By: Derek Hawkins//December 31, 2018//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Lawrence S. Brodsky, et al. v. HumanaDental Insurance Co., et al.
Case No.: 17-3067; 17-3506
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Abuse of Discretion – TCPA Violation – Class Certification
These appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of disposition, both concern the Federal Communication Commission’s “Solicited Fax Rule.” Despite the decline and fall of the fax machine, litigation continues between fax advertisers and unwilling recipients of their messages. Behind all this is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109‐21, 119 Stat. 359, and as implemented through FCC regulations. The lead plaintiffs in our cases—Lawrence Brodsky and Alpha Tech Pet, Inc.— received faxed advertisements that did not comply (so they said) with the TCPA and the FCC’s Solicited Fax Rule. Each plaintiff wanted to pursue litigation not just individually, but as the head of a class. And in each case, the district court refused to certify the proposed class, largely on the authority of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, 852 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J.). Our review of decisions on class certification, pro or con, is deferential. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2012). We see no abuse of discretion here, and so we affirm the orders of the district courts declining to certify the proposed classes.
Affirmed