Class certification was properly denied in a case alleging violations of an anti-cramming statute because common issues would not predominate.
“Plaintiffsought to represent two plaintiff classes, one for each defendant’s customers, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires, among other elements, that common issues of fact or law must predominate over individual issues. The district court found that the proposed classes failed this requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because the details of each customer’s individual transactions would need to be examined to consider whether the claims for unjust enrichment or statutory deception were proven. Plaintiff’s arguments against this conclusion essentially mirror its arguments against the grant of summary judgment. Because a showing of a violation of the anti-cramming regulation, without more, would not prove either unjust enrichment or statutory deception, however, we agree with the district court that common issues would not predominate. See also Brown v. SBC Communications, Inc., 2009 WL 260770, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2009) (denying class certification in nearly identical case for same reason). We affirm the denial of class certification.”
10-3903 Lady Di’s, Inc., v. Enhanced Services Billing, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Hamilton, J.