ILNews

Class not certified in suit against lawyer

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge denied a motion for class certification in a suit filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against an Indianapolis attorney. However, he did suggest the plaintiff file another motion for class certification for two separate groups.

U.S. District Judge William Lawrence denied Mark R. Rayl's motion for class certification Thursday because he didn't believe Rayl is an appropriate class representative for the entire proposed class. Rayl filed the suit in federal court against Merrill Scooter Moores in May 2009 alleging Moores' form of initial debt collection communication violated the FDCPA.

Moores filed more than 100 notices of claim in Marion County Small Claims Court in May 2008 alleging unpaid or delinquent dues for the Wildcat Run Homeowners' Association. The notices had a telephone number for Moores that went to a voicemail message from Moores about the unpaid dues. Rayl received a notice and believed the message was an "initial communication" by a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA and that Moores violated the act by failing to provide certain information that the statute requires provided within five days of the initial communication.

Rayl wanted the court to certify a class of people who were sued by Moores regarding the Wildcat Run debt between May 1, 2008 and May 1, 2009, in which "a telephone number leading to a pre-recorded voice mail message was referenced as a contact telephone number" for Moores on the small claims complaint.

The case, Mark R. Rayl, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Merrill Moores, No. 1:09-CV-554, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Judge Lawrence had concerns regarding the typicality requirement and the related adequacy of representation requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

"The problem is this: the proposed class includes all of those who were sued by means of a notice of claim containing a telephone number that led to the Defendant's pre-recorded voice mail message," he wrote. "Without prejudging the merits, it is not entirely clear to the Court how those members of the class who did not actually listen to the voice mail message (or at least learn of its contents) will be able to demonstrate that the voice mail message was an 'initial communication' as to them."

Judge Lawrence suggested the proposed class actually is made of two groups: people who heard the message and those who did not. As such, Rayl would only be an appropriate class representative for one of those two groups. The judge explained Rayl is free to file another motion to certify addressing the concerns of the court or the case can proceed as to Rayl individually.

Moores faces potential sanctions in this case for his failure to appear and his blatant ignoring of the case, opposing counsel, and the court's orders, according to a Jan. 22 order following a show cause hearing. Magistrate Judge Tim Baker laid out in the order how Moores, who is representing himself in the action, "has wholly abandoned any defense of this action." Moores was ordered to respond to Rayl's outstanding discovery by today. Magistrate Judge Baker suggested sanctions such as reimbursement of Rayl's reasonable fees and costs because of Moores' "insouciant conduct" even if Rayl doesn't prevail on his claim or even possible admonishment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT