Class Action Blog

Nurses Sali and Spriggs moved to certify seven classes of registered nurses allegedly underpaid by Corona Regional Medical Center (“Corona”) as a result of its employment policies and practices. The district court denied class certification for all of the proposed classes on multiple grounds including some of the classes failed to meet Federal Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement, none of the classes satisfied Rule 23(a)’s typicality requirement, Spriggs was not an adequate class representative because not a member of any of the proposed classes, and the attorneys were inadequate because they “had not demonstrated they [would] adequately serve as class counsel.” After Sali and Spriggs appealed, they moved to stay the appeal while the California courts ruled on some state law substantive issues. After the state courts ruled, Sali and Spriggs limited their appeal to four of the seven original classes. The 9th Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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.