect delinquent debts. The state court complaints included an exhibit listing providers who had allegedly ... Keep Reading »
The District Court for the Southern District of California denied certification in a California consumer class action in which Plaintiffs’ claimed that Maybelline falsely labeled and advertised its “SuperStay 24HR” makeup as having 24 hours of staying power. The Court found several deficiencies in the proposed class of Maybelline makeup purchasers under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3). First, the court found that the proposed class was overbroad because it included ... Keep Reading »
A Pennsylvania federal district court granted defendant CitiMortgage’s motion to strike class allegations under Rule 23(d)(1)(D), because it was clear from the complaint that plaintiffs could not meet the requirements for maintaining a class action and were unlikely to be able to substantiate their class allegations through discovery. Plaintiffs were homeowners who, after defaulting on their mortgage, commenced a class action against three defendants related to the ... Keep Reading »