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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT