Class Action Blog

The Third Circuit recently affirmed an $11,000 class action judgment against a debt collection agency for putting unencrypted QR codes with the collection agency’s internal account number assigned to each debtor on the outside of the envelope. The Third Circuit held the collection agency’s methods both established Article III standing and violated the FDCPA’s clear statutory provisions.

The Second Circuit addressed the family trust’s objection to the fee awarded to lead class counsel in the Fresno County securities fraud class action case. The “novel issue” raised was whether “an attorney’s fee is presumptively limited to the unenhanced lodestar fee” when the case is prosecuted for violations of “a statute with a fee shifting provision” even if the case was settled by “the creation of a common fund.”

Summary: A.D., a minor, filed a class action TCPA suit prosecuted by her mother against Credit One which had called A.D.’s cell phone to collect the mother’s debt. The mother had used A.D.’s cell phone to access the mother’s Credit One account, which Credit One’s caller I.D. “capture software” used to try to collect the mother’s debt. Based upon the terms of the Credit One cardholder agreement between the mother and Credit One, the district court compelled arbitration, denied A.D.’s motion for class certification, and certified for interlocutory appeal “the question whether A.D. is bound by the cardholder agreement.” The 7th Circuit ruled that A.D. was not bound by the cardholder agreement either under contract law or equitable principles and further ruled that on remand the district court was not bound to follow the cardholder agreement’s class action waiver any more than the arbitration clause. For that reason, the district court was permitted to reconsider its denial of the minor’s motion for class certification.

Plaintiff, a royalty owner of Oklahoma natural gas wells, sued for alleged underpayment of royalties. Defendant filed a CAFA removal to federal court. The royalty owner’s motion for abstention or to remand to state court based on the home state exception to CAFA was denied. The 10th Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed. Nichols v. Chesapeake Operating, LLC Plaintiff, a royalty owner in Oklahoma natural gas wells, sued Chesapeake Operating, LLC and Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (Chesapeake) in Oklahoma state court. Chesapeake then removed asserting CAFA jurisdiction because there were at least 100 proposed class members and more than $5,000,000 in controversy. Chesapeake alleged its principal place of business was in Oklahoma and that at least one class member was a Texas citizen.