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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT