in th e united sta tes d istric t c o urt fo r th e d ... · ro b erta b o rd ea ux...

{ 0 127 8 519;v1}

IN TH E UN ITE D S TA TE S D IS TRIC T C O URTFO R TH E D IS TRIC T O F N E W JE RS E Y

FIN E M A N KRE KS TE IN & H A RRIS ,P .C .A Pennsylvania Professional CorporationB Y RIC H A RD J.P ERR,ESQ UIRE

M O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRETen P enn C enter18 01 M arketStreet,Su ite 1100P hilad elphia,P A 19103-1628(v)215-8 93-9300;(f)215-8 93-8 7 19e-mail:rperr@ finemanlawfirm.com;mlittman@ finemanlawfirm.comA ttorneys forD efendants L TD FinancialS ervices,L .P .,and A dvantage A ssets II,Inc.

:RO B ERTA B O RD EA UX ,on behalf of herself : C IV IL A C TIO Nand those similarlysitu ated , :

P laintiff ::

v. : N O .2:16-cv-00243-KSH -C L W:

L TD FIN A N C IA L SERV IC ES,L .P ., :A D V A N TA GE A SSETS II,IN C .,and :JO H N D O ES 1 TO 10, :

D efend ants : JURY TRIA L D E M A N D ED: M otion D ay:Ju ne 5,2017

D E FE N D A N TS L TD FIN A N C IA L S E RV IC E S ,L P A N D A D V A N TA GE A S S E TS II,IN C .’S O P P O S ITIO N TO P L A IN TIFF’S M O TIO N FO R C L A S S C E RTIFIC A TIO N

P URS UA N T TO FE D .R.C IV .P .23

D efend antL TD FinancialServices,L P (“L TD ”),and D efend antA d vantage A ssets II,

Inc. (“A A II”) (collectively “D efend ants”), by and throu gh their u nd ersigned cou nsel,

respectfu lly oppose P laintiff’s M otion for C lass C ertification P u rsu antto Fed .R.C iv.P .23

(“P laintiff’s M otion”).

Case 2:16-cv-00243-KSH-CLW Document 56 Filed 05/23/17 of 30 PageID: 665

{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 2

TA B L E O F C O N TE N TS

I. IN TRO D UC TIO N .............................................................................................................5

II. FA C TUA L A N D P RO C E D URA L B A C KGRO UN D ....................................................5

III. L E GA L A RGUM E N T....................................................................................................10

A .P L A IN TIFF’S M O TIO N FO R C L A S S C E RTIFIC A TIO N M US T B E D E N IE DB E C A US E P L A IN TIFF’S C L A S S A C TIO N C L A IM C A N N O T P RE V A IL O NITS M E RITS .............................................................................................................10

1.The C hallenged IRS ReportingS tatementis N eitherD eceptive .....................11

N orM isleading.....................................................................................................11

2.P laintiff H as Failed to D emonstrate thatthe N atu re of E ach..........................15

UnderlyingFinancialO bligation atIssu e C an B e D etermined on a................15

C lass-W ide B asis ...................................................................................................15

3.A A IIis N otaD ebtC ollectorand Therefore C annotB e .................................21

L iable Underthe FD C P A .....................................................................................21

4.P laintiff L acks S tandingB ecau se S he W ou ld H ave Received aForm 1099-C 22

B .P L A IN TIFF FA IL S TO S A TIS FY TH E RE Q UIRE M E N TS UN D E RRUL E 23....................................................................................................................23

1.P laintiff Fails to M eetthe Requ irements of Ru le 23(a)...................................23

a. Plaintiff fails to establish numerosity.............................................................23

b. The proposed class lacks commonality...........................................................24

c. The proposed class lacks typicality. ...............................................................25

d. Plaintiff cannot adequately serve as class representative..............................26

2.E ven A ssu mingP laintiff Is A ble to S atisfythe Requ irements UnderRu le23(a),P laintiff C annotE stablishthatthe P roposed C lass M eets theRequ irements UnderRu le 23(b)(3).........................................................................27

a. Class certification is improper because individual issues predominate........27

b. Class certification is not the superior method to adjudicate the claims........28

IV . C O N C L US IO N ...............................................................................................................29


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 3

TA B L E O F A UTH O RITIE S

CasesAgostino v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.,C iv.N o.04-4362,2010 U.S.D ist.L E X IS 135310 (D .N .J.

D ec.22,2010)...........................................................................................................................27Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,521 U.S.591 (1997 )................................................................23Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Co.,190 F.Su pp.3d 38 5(M .D .P a.2016)....................................15Bolin v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,231 F.3d 97 0 (5thC ir.2000).......................................................28Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr.,464 F.3d 450 (3d C ir.2006)...............................................................11Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 550 F.3d 294 (3d C ir.200 8 )................................12Carrera v. Bayer Corp.,7 27 F.3d 300 (3d C ir.2013)..................................................................16Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,133S.C t.1426 (2013).........................................................10,11,28Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co.,543F.3d 141 (3d C ir.200 8 )..........................................27Deitz v. Comcast Corp.,N o.C 06-06352 W H A ,200 7 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 5318 8 (N .D .C al.Ju ly

11,2007 )...................................................................................................................................16Dewey v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,68 1 F.3d 17 0 (3d C ir.2012)......................................26Dykes v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC,N o.1:15cv110,2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 10308 (E.D .

V a.Jan.28 ,2016).....................................................................................................................20FTC v. Check Inv’rs, Inc.,502 F.3d 159 (3d C ir.200 7 )...............................................................21General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon,457 U.S.147 (198 2)...................................10,25Glover v. Udren,N o.08 -990,2013U.S.D ist.L EX IS 17 0246 (W .D .P a.Ju l.18 ,2013)............26Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,7 25F.3d 349 (3d C ir.2013)..........................................10,16,24Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.,8 17 F.3d 131 (4thC ir.2016),cert granted,137 S.C t.

8 10 (U.S.Jan.13,2017 )(N o.16-349)................................................................................21,22In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,552 F.3d 305(3d C ir.200 8 )...........................10,23,28In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,57 9 F.3d 241 (3d C ir.2009).......................................23In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig.,58 9 F.3d 58 5(3d C ir.2009)...............................26,27In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig.,N o.C 06-2069 SB A ,2008 U.S.D ist.L EX IS

147 56 (N .D .C al.Feb.13,200 8 )...............................................................................................16Jackson v. Se. Pa. Tramp. Auth.,260 F.R.D .168 (E.D .P a.2009)...............................................24Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler,7 91 F.3d 413,2015 W L 39537 54 (3d C ir.2015)........................12Kamal v. J. Crew Grp., Inc.,2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 145392 (D .N .J.O ct.20,2016).................22Karhu v. Vital Pharms., Inc.,621 Fed .A ppx.945,947 -950 (11thC ir.2015)............................18Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,68 7 F.3d 58 3(3d C ir.2012)......................16,18 ,20,24,28 ,29Qureshi v. OPS 9, LLC,C ivilA ction N o.14-18 06,2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 149664 (D .N .J.O ct.

28 ,2016)...................................................................................................................................20Riffle v. Convergent Outsourcing,311 F.R.D .67 7 (M .D .Fla.2015)..................19,20,24,28 ,29Sadler v. Midland Credit Mgmt, Inc.,N o.06-C -5045,200 8 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 51198 (N .D .Ill.

Ju ly3,200 8 )..............................................................................................................................16Sloane v. Gulf Interstate Field Servs.,N o.4:16-cv-0157 1,2017 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 4308 8 (M .D .

P a.M ar.24,2017 ).....................................................................................................................26Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,136 S.C t.1540 (2016)............................................................................22Stewart v. Abraham,27 5F.3d 220 (3d C ir.2001)........................................................................24Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,667 F.3d 27 3(3d C ir.2011)................................................................28Szczurek v. Prof'l Mgmt.,N o.14-47 7 5,2015U.S.A pp.L EX IS 17 245at* 6 (3d C ir.O ct.1,

2015).........................................................................................................................................12Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,131 S.C t.2541 (2011)........................................................10,24


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 4

Wilson v. Quadramed Corp.,225F.3d 350 (3d C ir.2000)....................................................11,12Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group,8 34 F.2d 1163(3d C ir.198 7 )............................................16

Statutes15U.S.C .§ 1692a(3)......................................................................................................................715U.S.C .§ 1692a(5)................................................................................................................7 ,1715U.S.C .§ 1692a(6)..............................................................................................................21,2215U.S.C .§ 1692e .........................................................................................................................1215U.S.C .§ 1692k(2)(A )...............................................................................................................2826 U.S.C .§ 6050 P .........................................................................................................................1226 U.S.C .§ 6050P (c)(2)(D )..........................................................................................................13

RulesFed .R.C iv.P .23(a).........................................................................................................23,25,26Fed .R.C iv.P .23(b)...............................................................................................................27 ,28

Other AuthoritiesIRS Instru ctions forForm1099-C ,at4.........................................................................................13


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 5

I. IN TRO D UC TIO N

P laintiff’s A mend ed C omplaintand M otion argu e thatD efend ants violated the FairD ebt

C ollection P ractices A ct(“FD C P A ”),15U.S.C .§ § 1692e and 1692f by send ingcollection letters

thatmad e asettlementofferin conju nction withP laintiff’s balance and stated thatthe cred itorof

P laintiff’s accou ntmay be requ ired to reportthe forgiveness to the IRS. (D oc.25 at¶ ¶ 31,56,

7 5 and atExhibitA ,D oc.52-1 at2). P laintiff claims thatD efend ants’actions affectasimilar

grou pof pu tative class members.H owever,P laintiff d oes nothave an FD C P A claim becau se the

statements in L TD ’s letters were tru thfu las to P laintiff. This prevents P laintiff from being a

class representative in this case. In ad d ition,A A IIis notad ebtcollector,and therefore,is not

su bjectto the FD C P A . Fu rther, P laintiff’s pu rported pu tative class is notascertainable from

objective record s maintained by either P laintiff or D efend ants. A n ind ivid u alized inqu iry

d irected to eachpu tative class memberis requ ired in ord erto d etermine whetherthe obligation in

qu estion is aconsu merorcommerciald ebt. The necessity of this inqu iry is fatalto P laintiff’s

M otion.\1

II. FA C TUA L A N D P RO C E D URA L B A C KGRO UN D

A A IIis a“passive d ebtbu yer”whichpu rchases accou nts receivable.(See D eposition of

D avid John,M arch 14,2017 at50:23-25,51:1-8 ,ExhibitA ).\2 A A II pu rchased a poolof

accou nts,inclu d ing P laintiff’s accou nt,from C itibank,N .A .(“C itibank”). (See ExhibitA at

52:1-3,8 1:16-20). A A IIis notad ebtcollectoras d efined by the FD C P A . (See ExhibitA at

7 8 :16:23). A A II retained L TD ,which is a collection agency,to collect on P laintiff’s

1/ P laintiff’s M otion states thatD efend ants have mad e threats to seeksanctions againstP laintiff and herattorneys.(D oc.52-2 at¶ 10,D oc.52-5 at¶ 10).D efend ants categoricallyd enythese accu sations.2/ The P resid entof A A II,TimothyFeld man,and the Estate of L eonard P ru zanskyco-own A A II.H owardReiner,Esq.,was appointed as the D epend entA d ministratorof M r.P ru zansky’s estate bythe State of Texas.Feld man and Reinerd esignated John to be the Ru le 30(b)(6)witness forA A II.(See ExhibitA at12:18 -25,13:10-14).


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 6

ou tstand ing obligation owed to C itibank,in connection with a H ome D epot cred it card

(“C itibankH ome D epotA ccou nt”).(See ExhibitA at51:17 -18 ).

L TD sentletters d ated Janu ary 14,2015,A pril3,2015,and A u gu st4,2015 thatmad e a

settlementofferin conju nction with P laintiff’s balance of $4,528 .59,and stated the following

langu age:

W henever $600.00 or more of a d ebtis forgiven as a resu ltofsettlingad ebtforless than the balance owing,the cred itormay berequ ired to reportthe amou ntof the d ebtforgiven to the InternalRevenu e Service on a 1099C form,a copy of which wou ld bemailed to you by the cred itor.If you are u ncertain of the legalortax consequ ences,we encou rage you to consu ltyou rlegalortaxad visor.

(D oc.25atExhibitA ).

L TD offered P laintiff the ability to pay 1 paymentof $1,132.15,whichwou ld resu ltin a

maximu m amou ntof forgiveness of $3,396.44,and 12 payments of $150.96,whichwou ld resu lt

in aminimu m amou ntof forgiveness of $2,7 17 .0 7 .(D oc.25 atExhibitA ).P laintiff d id notpay

any money to L TD as aresu ltof receivingthe three letters.(See L TD ’s A ccou ntN otes,Exhibit

B ).P laintiff wou ld have received aForm 1099-C if she had accepted eitheroffer.(See Exhibit

C ).

P laintiff seeks to certify aclass as d efined as:

A llnatu ralpersons resid ing in the State of N ew Jersey,to whomL TD FinancialServices,L .P .,sentacollection letter d ated fromJanu ary 13,2015 throu gh and inclu d ing Janu ary 13,2016,in anattemptto collectaconsu mer d ebtalleged ly owed to A d vantageA ssets II,Inc.; and contained the same or similar langu age,‘W henever $600.00 or more of a d ebtis forgiven as a resu ltofsettlingad ebtforless than the balance owing,the cred itormay berequ ired to reportthe amou ntof the d ebtforgiven to the InternalRevenu e Service on a 1099C form,a copy of which wou ld bemailed to you by the cred itor.If you are u ncertain of the legalortax consequ ences,we encou rage you to consu ltyou rlegalortaxad visor.’


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 7

(D oc.52-1 at3).

P laintiff alleges thatthe class is comprised of “1,994 ind ivid u als in N ew Jersey”who

received a letter from “D efend ants”thatcontains the aforementioned langu age,and the class

claims are d efined as “‘as allclaims arising u nd erthe Fair D ebtC ollection P ractices A ct,15

U.S.C .§ 1692 et seq.,from D efend ants’send ing the letter in the same form or su bstantially

similarform as Exhibit‘A .’”(D oc.52-1 at3-4)(emphasis ad d ed ).P laintiff also alleges thatall

of the proposed class members received aletterfrom the same template in an attemptto collecta

“C onsu merThe H ome D epotcred itaccou nt.”(D oc.52-1 at14).\3

Significantly,P laintiff can only state thatthere are 1,994 “ind ivid u als”and notclass

members becau se there is no evid ence in this case that the 1,994 ind ivid u als are in fact

“consu mers”orowed “d ebts”as d efined by the FD C P A .15U.S.C .§ § 1692a(3)and a(5).L TD

id entified thatthe “maximu m nu mber of ind ivid u als”who resid e in N ew Jersey,who L TD

mailed aletterto in attemptto collectan obligation on behalf of A A II,whichinclu d ed the same

ormaterially similarstatement:“W henever$600.00 ormore of ad ebtis forgiven as aresu ltof

settlingad ebtforless than the balance owing,the cred itormay be requ ired to reportthe amou nt

of the d ebtforgiven to the InternalRevenu e Service on a1099C form,”is 1,994.(D oc.52-1 at

3).\4 L TD cannotmake any otherstatementas itpossesses absolu tely no information regard ing

the specific natu re (i.e. consu merorbu siness)of the pu rchases mad e withaH ome D epotcred it

card . P laintiff appears to be alleging thatthe factthatan accou ntmay be d esignated by the

cred itoras a“consu mer”accou ntis d eterminative thatitis aconsu merd ebtas d efined by the

FD C P A .15U.S.C .§ § 1692a(3)and a(5).N othingcou ld be fu rtherfrom the tru th.

3 P laintiff’s A mend ed C omplaintalleges violations u nd er15U.S.C .§ § 1692e,1692e(2)(A ),1692e(4),1692e(5),1692e(8 ),1692e(10),and 1692f of the FD C P A .(D oc.25at¶ ¶ 56,7 5).4/ L TD ’s d iscoveryresponses initiallystated thatthis nu mberwas 3,47 8 ,however,this was based on anincorrectsearchand the correctnu mberwas provid ed d u ringL TD ’s d eposition.(D oc.52-1 at3).


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 8

D avid John,who is the C EO /P resid entof L TD ,testified as follows:

Q .(B y M r.Stern)D o you have any facts regard ing the accou ntwhichL TD attempted to collectfrom M s.B ord eau x,whichwou ldrelate to whetherthe d ebtwas consu merd ebt?

A .There’s no way forme to know if M s.B ord eau x u sed herH omeD epotcred itcard to pu rchase things to ru n abu siness.There’s noway --Ihave no id eaif she u sed itforhou sehold .ForallIknow,she has M rs. B ord eau x's P lu mbing and she was d oing herpu rchases with her H ome D epotcard .It’s impossible for me toknow.

* * *W e wou ld have to d eposition herto askherwhatshe mad e on thecharge.Ju stbecau se Ican see acharge,Ihave no id eawhatit’sfor.D id you travelhere on bu siness or d id you travelhere onpleasu re?Itshows u pon you rcred itcard .W hichis it?That’s notgoing to tellme anything thatyou have a charge on an airline,right?I'm sorry.I'm notsu pposed to askyou qu estions.Sorry.

Q .(B y M r.Stern)So based u pon whatyou ju stsaid you have someu nd erstand ingof whatconstitu tes aconsu merd ebtand what's notaconsu merd ebt.

A .Ihave u nd erstand ing from the --from the reverse stand pointwhere Igetargu mentfrom opposing cou nselthatsomebod y whod efies the ru les of the agreementthey signed on a bu siness orcommercialcred itcard and u sed itforpersonalu se now consid ersthemselves aconsu mer.So ergo the logic Iu se is if thatis tru e,then the opposite mu stbe tru e as well.

* * *Iwill--Id o notbelieve thatIam qu alified to tellyou whetherM s.B ord eau x's transactions mad e her a consu mer, a bu siness, acommercial,anonconsu mer.Id o notknow.

* * *Q .So in you rmind you can'td istingu ishbetween the two;is thatcorrect?

A .It’s acase-by-case basis.Iknow there are certain accou nts thatby natu re mu stbe acommerciald ebt.Iknow otheraccou nts thatby natu re can only be --Ican’teven say that.Iwas goingto saythere are certain accou nts thatcou ld only be aconsu merd ebt,bu tI’m noteven su re Icou ld say that.A llIknow – the only one I


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 9

know of is Iknow there are certain d ebts thatforall--as faras myu nd erstand ing goes cou ld only be consid ered commercial andthat’s where my knowled ge end s.

(See D eposition of D avid John,M arch 13,2017 ,126:5-15,127 :1-20,128 :19-22,131:18 -25,

132:1-4,ExhibitD )(emphasis ad d ed ).

Fu rther,A A IIreceived electronic information regard ingapoolof accou nts itpu rchased

from C itibank,inclu d inginformation regard ingP laintiff’s accou nt,whichwas then provid ed to

L TD .(See ExhibitA ,at114:21-25,115:20-22).L TD u sed this information to create its accou nt

notes forP laintiff’s accou nt. (See ExhibitA at115:23-25,116:1). A A II’s record s have mu ch

less d etailthan L TD ’s record s. (See ExhibitA at116:8 -18 ). A A II d oes nothave “any

information any information as to whetherany obligation itretains L TD FinancialServices,L .P .

(“L TD ”)to attemptto collectconstitu tes ad ebtu nd erthe FD C P A .” (See A A II’s D iscovery

Responses,Interrogatory N o.4,ExhibitE).

P laintiff claims thatshe has a“H ome D epotC onsu mercred itcard accou nt”d espite the

factthatshe has provid ed no evid ence to establishthatany of the pu rchases she mad e withthat

accou ntwere in factforconsu merpu rchases. (D oc.52-5 at¶ 2). L TD ’s A ccou ntN otes for

P laintiff provid e no information as to the natu re of the u nd erlyingpu rchases,i.e. forconsu meror

bu siness,P laintiff mad e withherC itibankH ome D epotA ccou nt.(See L TD ’s A ccou ntN otes for

P laintiff’s A ccou nt,ExhibitB ).Fu rther,L TD prod u ced the accou ntstatements for P laintiff’s

C itibankH ome D epotA ccou ntand itis impossible to d etermine whetherthe u nd erlyingnatu re

of the pu rchases were forbu siness orconsu meru se.(See D eclaration of D avid John,ExhibitF;

see P laintiff’s A ccou ntStatements,ExhibitG).

L TD also provid ed its A ccou ntN otes forthe pu tative class to P laintiff’s cou nsel,which

are very similarin formatto the A ccou ntN otes forP laintiff,and they also d o notd emonstrate


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 10

whetherthe class members u sed the cred itcard forconsu merorbu siness reasons. In ad d ition,

P laintiff has provid ed no method ology for ascertaining the natu re of each pu tative class

member’s obligation. This is fatalto P laintiff’s M otion. Since P laintiff cannot meetthe

threshold forclass certification u nd erFed eralRu le of C ivilP roced u re 23(a)or23(b),P laintiff’s

M otion mu stbe d enied .

III. L E GA L A RGUM E N T

The class action is “an exception to the u su alru le thatlitigation is cond u cted by and on

behalf of the ind ivid u alnamed parties only.”Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,133 S.C t.1426,1432

(2013). Itis the “plaintiff’s bu rd en to show thata class action is a proper vehicle for this

lawsu it.”Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,7 25 F.3d 349,354 (3d C ir.2013).To come within the

exception,a party seeking to maintain a class action “mu st affirmatively d emonstrate his

compliance”withRu le 23.Behrend,133 S.C t.at1432 (citingWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,

131 S.C t.2541,2551 (2011)).The Ru le “d oes notsetforthamere plead ingstand ard .”Id. A

class may be certified only if the cou rt“is satisfied ,afterrigorou s analysis,thatthe prerequ isites

of Ru le 23(a)have been satisfied .”In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,552 F.3d 305,309

(3d C ir.200 8 )(citingGeneral Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon,457 U.S.147 ,161 (198 2)).

The party mu stalso satisfy throu ghevid entiary proof atleastone of the provisions of Ru le 23(b).

Behrend,133 S.C t.at1432.The provision atissu e here is Ru le 23(b)(3),whichrequ ires acou rt

to find that“the qu estions of law or factcommon to class members pred ominate over any

qu estions affectingonlyind ivid u almembers.”

A . P L A IN TIFF’S M O TIO N FO R C L A S S C E RTIFIC A TIO N M US T B ED E N IE D B E C A US E P L A IN TIFF’S C L A S S A C TIO N C L A IM C A N N O TP RE V A IL O N ITS M E RITS .


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 11

The Su preme C ou rt of the United States recently held that class certification is

inappropriate when an inqu iry into the facts proves thatthe claim cannotprevailon its merits,on

aclass level.See Behrend,133 S.C t.1426.In Behrend,the Su preme C ou rtemphasized thatit

“may be necessary for the cou rtto probe behind the plead ings”in d etermining whether the

prerequ isites of Ru le 23(a)have been satisfied ,whichfrequ ently entails “overlapwiththe merits

of the plaintiff’s u nd erlyingclaim”as the class d etermination generally involves consid erations

thatare enmeshed in the factu aland legalissu es comprisingthe plaintiff's cau se of action.”Id.

(internalqu otations and citations omitted )).

1. The C hallenged IRS ReportingS tatementis N eitherD eceptive

N orM isleading

P laintiff asserts thatthe challenged langu age in L TD ’s letters falsely represented that

“‘legalortax consequ ences’and InternalRevenu e Service reportingwou ld occu ru nless the d ebt

was paid in-fu ll.”(D oc.52-1 at1). P laintiff’s claim fails becau se she wou ld have received a

Form 1099-C if she accepted L TD ’s settlementofferand the langu age was notmislead ing.

W hether L TD ’s letters were mislead ing mu stbe evalu ated from the perspective of the

“leastsophisticated consu mer.”See, e.g.,Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr.,464 F.3d 450,454 (3d C ir.

2006).\5 W hile the leastsophisticated d ebtorstand ard protects naive consu mers,“italso prevents

liability forbizarre orid iosyncratic interpretations of collection notices by preservingaqu otient

of reasonableness and presu ming a basic levelof u nd erstand ing and willingness to read with

care.”Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350, 354-55 (3d C ir. 2000).In ad d ition,

“misstatements mu stbe materialto be actionable u nd er [Section] 1692e.”Szczurek v. Prof'l

5/P laintiff’s M otion states “B ord eau x believed D efend ants’above statement,referred to here as the ‘Tax/L egalC onsequ ence W arning,’was tru e bu tlaterlearned itwas false.B ord eau x D ecl.¶ 2.”(D oc.52-1 at2).H owever,this statementd oes notappearin B ord eau x’s D eclaration.(D oc.52-5).H owever,itis irrelevantwhatP laintiffthou ghtas the testu nd erthe FD C P A is thatthe lettermu stbe evalu ated from the perspective of the leastsophisticated d ebtor.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 12

Mgmt.,N o.14-47 7 5,2015 U.S.A pp.L EX IS 17 245 at* 6 (3d C ir.O ct.1,2015)(qu oting Jensen

v. Pressler & Pressler,7 91 F.3d 413,2015 W L 39537 54,at* 2 (3d C ir.2015)).“A lthou gh

established to ease the lotof the naive,the stand ard d oes notgo so faras to provid e solace to the

willfu lly blind or non-observant”for “[e]ven the leastsophisticated d ebtor is bou nd to read

collection notices in theirentirety.”Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 550 F.3d 294,

299 (3d C ir.2008 ). “Ru lings that ignore these rational characteristics of even the least

sophisticated d ebtor and instead rely on u nrealistic and fancifu linterpretations of collection

commu nications thatwou ld notoccu r to even a reasonable or sophisticated d ebtor fru strate

C ongress’s intentto ‘insu re thatthose d ebtcollectors who refrain from u sing abu sive d ebt

collection practices are notcompetitively d isad vantaged .”Id.(qu oting 15 U.S.C .§ 1692e).

D ebtors,therefore,are presu med to have a“basic levelof u nd erstand ing and awillingness to

read with care.” Wilson, 225 F.3d at354-355. In this case,P laintiff’s claims failto meetthe

“leastsophisticated consu mer”stand ard .

In 1993,C ongress passed 26 U.S.C .§ 6050P ,whichcod ified the law requ iring 1099-C

filings in the InternalRevenu e C od e,stating:

(a)In general.–A ny applicable entity whichd ischarges (in wholeorin part)the ind ebted ness of anyperson d u ringany calend aryearshall make a retu rn (at su ch time and in su ch form as theSecretary[ofthe Treasu ry] maybyregu lations prescribe)settingforth-

(1) the name,ad d ress,and [Taxpayer Id entification N u mber] ofeach person whose ind ebted ness was d ischarged d u ring su chcalend aryear,

(2)the d ate of the d ischarge and the amou ntof the ind ebted nessd ischarged ,and

(3)su chotherinformation as the Secretary may prescribe.

(b)Ex ception.Su bsection (a)shallnotapply to any d ischarge ofless than $600.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 13

Und er this langu age,an applicable entity “shallmake a retu rn”when it d ischarges

“ind ebted ness”of $600 ormore.A pplicable entities inclu d e “any organizationasignificanttrad e

or bu siness of which is the lend ing of money.”26 U.S.C .§ 6050 P (c)(2)(D ).The Treasu ry

regu lations d esignate the Form 1099-C ,C ancellation of D ebt,as the “retu rn”that26 U.S.C .§

6050P (a) requ ires applicable entities to file. D ebtis d efined as “any amou ntowed to you ,

inclu d ingstated principal,stated interest,fees,penalties,ad ministrative costs,and fines.” IRS

Instru ctions for Form1099-C ,at4. H owever,the instru ctions explain thatentities are not

requ ired to report“Interest”or “N onprincipalamou nts,”su ch as “penalties,fines,fees,and

ad ministrative costs.”Id. at4-5.

A ttached as Exhibit C are charts showing the following: (1) a su mmary of the

information on P laintiff’s A ccou ntStatements (ExhibitG);(2) 4 charts showing the possible

combinations of the application of P laintiff’s overpaymenttotalof $1,130.52 to her cu rrent

balance and application to the write-off balance based u pon the maximu m forgiveness offerof

$3,396.44 and the minimu m forgiveness offer of $2,7 17 .05.\6 This information d emonstrates

thatP laintiff wou ld have received aForm 1099-C .

In Rhone v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc.,C iv.A ction N o.14-cv-02034,2015

6/O f the thirty-two possible combinations in whichapplication of the excess payments to cu rrentbalance alongwithapplication of the write-off to the balance based on the settlementoption chosen bythe consu mer,onlyonecombination lead s to the write-off of less than $600 in principalin P laintiff's situ ation.W hile D efend ants provid ethese scenarios to d emonstrate thatas amatterof fact,P laintiff's accou ntwas su bjectto a1099-C in the eventanysettlementoption was chosen,there is simplyno basis to believe thatthe exaggerated example provid ed in the chart,whichlead s to awrite-off of only$111.8 8 in principal,wou ld evercome abou t.A ccord ingly,itcan be d isregard edas acomplete ou tlier.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 14

U.S.D istL EX IS 10618 6 (S.D .Ind .A u g.12,2015)the cou rtad d ressed nearly id enticalIRS

warning langu age. The collection letterin Rhone stated ,“any settlementwrite-off of $600 or

more may be reported to the InternalRevenu e Service by ou rclient.” Id. at* 3. The P laintiff

alleged this statementwas afalse ormislead ing statementu nd erthe FD C P A . In granting the

d ebtcollector’s motion to d ismiss,the cou rtru led as amatterof law that“‘any settlementwrite-

off’–withacond itionalterm –‘may be reported to the InternalRevenu e Service’–may be poor

phrasing,bu tmislead ingord eceptive [u nd erthe FD C P A ] itis not.”Id. at* 9.The cou rtgranted

the d ebtcollector’s motion to d ismiss.

A nothercase withsimilarfacts from this ju risd iction is Good v. Nationwide Credit. Inc.,

55 F.Su pp.3d 7 42 (E.D .P a.2014).In Good,the cou rtfou nd thatlangu age in acollection letter

statingthatthe cred itor“is requ ired to file aform 1099C withthe InternalRevenu e Service for

any cancelled d ebtof $600 ormore,”su pported aclaim forviolation of § 1692e becau se the

langu age was u nequ ivocalbu tthe regu lations contain exceptions. Id. at7 48 (emphasis ad d ed ).

The basis for the cou rt’s d ecision tu rned on the langu age that su pposed ly “requ ired ”the

d isclosu re. Id. at7 50.This langu age is d istingu ishable from the 1099 d isclosu re langu age here

and in the Rhone case,which ad vises that“any settlementwrite-off of $600 ormore may be

reported to the InternalRevenu e Service ....”(emphasis ad d ed ).In afootnote,the Good cou rt

actu ally makes reference to whatcou ld be consid ered “safe harbor”langu age u sed in this case

that,accord ingto the P laintiff’s attorney in the Rhone case,wou ld notbe actionable u nd erthe

FD C P A :“you r cred itor may be requ ired to file a form 1099C with the IRS when a d ebtis

canceled orsettled .” Id. at7 50,n.3.The cases thathave ad d ressed this specific factscenario

provid e clearpreced entthatad ebtcollectorthatu ses the phrases “requ ired ”to be reported to the

IRS cou ld amou ntto aviolation of the FD C P A and ad ebtcollectorthatwarns thatIRS reporting


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 15

“may be”reported is notactionable u nd er the FD C P A . B ecau se L TD u sed the “may be”

reported langu age in its letters,itis notfalse,d eceptive,ormislead ingu nd erthe FD C P A .

P laintiff willlikely argu e thatseveralrecentcases stand forthe proposition thatL TD ’s

letters are mislead ingu nd erthe FD C P A .See Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Co.,190 F.Su pp.3d

38 5,38 7 ,392 (M .D .P a.2016)(d enyingmotion to d ismiss FD C P A claim based on letterstating

“any ind ebted ness of $600.00 ormore,which is d ischarged as aresu ltof asettlement,may be

reported to the IRS as taxable income”);see Velez v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC,N o.16-164,

2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 57 8 32 (E.D .P a.M ay 2,2016)(same).H owever,these opinions d ecid ed

whetherthere was acau se of action atthe plead ings stage of the cases.The opinions only held

thatthe plaintiffs stated acau se of action and d id notd etermine whetherthe u nd erlying facts

actu ally su pported the plaintiffs’claims.H ere,based on the P laintiff’s A ccou ntStatements,itis

clearthatP laintiff’s claim fails becau se if she accepted any settlementofferfrom L TD as stated

in its letters she wou ld have received aForm 1099-C .See ExhibitG.

2. P laintiff H as Failed to D emonstrate thatthe N atu re of E ach

UnderlyingFinancialO bligation atIssu e C an B e D etermined on a

C lass-W ide B asis__________________________________________

The Third C ircu itrequ ires thatP laintiff establish as athreshold thatthere is evid entiary

proof thatan ascertainable class of claimants exists withregard to the type of obligation owed by

eachpotentialclass member.P laintiff has failed to provid e any information to make athreshold

showing thatthe obligations were for personalu se to be a consu mer d ebtas d efined by the

FD C P A .

“M any cou rts and commentators have recognized thatan essentialperqu isite of aclass

action,atleastwithrespectto actions u nd erRu le 23(b)(3),is thatthe class mu stbe cu rrently and

read ily ascertainable based on objective criteria.” Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,68 7 F.3d


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 16

58 3,592-593 (3d C ir.2012).“If class members are impossible to id entify withou textensive and

ind ivid u alized fact-find ing or “mini-trials,”then a class action is inappropriate.” Id. at593.

Ind eed ,“some cou rts have held thatwhere nothingin company d atabases shows orcou ld show

whetherind ivid u als shou ld be inclu d ed in the proposed class,the class d efinition fails.”Id. “[A ]

plaintiff mu stshow,by aprepond erance of the evid ence,thatthe class is cu rrently and read ily

ascertainable based on objective criteria,and atrialcou rtmu stu nd ertake arigorou s analysis of

the evid ence to d etermine if the stand ard is met.”Carrera v. Bayer Corp.,7 27 F.3d 300,306 (3d

C ir.2013)(internalcitations omitted );see Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,7 25 F.3d 349,at356

(3d C ir.2013)(“the natu re orthorou ghness of ad efend ant’s record keeping d oes notalterthe

plaintiff’s bu rd en to fu lfillRu le 23’s requ irements”);Clavell v. Midland Funding LLC,N o.10-

3593,2011 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 657 21,at* 6 (E.D .P a.Ju ne 21,2011) (“the class mu stbe

su fficiently d efined so thatthe class is id entifiable”). “A scertainability mand ates a rigorou s

approach atthe ou tsetbecau se of the key roles itplays as partof aRu le 23(b)(3)class action

lawsu it.” Carrera,7 27 F.3d at 307 . “A plaintiff may not merely propose a method of

ascertainingaclass withou tanyevidentiarysu pportthatthe method willbe su ccessfu l.”Id. at

306 (emphasis ad d ed ).\7

P laintiff has notprovid ed any evid ence thataclass of claimants exists u nd erthe FD C P A .

A threshold requ irementfor the application of the FD C P A is thatthe alleged ly prohibited

practices were u sed in an attemptto collecta“d ebt,”as thatterm is d efined by § 1692a(5)of the

FD C P A . Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 8 34 F.2d 1163, 1167 (3d C ir. 198 7 ).

7 / O ther cou rts also have held that“where nothing in company d atabases shows or cou ld show whetherind ivid u als shou ld be inclu d ed in the proposed class,the class d efinition fails.”See Marcus, F.3d 58 3 at593;Sadlerv. Midland Credit Mgmt, Inc.,N o.06-C -5045,200 8 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 51198 ,A T * 15-20 (N .D .Ill.Ju ly 3,200 8 );Inre Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig.,N o.C 06-2069 SB A ,200 8 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 147 56,at* 24-28 (N .D .C al.Feb.13,200 8 );Deitz v. Comcast Corp.,N o.C 06-06352 W H A ,200 7 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 5318 8 ,at* 24-26 (N .D .C al.Ju ly11,200 7 ).


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 17

A ccord ingly,to su stain aclaim u nd erthe FD C P A ,aplaintiff mu std emonstrate thatthe alleged

d ebtfalls within the meaningof § 1692a(5).Section 1692a(5)d efines “d ebt”as “any obligation

or alleged obligation of a consu mer to pay money arising ou tof a transaction in which the

money,property,insu rance,orservices whichare the su bjectof the transaction are primarily for

personal,family,orhou sehold pu rposes.”15U.S.C .§ 1692a(5).

The Marcus opinion is illu strative of why P laintiff willbe u nsu ccessfu lin any attemptat

class certification.Itwou ld be an impossible end eavorto d etermine whetherany type of class of

claimants existed withou tthe type of “extensive and ind ivid u alized fact-find ing ormini-trials”

thatthe Third C ircu itd ismissed as inappropriate in Marcus. P laintiff’s accou ntis related to a

H ome D epotcred itcard . (D oc.25 atExhibitA ;see ExhibitG). P laintiff asserts thather

obligation arose ou tof atransaction primarily forpersonal,family,orhou sehold pu rposes.(D oc.

25at¶ 18 ,D oc.52-5 at¶ 2).P laintiff has provid ed absolu tely nothingto show that D efend ants’

record s somehow reflectthe u nd erlyingpu rpose of eachpu rchase by the 1,994 ind ivid u als that

u ltimately led to L TD ’s collection efforts. A s illu strated by P laintiff’s obligation,L TD ’s

A ccou ntN otes and P laintiff’s A ccou ntStatements simplyd o notreflectwhetherP laintiff’s cred it

card pu rchases atH ome D epotwere mad e forpersonal,family,orhou sehold pu rposes,orinstead

were u sed forbu siness pu rchases. (See Exhibits B ,F,and G). The only way to d etermine this

wou ld be to d epose eachof the 1,994 ind ivid u als regard ingtheirpu rchases.

P laintiff willlikely assertthatthe natu re of the pu rchases is notthe issu e – rather an

accou ntmeets the d efinition of a“d ebt”u nd erthe FD C P A if was opened as a“consu mer”and

notabu siness accou nt.This is completely wrong.The u nd erlyingnatu re of the pu rchases is the

controllinginqu iry.A s John testified on behalf of L TD ,L TD has no wayof knowingwhetheran

ind ivid u alu ses aconsu mercred itcard accou ntto make bu siness pu rchases.(See ExhibitD at


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 18

126:5-15,127 :1-20,128 :19-22,131:18 -25,132:1-4).

P laintiff also willlikely propose thatasu rvey of the su rvey of the pu tative class members

cou ld be d one to d etermine the natu re of theirpu rchases,however,the Third C ircu ithas rejected

u singsu rveys.See Marcus,68 7 F.3d at594 (“W e cau tion,however,againstapprovingamethod

that wou ld amou nt to no more than ascertaining by potentialclass members’say so.For

example,simply having potentialclass members su bmitaffid avits thattheirB rid gestone RFTs

have gone flatand been replaced maynotbe ‘properorju st.’”).

M oreover,the bu rd en rests on P laintiff to d emonstrate thatD efend ants’record s cou ld

id entify class members and mere specu lation of su ch d oes notsu ffice. In Karhu v. Vital

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,the Eleventh C ircu itheld thatthe plaintiff d id notmeethis bu rd en to

establish ascertainability for the same reason as in the instantcase,i.e. the plaintiff d id not

explain how the d efend ant’s record s wou ld aid in id entifyingthe class members. See Karhu v.

Vital Pharms., Inc.,621 Fed .A ppx. 945,947 -950 (11th C ir.2015). The Eleventh C ircu it

affirmed the d istrictcou rt’s d enialof class certification and held that“A plaintiff cannotestablish

ascertainability simply by asserting thatclass members can be id entified u sing the d efend ant’s

record s;the plaintiff mu stalso establish thatthe record s are in factu sefu lfor id entification

pu rposes,and thatid entification willbe ad ministratively feasible.”Id. at948 .(emphasis ad d ed ).

(emphasis ad d ed ). A ccord ingly,the Eleventh C ircu itheld thatthe plaintiff cou ld notmeethis

bu rd en to establish ascertainability becau se his proposalto id entify class members u sing the

d efend ant’s “‘sales d ata’was incomplete,insofaras [the plaintiff] d id notexplain how the d ata

wou ld aid class-memberid entification.N orwas any potentialid entification proced u re obviou s:

[the d efend ant’s] sales d ataid entified mostly third party retailers,notclass members.” Id. at

949.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 19

In Riffle v. Convergent Outsourcing, the M id d le D istrictof Florid arecently followed the

reasoning in Karhu and d enied class certification on the grou nd s thatthe plaintiff failed to

provid e any evid ence thatthe id entification of the pu tative class members,inclu d ingthe natu re

of theird ebt,cou ld be ascertained by areview of the company’s record s,orthe record s of the

originalcred itor. See Riffle v. Convergent Outsourcing,311 F.R.D .67 7 ,68 0-68 1 (M .D .Fla.

2015).

In rejecting the plaintiff’s argu mentfor wantof evid entiary su pportthata class of

“consu merd ebtors”cou ld be ascertained ,the ju d ge noted :

H ere,P laintiff has simply intimated thatthe record s of D efend antsorthe originalcred itorwillbe u sefu lin id entifyingpotentialclassmembers.She has neither presented evid ence nor preced entthatallows the C ou rtto confirm the valid ity of these method s.Ind eed ,D efend ants claim thattheir record s d o notshow the reasons forwhicheachpu tative class member’s d ebtwere incu rred .M oreover,D efend ants have provid ed d eclarations from the representative ofL V N V and the execu tive vice presid entof C onvergentto su pportthis assertion. [… ] Fu rthermore, as D efend ants note — andP laintiff d oes notd ispu te — P laintiff has notpresented any record sof the originalcred itorto show how the natu re of apu tative classmember’s d ebt may be id entified . Fu rthermore, there is noevid ence d emonstrating thatthe originalcred itor stillpossessestransactionalinformation forthe proposed class orwhethertheserecord s willeven revealthe natu re of eachcred itcard transaction.

The C ou rt d oes not take conceptu al issu e with P laintiff’ssu ggestion of u sing D efend ants’record s or the record s of theoriginalcred itor.H owever,the C ou rtis u nable to determine ifP laintiff’s proposed method is viable becau se she merelyspecu lates these records are “u sefu lforidentification pu rposes[ ] and thatidentification willbe administratively feasible,”withou t presenting any actu al evidence to su pport thoseassertions.Karhu., 2015 W L 35607 22,at* 3.M erely acceptingP laintiff’s bald assertions wou ld be contrary to the law establishedby the U.S. Su preme C ou rt, which requ ires that P laintiffaffirmatively d emonstrate her compliance with Ru le 23. SeeComcast Corp., 133 S.C t.at1432.Therefore,the C ou rtfind s thatclass certification is inappropriate.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 20

Id. at68 1 (internalfootnotes omitted )(emphasis ad d ed ).8

P laintiff willinvariably cite to Qureshi v. OPS 9, LLC,C ivilA ction N o.14-18 06,2016

U.S.D ist.L E X IS 149664,at* 3 (D .N .J.O ct.28 ,2016)for the proposition that“the need to

d etermine whether each d ebtis a consu mer d ebtu nd er the FD C P A d oes notau tomatically

preclu d e class certification.”This find ingis completely atod d s withthe Third C ircu itas aclass

in an FD C P A case thatinclu d es even one ind ivid u alwho is notamemberof the class wou ld

resu ltin aviolation of D efend ants’d u e process rights. See Marcus,68 7 F.3d at594 (“Forcing

B M W and B rid gestone to acceptas tru e absentpersons’d eclarations thatthey are members of

the class,withou tfu rtherind iciaof reliability,wou ld have seriou s d u e process implications.”).

M oreover,Qureshi is d istingu ishable as the plaintiff id entified the followingin specific record s

thatcou ld be u sed to id entify consu merd ebts:(1)information in ad efau ltju d gmentapplication

wou ld id entify whetherthe d ebtwas incu rred by aconsu merorabu siness;and (2)d ishonored

checks attached to the d efau ltju d gmentapplications listthe name and ad d ress of the person or

entity who wrote the check,the id entity of the recipientof the check,and some had d river’s

license information.Qureshi,2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 149664,at* 4-5,n.1.

In this case, P laintiff has failed to meetherbu rd en becau se she has absolu tely failed to

id entify anything in D efend ants’record s or any method ology to d etermine the natu re of the

pu rchases mad e by the 1,994 ind ivid u als u singa H ome D epotcred itcard .The reason P laintiff

8 / L ikewise,in Dykes v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC,N o.1:15cv110,2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 10308 at* 13 (E.D .V a.Jan.28 ,2016),the plaintiff brou ghtapu tative class action premised u pon aSpanishcollection letter.The cou rtheld thatthe proposed class was notascertainable class becau se the plaintiff d id notofferany method for“d etermining which of the 3,330 recipients of the Spanish-langu age letters received them withou tfirstind icatingthatthey primarilyspoke Spanishorthatthey wou ld like to receive correspond ence in Spanish.”Id. Specifically,theC ou rtfou nd there was no “read ily available way to d etermine if an accou ntwas cod ed as Spanishspeakingin [thed efend ant] ’s system”by reviewingthe d efend ant’s record s withou tengagingin a“very d etailed review and analysisof the ind ivid u alcontextof each of the 3,330 recipients’accou nts.” See id. at14-15. The cou rtd enied classcertification as the plaintiff failed to d emonstrate a“reliable orad ministratively feasible mechanism”forid entifyingthe class members.See id. at15-16.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 21

has provid ed zero evid ence is becau se the only way to d etermine the pu rpose of the pu rchases

mad e by the 1,994 ind ivid u als wou ld be to take each person’s d eposition,which wou ld be an

extremely time-consu ming and extensive ind ivid u alized inqu iry. Therefore,it wou ld be

impossible to id entify the pu tative class members withou textensive and ind ivid u alized fact-

find ing.A ccord ingly,P laintiff’s M otion forC lass C ertification mu stbe d enied .

3. A A IIis N otaD ebtC ollectorand Therefore C annotB e

L iable Underthe FD C P A

P laintiff alleges thatA A IIis ad ebtcollectorand ,therefore su bjectto the FD C P A .(D oc.

25 at¶ ¶ 9-13,15;D oc.52-1 at2).H owever,A A IIis ad ebtbu yerand the cred itorof P laintiff’s

accou ntand ,therefore,is notsu bjectto the FD C P A . In Henson v. Santander Consumer USA,

Inc.,8 17 F.3d 131 (4th C ir.2016),cert granted,137 S.C t.8 10 (U.S.Jan.13,2017 )(N o.16-

349),the Fou rthC ircu itconclu d ed thatthe FD C P A d oes notregu late cred itors when they collect

d ebton theirown accou nt.There is asplitbetween severalcircu its,inclu d ingthe Third C ircu it,

regard ingwhetherad ebtbu yeris a“d ebtcollector”and the Su preme C ou rtaccepted certiorari

to d ecid e this issu e on Janu ary 13,2017 . Id.;see FTC v. Check Inv’rs, Inc.,502 F.3d 159,17 3

(3d C ir.200 7 )(hold ingthatan entity is ad ebtcollectoru nd erthe FD C P A if the d ebtin qu estion

was in d efau ltwhen itwas acqu ired ).

In Santander,C itiFinancial A u to sold the plaintiffs’ d efau lted loans to Santand er

C onsu merUSA (“Santand ter”).Id. at133.Santand erthen attempted to collecton the loans that

ithad pu rchased . Id. The FD C P A only applies to a“d ebtcollector.” 15 U.S.C .§ 1692a(6).

“The term “d ebtcollector”means any person [1] who u ses any instru mentality of interstate

commerce orthe mails in any bu siness the principalpu rpose of which is the collection of any

d ebts,or[2] who regu larly collects orattempts to collect,d irectly orind irectly,d ebts owed or

d u e orasserted to be owed ord u e another.” Id. “N otwithstand ing the ex clu sion provid ed by


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 22

clau se (F)of the lastsentence of this paragraph,the term inclu d es any cred itor[3] who,in the

process of collectinghis own d ebts,u ses any name otherthan his own whichwou ld ind icate that

athird person is collectingorattemptingto collectsu chd ebts.”Id.

The Fou rth C ircu itheld that“the d efau ltstatu s of ad ebthas no bearing on whethera

person qu alifies as a d ebtcollector u nd er the threshold d efinition setforth in 15 U.S.C .§

1692a(6).” Henson,8 17 F.3d at135. The d istinction between ad ebtcollectorand acred itor

tu rns on whetheran person orentity’s “regu larcollection activity is only foritself (acred itor)or

whetheritregu larly collects forothers (ad ebtcollector).”Id. at137 .The cou rtu ltimately held

thatSantand er was not collecting on behalf of another to qu alify as a d ebtcollector;itwas

collectingon behalf of itself makingitacred itor. Id. at138 . H ere,P laintiff alleges thatA A II

attempts to collectd ebts on behalf of others bu tthatis nottru e. (D oc.25 at¶ 11). A A II

retained L TD to collectP laintiff’s obligation on behalf of A A II,whichmakes itacred itorand

notsu bjectto the FD C P A .(See ExhibitA at51:17 -18 ,55:18 -25,56:1-3).

4. P laintiff L acks S tandingB ecau se S he W ou ld H ave Received aForm1099-C

P laintiff lacks A rticle IIIstand ingto bringsu chclaims u nd erthe FD C P A becau se she has

failed to allege a separate inju ry thatis “concrete and particu larized .” See Spokeo, Inc. v.

Robins,136 S.C t.1540 (U.S.2016).A s setforthabove,there was notand nevercou ld be any

inju ryto P laintiff as aresu ltof L TD ’s letters becau se the langu age was tru e;P laintiff wou ld have

received aForm 1099-C .(D oc.25 atExhibitA ;see ExhibitC ).P laintiff alleges nothingmore

than aproced u ralviolation of the FD C P A ,entirely d ivorced of any inju ry.See e.g.,Kamal v. J.

Crew Grp., Inc.,2016 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 145392,at* 6-11 (D .N .J.O ct.20,2016)(M artiniJ.);In

re Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 14-7563,2017 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 9310,at* 5-6,11 (D .N .J.Jan.24,

2017 ) (M cN u lty,J) (d ismissing the plaintiffs’complaintfor failing to plead su bjectmatter


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 23

ju risd iction involvingabare proced u ralviolation of the FC RA ). A s su ch,becau se P laintiff has

failed to establishthe requ isite concrete and particu larized inju ry,herclaims shou ld be d ismissed

and herM otion forC lass C ertification mu stbe d enied .

B . P L A IN TIFF FA IL S TO S A TIS FY TH E RE Q UIRE M E N TS UN D E R RUL E23.

1. P laintiff Fails to M eetthe Requ irements of Ru le 23(a).

P laintiff is u nable satisfy allthe requ irements of Ru le 23(a). The party seeking class

certification mu stfirstestablishthe fou rrequ irements of Ru le 23(a):

(1) the class is so nu merou s that joind er of all members is impracticable[nu merosity];

(2)there are qu estions of law orfactcommon to the class [commonality];

(3)the claims ord efenses of the representative parties are typicalof the claims ord efenses of the class [typicality];

and (4)the representative parties willfairly and ad equ ately protectthe interests ofthe class [ad equ acy] .

See Fed .R.C iv.P .23(a).The party seekingclass certification bears the bu rd en of establishing

by apreponderance of the evidence thateachof the requ irements of Ru le 23has been met.See

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,521 U.S.591 (1997 )(emphasis ad d ed );In re Ins. Brokerage

Antitrust Litigation,57 9 F.3d 241,257 -58 (3d C ir.2009)(“The factu ald eterminations necessary

to make Ru le 23 find ings mu stbe mad e by aprepond erance of the evid ence.In otherword s,to

certify aclass the d istrictcou rtmu stfind thatthe evid ence more likely than notestablishes each

factnecessary to meetthe requ irements of Ru le 23.”(internalqu otations omitted )).A class may

be certified only if the cou rt“is satisfied ,afterrigorou s analysis,thatthe prerequ isites of Ru le

23(a)have been satisfied .”In re Hydrogen Peroxide,552 F.3d at309.

a. Plaintiff fails to establish numerosity.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 24

Und er Ru le 23(a)(1),the class mu stbe “so nu merou s thatjoind er of allmembers is

impracticable.”This requ irementassu res “thatclass action treatmentis necessary.”See Hayes,

7 25 F.3d at 356-57 . W hile no minimu m nu mber of plaintiffs is requ ired to satisfy the

nu merosity requ irement,the named plaintiff satisfies the nu merosity requ irement“if the named

plaintiff d emonstrates thatthe potentialnu mberof plaintiffs exceed s 40.”Stewart v. Abraham,

27 5 F.3d 220,226 (3d C ir.2001). A lthou ghthe movingparty need notshow the exactsize of

the proposed class to meetthis requ irement,“[m] ere specu lation as to the nu mberof members

who may be involved is notsu fficientto satisfyRu le 23(a)(1).”Jackson v. Se. Pa. Tramp. Auth.,

260 F.R.D .168 ,18 7 (E.D .P a.2009).

L TD id entified thatitsent1,994 ind ivid u als who resid e in N ew Jersey a letter that

contained the same tax reporting langu age as in the letters attached to P laintiff’s A mend ed

C omplaint. (D oc.52-1 at3-4). H owever,the mere factthat1,994 letters were mailed d o not

constitu te evid ence thatthe ind ivid u als receivingthese letters are members of apu tative class.It

is P laintiff’s bu rd en to establish thatthe 1,994 ind ivid u als’pu rchases were mad e forconsu mer

pu rposes and P laintiff has failed to provid e any evid ence to establishthis.See Marcus,68 7 F.3d

at592-593;see Riffle,311 F.R.D .,at68 0-68 1. Thu s,P laintiff fails to meetthe nu merosity

requ irement.

b. The proposed class lacks commonality.

Und er Ru le 23(a)(2),P laintiff mu stestablish that“there are qu estions of law or fact

common to the class.” To satisfy the commonality requ irement,the pu rported class’s claims

mu std epend u pon acommon contention. Dukes,131 S.C t.at2550. The common contention

mu stbe capable of class wid e resolu tion. Id. at2551.In P laintiff’s M otion,she argu es thatthe

P laintiff and the proposed class “share the common facts thatthey each received aletterfrom


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 25

D efend ants created from the same template and sentin an attemptto collectaC onsu merThe

H ome D epotcred itaccou nt.They also share the common qu estion of law as to whether the

inclu sion of Tax/L egalC onsequ ences W arning violated the FD C P A .” (D oc.52-1 at 14).

D espite P laintiff’s claims,none of the facts are common. The only way to d etermine

membershipin P laintiff’s proposed class wou ld requ ire avery personalized examination of each

pu tative class memberto d etermine:whetherapu tative class memberu sed his orhercred itcard

foraconsu merd ebtpu rsu antto the FD C P A .

In ad d ition,P laintiff’s proposed class lacks common qu estions of factbecau se P laintiff’s

situ ation is pu nctu ated by the factthatP laintiff wou ld have received a Form 1099-C . This

u niqu e setof circu mstances makes P laintiff’s claim d ifferentthan others in the proposed class.

A s aresu lt,P laintiff has notsatisfied the commonalityrequ irement.

c. The proposed class lacks typicality.

Similarly,P laintiff d oes notmeetthe “typicality”requ irement. To satisfy the typicality

requ irement,the claims ord efenses of the representative party mu stbe typicalof the claims or

d efenses of the class. See Fed .R.C iv.P .23(a)(3). A lthou gh the “commonality”and

“typicality”requ irements tend to merge,the typicality elementprovid es thatif proof of the

representative’s claims wou ld notnecessarily prove allthe proposed class members claims,the

representative’s claims are not“typical”of the proposed members’claims.See Falcon,457 U.S.

at157 -58 .

‘C ou rts of appeals have held thatu niqu e d efenses bearon boththetypicality and ad equ acy of a class representative.’In particu lar,the Third C ircu ithas explicitlyrecognized ‘the challenge presentedby ad efense u niqu e to aclass representative— the representative'sinterests mightnotbe aligned with those of the class,and therepresentative mightd evote time and effortto the d efense attheexpense of issu es thatare common and controlling forthe class.’‘A proposed class representative is neithertypicalnorad equ ate if


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 26

the representative is su bjectto a u niqu e d efense thatis likely tobecome amajorfocu s of the litigation.’

Sloane v. Gulf Interstate Field Servs.,N o.4:16-cv-0157 1,2017 U.S.D ist.L EX IS 4308 8 ,at296-

297 ,301 (M .D .P a.M ar.24,2017 )(qu otingBeck v. Maximus, Inc.,457 F.3d 291,296 (3d C ir.

2006))(emphasis ad d ed ).

P laintiff’s claims are nottypicalof the class members. A s stated above,P laintiff’s

situ ation is u niqu e as she wou ld have received aForm 1099-C . If P laintiff challenges this,her

interests wou ld become atypicalof the interests of the pu tative class members as herd efenses

wou ld become a major focu s of this litigation. H er interests and incentives wou ld notbe

su fficiently aligned with those of the class makinghernotsu itable to be aclass representative.

See In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig.,58 9 F.3d 58 5,599 (3d C ir.2009)(“[T]he class

representative mu stnotbe su bjectto ad efense thatis bothinapplicable to many members of the

class and likely to become amajorfocu s of the litigation;and ..the interests and incentives of

the representative mu stbe su fficiently aligned with those of the class.). A ccord ingly,P laintiff

cannotsatisfythe rigorou s typicalityrequ irement.

d. Plaintiff cannot adequately serve as class representative.

Ru le 23(a)(4)requ ires afind ingthat“the representative parties willfairly and ad equ ately

protectthe interests of the class.”Fed .R.C iv.P .23 (a)(4).The C ou rtof A ppeals forthe Third

C ircu ithas “recognized thatthe linchpin of the ad equ acy requ irement is the alignmentof

interests and incentives between the representative plaintiffs and the restof the class,”and “not

proof of vigorou s pu rsu itof the claim.”Dewey v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,68 1 F.3d 17 0,

18 3(3d C ir.2012).W here the P laintiff’s claims are nottypicalof the class,cou rts have held that

the named plaintiff is notan ad equ ate class representative. See, e.g.,Glover v. Udren,N o.08 -

990,2013U.S.D ist.L EX IS 17 0246,at* 49-50 (W .D .P a.Ju l.18 ,2013).


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 27

In ad d ition to the factthatP laintiff is notan ad equ ate representative becau se herclaims

are nottypicalof the class as stated above,P laintiff is notan ad equ ate class representative

becau se she will“lack the same financialstake as the othermembers of the class”and “have

d ifferentincentives in terms of mu chtime,energy,and money she is willingto spend ”to refu te

the factthatshe wou ld have received aForm 1099-C . See In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA

Litig.,58 9 F.3d at602.P laintiff’s ind ivid u alinterests willmostcertainly conflictwithherd u ties

toward the class members shou ld she contestD efend ants’assertion thatshe wou ld have received

a Form 1099-C and her ind ivid u alinterests willconsu me the litigation. Therefore,P laintiff

cannotestablishby aprepond erance of the evid ence thatshe willad equ ately and fairly represent

the interests of the class.

2. E ven A ssu mingP laintiff Is A ble to S atisfythe Requ irements UnderRu le23(a),P laintiff C annotE stablishthatthe P roposed C lass M eets theRequ irements UnderRu le 23(b)(3).

P u rsu antto Fed eralRu le of C ivilP roced u re 23(b)(3),aclass may only be certified if,in

ad d ition to the requ irements of 23(a),“the qu estions of law orfactcommon to the members of

the class pred ominate over any qu estions affecting only ind ivid u almembers,and ...aclass

action is su periorto otheravailable method s of fairad ju d ication of the controversy.” Fed .R.

C iv.P .23(b);see Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co.,543 F.3d 141,147 (3d C ir.200 8 ).

P red ominance is similar to Ru le 23(a)’s requ irementof commonality;however,itis a mu ch

more d emand ing analysis. Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.,C iv.N o.04-4362,2010 U.S.

D ist.L EX IS 135310,at* 10 (D .N .J.D ec.22,2010).

a. Class certification is improper because individual issuespredominate.

P laintiff cannotestablish thatcommon qu estions of law orfact“pred ominate overany

qu estions affecting only ind ivid u almembers.” See Fed .R.C iv.P .23(b)(3). Ru le 23(b)(3)’s


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 28

pred ominance criterion is even more d emand ingthan Ru le 23(a). Behrend,133 S.C t.at1432.

A plaintiff mu st“d emonstrate thatthe elementof [the legalclaim] is capable of proof attrial

throu gh evid ence thatis common to the class rather than ind ivid u alto its members.” In re

Hydrogen Peroxide,552 F.3d at311. “The focu s of the pred ominance inqu iry is on whethera

d efend ant’s cond u ctwas common as to allclass members,and whetherallof the class members

were harmed by the d efend ants cond u ct.”Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,667 F.3d 27 3,28 5 (3d C ir.

2011). C ertification is improper“if the merits of the claim tu rns on the d efend ant’s ind ivid u al

d ealings witheachplaintiff.”Bolin v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,231 F.3d 97 0,97 5(5thC ir.2000).

H ere,common issu es of law orfactd o notpred ominate overthose ind ivid u alissu es that

wou ld arise withthe proposed class.A s stated above,P laintiff has failed to meetherbu rd en to

show thatitcan be d etermined on aclass-wid e basis throu gh the u se of generalized proof that

each pu tative class member’s obligation is a consu mer d ebtpu rsu antto the FD C P A . See

Marcus,68 7 F.3d at592-593;see Riffle,311 F.R.D .,at68 0-68 1. Fu rther,P laintiff’s efforts to

refu te the assertion thatshe wou ld have received aForm 1099-C willconflictwith herd u ties

toward the class members. A ccord ingly,class certification is improper becau se the proposed

class fails the “pred ominance”requ irementof Ru le 23(b)(3).

b. Class certification is not the superior method to adjudicate theclaims.

P laintiff cannotestablish that“aclass action is su periorto otheravailable method s for

fairly and efficiently ad ju d icatingthe controversy.”See Fed .R.C iv.P .23(b)(3);In re Hydrogen

Peroxide,552 F.3d at309.P u tative class members willlikely recoversignificantly less than the

statu tory amou ntof d amages provid ed foru nd er 15 U.S.C .§ 1692k(2)(A ),$1,000.00,than if

they pu rsu ed ind ivid u alclaims. Fu rther,P laintiff mu stestablisha“aclass action is su periorto

otheravailable method s forfairly and efficiently ad ju d icatingthe controversy.”See Fed .R.C iv.


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 29

P .23(b)(3);In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,552 F.3d 305,309 (3d C ir.200 8 ). A s

d iscu ssed above,there is no reasonable method forid entifyingprospective class members in this

case.The members of the pu tative class cannotbe ascertained throu ghany objective criteriaand

cannotbe id entified in an ad ministratively efficientmanner. See Marcus,68 7 F.3d at592-593;

see Riffle,311 F.R.D .,at68 0-68 1. There is no d iscernible ad vantage to certifying P laintiff’s

proposed class. Instead ,itwou ld be mu ch simplerforany othersimilarly aggrieved parties,it

they exist,to bringtheirown lawsu its. C lass certification is improperbecau se aclass action is

notthe su periormethod forfairlyand efficiently ad ju d icatingthis case.

IV . C O N C L US IO N

Forthe foregoingreasons,the proposed class d oes notmeetthe rigorou s requ irements of

Ru le 23.A ccord ingly,the C ou rtshou ld d eny P laintiff’s M otion forC lass C ertification.

FIN EM A N KREKSTEIN & H A RRIS,P .C .

B y: /S/M onicaM .L ittman_________________RIC H A RD J.P ERR,ESQ UIREM O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRETen P enn C enter18 01 M arketStreet,Su ite 1100P hilad elphia,P A 19103-1628(v)215-8 93-9300;(f)215-8 93-8 7 19rperr@ finemanlawfirm.commlittman@ finemanlawfirm.comA ttorneys forD efend antL TD FinancialServices,L P ,and D efend antA d vantage A ssets II,Inc.

D ated :M ay22,2017


{ 0 127 8 519;v1} 30

C E RTIFIC A TE O F S E RV IC E

I,M O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRE,herebycertifythaton orabou tthis d ate,Iserved

atru e and correctcopyof the foregoingelectronically,orby firstclass mail,postage prepaid ,or

telecopyon the following:

A nd rew T.Thomasson,Esqu ireP hilipD .Stern,Esqu ireStern Thomasson L L P150 M orris A venu e,2nd FloorSpringfield ,N J07 0 8 1-1329(v)97 3-37 9-7 500;(f)97 3-532-58 68and rew@ sternthomasson.com;philip@ sternthomasson.com

and

Y ongmoon Kim,Esqu ireKim L aw Firm,L L C411 H ackensackA venu e,Su ite 200H ackensack,N J07 601(v)201-27 3-7 117 ;(f)201-27 3-7 117ykim@ kimlf.com

A ttorneys forP laintiff

/S/M onicaM .L ittmanM O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRE

D ated :M ay22,2017


{01278518;v1}

IN TH E UN ITE D S TA TE S D IS TRIC T C O URTFO R TH E D IS TRIC T O F N E W JE RS E Y

:ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on behalf of herself : CIVIL ACTIONand those similarly situated, :

Plaintiff ::

v. : NO. 2:16-cv-00243-KSH-CLW:

LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., :ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC., and :JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, :

Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED:

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of , 2017, upon

consideration of Plaintiff Roberta Bordeaux’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Class Certification;

opposition, if any; arguments of counsel, if any; and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

J.

Case 2:16-cv-00243-KSH-CLW Document 56-1 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 695

{ 0 127 8 520;v1} 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C.A Pennsylvania Professional CorporationB Y RIC H A RD J.P ERR,ESQ UIRE

M O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRETen P enn C enter18 01 M arketStreet,Su ite 1100P hilad elphia,P A 19103-1628(v)215-8 93-9300;(f)215-8 93-8 7 19e-mail:rperr@ finemanlawfirm.com;mlittman@ finemanlawfirm.comAttorneys for Defendants LTD Financial Services, L.P., and Advantage Assets II, Inc.

:RO B ERTA B O RD EA UX ,on behalf of herself : C IV IL A C TIO Nand those similarlysitu ated , :

P laintiff ::

v. : N O .2:16-cv-00243-KSH -C L W:

L TD FIN A N C IA L SERV IC ES,L .P ., :A D V A N TA GE A SSETS II,IN C .,and :JO H N D O ES 1 TO 10, :

D efend ants : JURY TRIA L D E M A N D ED: M otion D ay:Ju ne 5,2017

DECLARATION OF MONICA M. LITTMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS LTDFINANCIAL SERVICES, LP AND ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23

I,M onicaM .L ittman,of fu llage,herebyd eclare as follows:

1. Iam an attorneyatFineman Krekstein & H arris,P .C .,and ad mitted to practice law in the

State of N ew Jerseyas wellas the United States D istrictC ou rtforthe D istrictof N ew

Jersey.

2. M yfirm represents D efend antL TD FinancialServices,L P (“L TD ”),and D efend ant

A d vantage A ssets II,Inc.(“A A II”)(collectively “D efend ants”).Ihave personal

knowled ge of the facts stated herein.


{ 0 127 8 520;v1} 2

3. This D eclaration is su bmitted in su pportof D efend ant’s O pposition to P laintiff Roberta

B ord eau x’s (“P laintiff”),M otion forC lass C ertification P u rsu antto Fed .R.C iv.P .23.

(D oc.52).

4. O n A pril28 ,2017 ,D efend ants provid ed P laintiff withP laintiff’s accou ntstatements

related to herC itibank,N .A .H ome D epotcred itcard accou ntend ingin 667 6 (“C itibank

H ome D epotA ccou nt”).

5. These accou ntstatements were bates labeled as B ord eau x/L TD 000030 –00017 7 .See

ExhibitG to D efend ants’O pposition to P laintiff’s M otion forC lass C ertification.

6. A ttached as ExhibitFto D efend ants’O pposition to P laintiff’s M otion forC lass

C ertification is atru e and correctcopyof aD eclaration from D avid John.

7 . D efend ants hereby rely on the information su bmitted in its O pposition to P laintiff’s

M otion forC lass C ertification P u rsu antto Fed .R.C iv.P .23.(D oc.52).

In accord ance with28 U.S.C .§ 17 46,Id eclare u nd erpenaltyof perju ryu nd erthe laws of

the United States of A mericathatthe foregoingis tru e and correct.

FIN EM A N KREKSTEIN & H A RRIS,P .C .

B y: /S/M onicaM .L ittman_________________RIC H A RD J.P ERR,ESQ UIREM O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRETen P enn C enter18 01 M arketStreet,Su ite 1100P hilad elphia,P A 19103-1628(v)215-8 93-9300;(f)215-8 93-8 7 19rperr@ finemanlawfirm.commlittman@ finemanlawfirm.comA ttorneys forD efend antL TD FinancialServices,L P ,and D efend antA d vantage A ssets II,Inc.

D ated :M ay22,2017


{ 0 127 8 520;v1} 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,M O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRE,herebycertifythaton orabou tthis d ate,Iserved

atru e and correctcopyof the foregoingelectronically,orby firstclass mail,postage prepaid ,or

telecopyon the following:

A nd rew T.Thomasson,Esqu ireP hilipD .Stern,Esqu ireStern Thomasson L L P150 M orris A venu e,2nd FloorSpringfield ,N J07 0 8 1-1329(v)97 3-37 9-7 500;(f)97 3-532-58 68and rew@ sternthomasson.com;philip@ sternthomasson.com

and

Y ongmoon Kim,Esqu ireKim L aw Firm,L L C411 H ackensackA venu e,Su ite 200H ackensack,N J07 601(v)201-27 3-7 117 ;(f)201-27 3-7 117ykim@ kimlf.com

A ttorneys forP laintiff

/S/M onicaM .L ittmanM O N IC A M .L ITTM A N ,ESQ UIRE

D ated :M ay22,2017


in th e united sta tes d istric t c o urt fo r th e d ... · ro b erta b o rd ea ux...

Documents