Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

A Tale of Two Orders: Different Results for Motions to Strike Class Allegations

April 13, 2016 by David L. Luck and D. Matthew Allen

The Southern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois recently entered orders addressing motions to strike class allegations—with very different results for the respective defendants. Although the claims and facts at issue in each case may warrant the different results, a contrast in approaches is evident.

In Kim v. Shellpoint Partners, LLC, No. 15CV611-LAB (BLM), 2016 WL 1241541 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016), the Southern District of California granted a motion to strike class allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint. There, the plaintiff sought to pursue class claims centering primarily on alleged Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations against an entity that she claimed was a mortgage lender. The motion to strike centered on ascertainability problems with two of the proposed subclasses.

The first stricken subclass involved persons billed for monthly mortgage payments in excess of the regular payments specified in the borrower’s loan-modification agreement. The court held that this was a highly individualized inquiry that would have to proceed on a borrower-by-borrower basis to examine the terms of each borrower’s agreement. The district court accordingly held that determining class membership was not administratively feasible, and struck the class allegations regarding this allegedly “overbilled” subclass.

The second stricken subclass involved persons who allegedly applied for and received a first-lien loan modification and who were charged illegal fees after the submission of their applications. On similar ascertainability grounds, the district court ruled that it would strike this “illegal fees” subclass because “there are potentially many governing documents and many ways for fees to be illegal,” which would also involve administratively unfeasible individualized inquiries to determine class membership. The court thus concluded that these two proposed subclasses “fail[ed] the ascertainability requirement even at this early stage of litigation.”

Conversely, in Van v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14 CV 8708, 2016 WL 1182001 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2016), the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to strike class allegations that centered on Ford’s contentions that: (1) the allegations of the plaintiffs’ 123-count employment-discrimination complaint created class definitions that were impermissibly “fail safe” – i.e., class membership inherently depended on the defendant’s liability vel non and thus could not be determined until final judgment; and (2) the class allegations demonstrated conflicts of interest that rendered class treatment improper, inter alia, because “the proposed class definition could include both managerial and non-managerial employees and the complaint contains allegations that female supervisors engaged in some of the allegedly wrongful conduct” vis-à-vis female employees.

In contrast to the Southern District of California’s willingness in Kim to strike class allegations at an early stage in the litigation, the Northern District of Illinois rejected Ford’s attempts to do so in Van because Ford’s arguments were “too .. easily resolved by refinement of the class definition at such time that plaintiffs seek” class certification. Even considering the differing facts and claims involved in these two cases, tension still seems to exist between the two orders regarding the level of willingness to strike class allegations before certification is sought.

Kim v. Shellpoint Partners, LLC, No. 15CV611-LAB (BLM), 2016 WL 1241541 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016); Van v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14 CV 8708, 2016 WL 1182001 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

For Want of a Damages Model, Certification Was Lost

Next Article »

Southern District of California Diffuses Hairdryer Class
Avatar

About David L. Luck

D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.