United States: Magistrate Judge Had Authority To Enter Final Judgment Without Consent Of Absent Class Members But Abused Discretion In Approving Settlement

Last Updated: February 20 2017
Article by Gary M. Pappas

The Ninth Circuit held that a magistrate judge was not required to obtain the consent of absent class members to approve a settlement in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case and to enter a final judgment after certifying a nationwide injunction class. In so ruling, the court joined the Third, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. The court also held, however, that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in approving the settlement because the injunction was worthless and the absent members lost their right to a damages remedy in any other class action. Furthermore, no evidence existed that the absent members would derive any benefit from the settlement's cy pres award.

Three plaintiffs sued a debt collection agency for leaving voice mail messages dating back to 2008 that violated the FDCPA. During the pendency of the litigation in 2011, the agency adopted a new standardized message that complied with the Act. The parties then consented to conduct all further proceedings before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C §636(c), and the district court entered an order designating the magistrate to exercise jurisdiction over the entire case.

In 2013, the parties reached an agreement to seek certification of a nationwide, settlement-only class under Rule 23(b)(2). The proposed settlement class consisted of everyone in the United States who had received the agency's non-compliant voicemail from 2008 to 2011 — a total of four million people nationwide. The injunction required the agency to continue using the compliant voicemail it voluntarily adopted in 2011 for two more years. The agency agreed to pay each of the named plaintiffs $1,000, the maximum they could recover under FDCPA because none had suffered actual damages.

Under the FDCPA, the absent class members' collective damages were capped at $35,000 — 1% of the agency's claimed $3.5 million net worth. Given the impossibility of distributing less than a penny to four million people, the agency agreed to make a $35,000 cy pres payment to a San Diego veterans charity. The parties' proposed settlement required the absent members to forfeit their right to pursue damages against the agency in any other class action under federal or state law. However, under Rule 23(b)(2), the absent members would not receive notice of the settlement and would not be able to opt out.

One absent class member objected to the parties' proposed settlement at the fairness hearing. She became aware of the settlement when the parties moved to stay her own class action against the agency pending in the Southern District of Florida. The objector's complaint alleged the identical FDCPA violations against the agency but for a much smaller class consisting of only a few hundred Florida residents who owed money to a particular creditor on whose behalf the agency was trying to collect. The objector claimed that the parties' proposed settlement was unfair because it would require each of her absent class members to give up a damages claim worth about $100 in her case under the FDCPA damages cap. The magistrate judge approved the nationwide settlement nevertheless, and the objector appealed.

Before reaching the merits of the settlement, Ninth Circuit addressed its own appellate jurisdiction, which was dependent on the magistrate's authority to enter the final judgment. Under 28 U.S.C §636(c)(1), the magistrate's authority required "the consent of the parties", but the four million absent class members did not give theirs. The court observed that the phrase "the parties" does not have a fixed meaning in federal jurisprudence and that in some contexts had been interpreted to include absent class members. The court reviewed the provisions of §636(c)(2), which specifies the procedures for obtaining party consent under (c)(1), and concluded that Congress did not intend for "the parties" to include absent class members in this context.

For example, the court observed that (c)(2) requires the clerk to notify the parties of the availability of a magistrate judge, and it would be impossible for the clerk to undertake such notice at the time the action is filed and cost prohibitive at such time as the absent members could be identified through discovery. The court reasoned that this interpretation of the statute was also consistent with the general rule that named plaintiffs in class actions are charged with conducting the litigation on behalf of the absent members they represent, including matters of litigation strategy such as the claims to pursue or to drop, discovery to take and motions to file. According to the court, deciding whether to consent to a magistrate judge was litigation strategy of the same order — if not less consequential — than other strategy decisions and is binding on the absent class members even if made by the plaintiffs before the class is even certified.

The court also held that the Constitution does not impose a categorical prohibition on named plaintiffs waiving the right to proceed before an Article III judge on behalf of absent class members. The court reasoned that to serve as class representatives, the named plaintiffs must have claims typical of the class and must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Therefore, the named plaintiffs and absent members' interests should be aligned in the decision whether to waive the right to have an Article III judge hear the case and proceed before a magistrate judge instead. The Due Process Clause, as enforced through Rule 23, ensures that the named plaintiffs interests are, in fact, aligned with those of the entire class and that they fairly and adequately represent the absent members' interests. These due process limits affect the enforcement of class judgments but not the magistrate judges' authority under §636(c) to enter the judgment in the first place.

Turning to whether the settlement terms were fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2), the court first observed that a class settlement such as this one, which is entered before formal certification, requires heightened scrutiny because of the increased risk that named plaintiffs and their counsel will breach fiduciary obligations owed to absent class members. The court then had little trouble finding that the magistrate abused her discretion in approving this settlement.

According to the court, "the named plaintiffs and class counsel got what they wanted but the remaining four million class members got worthless injunctive relief." The court observed that the injunction merely preserved the status quo for two years because the agency had already adopted a FDCPA-compliant voicemail message. Moreover, the class was not defined to include those who were likely to be contacted by the agency in the future but only those who had suffered a past wrong at the agency's hands by receiving the non-compliant voicemail two to five years earlier. The parties made no showing, as was their burden at the fairness hearing, that the class members were likely to contacted by the agency after approval of the settlement such that they would benefit from the injunction.

The court found, similarly, that counsel presented no evidence the class would derive any benefit from the cy pres award. The court noted that longstanding precedent required the award to "be tethered to the objectives of the underlying statutes or the interests of the class members." Here, the award was a $35,000 donation to a San Diego veterans' organization, yet no evidence existed that it performed any work protecting consumers from unfair debt collection practices as proscribed by the FDCPA. Likewise, no evidence existed that the four million class members – who were scattered throughout the United States not concentrated in southern California — were disproportionately composed of veterans.

Finally, the Court blasted the settlement for its requirement that the absent class member forfeit their right to damages in any class action against the agency. "Because the settlement gave the absent class members nothing of value, they could not fairly or reasonably be required to give up anything in return." And while the parties disputed whether such rights had any real value under the damages caps of the FDCPA, the objector proved that the damages claims of her class members clearly had some value. Furthermore, the court observed that the class members were also giving up rights under state law claims that may not have the same damages caps as the FDCPA.

Koby v. Helmuth  No. 13-56964 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2017)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions