TCPA Plaintiff’s Class Definitions ‘Patently Uncertifiable,’ Says loanDepot
None of the proposed class definitions in Zachary Sawicki’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint is “certifiable as defined,” said defendant loanDepot's reply Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce in support of its motion…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
to strike Sawicki’s class allegations. LoanDepot proposes that each class “be stricken at the pleadings stage to assure the discovery process is smooth and loanDepot is afforded due process,” it said. Rather than address any of loanDepot’s arguments “head on,” Sawicki simply argues that Rule 12(f) is “an improper vehicle to strike class allegations,” it said. He “overlooks” that numerous courts “have properly stricken classes where, as here, the definitions are patently uncertifiable,” it said. Sawicki also is wrong that Rule 12(f) can’t be used “to strike errant requests for attorney’s fees,” said loanDepot. “This process is somewhat common in TCPA cases,” it said. Sawicki alleges loanDepot’s vendors began placing “voluminous” marketing solicitation calls in November to his cellphone, in violation of the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (see 2301170005).