A District Court judge in Oregon has granted a defendant’s motion to deny class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, ruling that the question of whether the number that was called by the defendant was a business or residential number makes it unclear whether or not the plaintiff can even assert protections under the TCPA, thus not allowing him to meet the necessary requirements to be the named plaintiff in the suit.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Mattson v. New Penn Financial can be accessed by clicking here.
In granting the defendant’s motion, Judge Marco Hernandez of the District Court for the District of Oregon partially adopted the findings and recommendations of a Magistrate Judge, but also disagreed with the Magistrate Judge as to whether the plaintiff even had standing to file his lawsuit. While the Magistrate Judge found that the plaintiff lacked standing because it was not clear whether the phone number in question was for residential or business use, Judge Hernandez found otherwise.
But as to whether the plaintiff met the typicality and commonality components in order to defeat the motion to deny class certification, Judge Hernandez agreed with the Magistrate Judge and sided with the defendant. “Individual questions concerning whether” the plaintiff “is a residential subscriber to the TCPA’s protections will predominate the litigation,” he wrote. Individualized inquiries for each member of the class will be required to determine whether the number that was contacted by the defendant was a business or residential number precludes proceeding as a class, the judge ruled.