Alice Lee v. Global Tel Link Corporation

Filing 141

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 135 AND DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL,MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TO EXCLUDE, APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, AND MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS 120 , 111 , 98 , 87 , 72 . FINAL APPROVAL HEARING WILL BE HELD DECEMBER 4, 2017 1:30 PM by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 4/7/2017 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

ALICE LEE and DAVID W. MARTIN, on Case No. 2:15-cv-02495-ODW(PLAx)
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
Plaintiffs,
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS SETTLEMENT [135] AND
v.
DENYING AS MOOT
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, APPLICATION TO FILE
DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Defendant.
JUDGMENT, MOTION TO
EXCLUDE, APPLICATION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL, AND MOTION TO
CERTIFY CLASS [120, 111, 98, 87,
72]

18
19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION

21

This case is about automated collect call messages that occur when inmates in

22

jails and prisons attempt to call a number and have the recipient of the call pay the

23

charges. (See First Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“FCCAC”) ¶¶ 11–18.)

24

Plaintiff alleges that the automated nature of the calls to cell phone numbers violates

25

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). (Id. ¶¶ 47–53.) While Defendant

26

Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”) maintains that it would prevail on the merits if

27

the case were to be tried, the parties have reached a settlement to avoid risk for both

28

sides. (See Mot. 1–2, ECF No. 135.) Plaintiff has moved for preliminary approval of

1

the settlement agreement, provisional class certification, and approval of the form of

2

class notice, which GTL has not opposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court

3

provisionally GRANTS the motion for class certification and preliminarily

4

APPROVES the class settlement.

5

II.

The basics of the putative class and the proposed settlement are outlined below.

6
7

BACKGROUND

A.

Factual Background

8

GTL provides collect-call services to inmates at jails and prisons throughout the

9

United States. (See FCCAC ¶ 11.) The service requires that the called party establish

10

a billing relationship with GTL in order to pay for and receive calls from an inmate.

11

(Id. ¶ 13.) When an inmate attempts to place a collect call to a telephone number for

12

which there is no pre-established billing relationship with GTL, the call attempt will

13

trigger a separate prerecorded “Notification Call” that tells the called party that they

14

need to set up an account in order to pay for and receive the call. (Id. ¶ 14.)

15

Plaintiff1 purports to represent a class of persons who have received such calls

16

on their cellular telephone, with each call allegedly representing a violation of the

17

TCPA’s prohibition against automated calls to cell phones without prior express

18

permission from the called party. (Id. ¶ 35); see 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(iii). GTL

19

contends that its Notification Calls are exempt from the TCPA due to an order from

20

the Federal Communications Commission. (Mot. 3.) In response, Plaintiff argues that

21

the calls are not exempt because GTL does not provide an opt-out mechanism in

22

compliance with the FCC’s order. (Id.) The parties now state that they have entered

23

into a settlement due to the fact that the litigation is highly contentious and there is

24

risk to both sides in not settling. (Id. at 1–2.)

25

Plaintiffs filed the putative class action Complaint on December 5, 2014, and it

26

was assigned to this Court on April 3, 2015. (See ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff’s FCCAC

27

asserts only one claim: violations of the TCPA. (FCCAC ¶¶ 47–53.)

28

1

The relevant lead Plaintiff in this action is David M. Martin. (See Mot. 3.)
2

1

B.

Settlement Terms

2

The parties propose no sub-classes; the class will be uniform. (See Mot. 4–5.)

3

1.

4

Plaintiffs define the proposed class as follows: “All persons using and/or

5

subscribing to a mobile telephone number to which a Notification Call was placed

6

during the Class Period.” (Id. at 4.) The Judge and court staff working on this case

7

are excluded from the class definition, as are their immediate family members. (Id.)

8

The parties estimate that there are 1,800,000 members in the proposed class. (Id. at

9

5.)

10
11

Relevant Definitions

The definition of the Class Period is December 5, 2010, through the date of
entry of a Preliminary Approval Order. (Id. at 4.)

12

A Notification Call is defined as “a call (i) placed by or on behalf of GTL, (ii)

13

to a number attempted in a Failed Inmate Call Attempt, (iii) using a prerecorded voice

14

message, (iv) to explain in sum and substance that inmate calls could not be

15

completed and/or billed, and that the called party could take certain steps to arrange

16

for billing and/or set up a prepaid account.” (Id.)

17

A Failed Inmate Call Attempt is a telephone call attempted by an inmate or

18

prisoner through GTL’s service to a phone number for which GTL had no billing

19

relationship and therefore no means to bill the call to the called party. (Id.)

20

2.

Settlement Fund and GTL’s Changing Practices

21

GTL will pay $8,800,000 into a common settlement fund. (Id. at 5.) Class

22

members who submit a claim will receive a pro-rata share of the balance of that

23

amount—after payment of notice and administration costs, any Court-ordered award

24

of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and any Court-ordered incentive award for Plaintiff.

25

(Id.) Because the amount that class members will receive depends on the number of

26

claims submitted, the parties cannot estimate with specificity the amount that

27

members who submit claims are likely to receive. (Id.) However, they conservatively

28

estimate that if the percentage of potential class members who submit claims is in

3

1

keeping with typical TCPA cases (roughly 5%), then each class member will receive

2

about $60. (Id. at 12.)

3

In addition to the payment to class members who submit claims, GTL will

4

change its practices to include in all Notification Calls an interactive-voice and/or key-

5

activated opt-out mechanism that the called party may use to opt-out of all future

6

Notification Calls. (Id. at 5.) The called party will also be provided with a toll-free

7

number that can be used to opt-out. (Id.) Finally, opting out is effective to block all

8

future calls, regardless of the number of times an inmate attempts to call that number.

9

(Id.)

10

The settlement amount shall be reserved and paid out as follows:

11
12

(1) Opting In and Opting Out: After Notice is initially sent (see Section on

13

Notice, below), class members will have 60 days in which to submit timely

14

and valid requests for exclusion. (Id. at 8.) Requests for exclusion must be

15

mailed to the settlement administrator. (Id.) Similarly, objections to the

16

settlement must be made within 60 days. (Id.) Objections must be filed

17

with the Court. (Id.) The parties have agreed that in order to ensure that

18

only valid class members can object to the settlement, objectors must

19

provide a valid claim ID, demonstrate ownership of a telephone number that

20

appears on the class list based on GTL’s records, or produce telephone

21

records establishing receipt of a Notification Call. (Id.)

22
23

(2) Release of Claims: Any class member who does not opt out within the 60-

24

day period described above will release all claims against GTL arising out of

25

Notification Calls, calls made by automatic telephone dialing systems,

26

and/or artificial or prerecorded voice calls to mobile telephones during the

27

class period. (Id.)

28

4

1

(3) Calculation of Payment: Once the claims period has ended, the settlement

2

administrator will calculate the amount each class member is to receive (the

3

amount will be uniform among all class members, aside from any incentive

4

award to the named plaintiff). (See id.)

5
6

(4) Method of Payment: The settlement administrator will send checks to the

7

class members who submit valid claims. (See id. at 5–6.) The recipients

8

will then have 120 days to cash the check. (Id. at 5.) Any amounts that

9

remain uncashed after 120 days will be part of a second distribution,

10

whereby any remaining funds will be distributed to class members who did

11

cash their checks, provided that each member would receive at least $10 in

12

the second distribution. (Id.) After 120 days of the date of the checks in the

13

second distribution, any remaining funds will be paid to the National

14

Consumer Law Center, which works with the FCC to enforce the protections

15

of the TCPA. (Id. at 5–6.) No funds will revert to GTL. (Id.)

16
17

(5) Attorneys’ Fees and Incentive Award: Class counsel has indicated that they

18

will file a motion for attorneys’ fees and for an incentive award for the

19

named plaintiff. (Id. at 8–9.) Further, the parties have not agreed that GTL

20

is stipulating to a certain amount of fees or awards; GTL is permitted to

21

oppose the requested awards. (Id.) Moreover, the parties have agreed that

22

the settlement is not contingent upon any such awards being granted. (Id.)

23
24

(6) Costs to be Deducted from the Settlement Amount: Deducted from the

25

settlement fund will be: costs of notice and administration of settlement; any

26

Court-ordered award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; and any Court-ordered

27

incentive award for Plaintiff. (Id. at 5.)

28

5

(7) Blow-Up Clause: The parties have not identified any particular number of

1

claims or opt-outs that would void the settlement. (See generally id.)

2
3
4
5
6

C.

Class Notice
Notice will be given to class members as follows, within 120 days after the

Court grants the Motion for Preliminary Approval. (Id. at 19.)

7
8

(1) GTL already produced records of its Notification Calls during the discovery

9

process, and it further refined those records to compile a settlement class list

10

containing the unique telephone numbers of each person that appears to be

11

in the class, based on the records. (Id. at 6–7.)

12
13

(2) Next, the parties will subpoena wireless cell phone providers (including

14

Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Cricket Wireless, US Cellular, and others) to

15

obtain the email addresses and mailing addresses associated with those

16

phone numbers. (Id.)

17
18

(3) The settlement administrator will then either mail or email written notice to

19

persons whose telephone numbers appear on the settlement class list. The

20

administrator will also send out a second reminder email before the claims

21

period ends. (Id.)

22
23

There will also be a website dedicated to the settlement, with a long-form notice

24

available. (Id. at 7.) The website will provide for online submission of the Claim

25

Forms and will allow settlement class members to update their contact information.

26

(Id.) A toll-free number will also be provided in order for potential class members to

27

obtain more information. (Id.) Finally, the settlement administrators will carry out

28

internet publication through the use of Facebook Newsfeed. (Id.)

6

III.

1

CLASS CERTIFICATION

In order to grant preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement, the Court

2
3

must certify the class for purposes of settlement.

4

A.

Legal Standard

5

Class certification is appropriate only if “each of the four requirements of Rule

6

23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)” are met. Zinser v. Accufix

7

Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 23(a), the

8

plaintiff must show that: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

9

impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the

10

claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of

11

the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

12

interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These requirements are generally

13

referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. See Mazza v. Am.

14

Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 2012).

15

Next, the proposed class must meet the requirements of at least one of the three

16

types of class actions listed in Rule 23(b). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct.

17

2541, 2548 (2011). Those three types are class actions where: (1) individual class

18

members’ actions would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications or adjudications

19

that would unfairly bind other class members; (2) the defendant’s actions have made

20

final injunctive relief appropriate for the class as a whole; and/or (3) questions of law

21

or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual class members, and a

22

class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).

23

Where class certification is sought for settlement purposes only, the

24

certification inquiry still “demand[s] undiluted, even heightened, attention.” Amchem

25

Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997); see also Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

26

150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998).

27

B.

28

Discussion
For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that all of the requirements for

7

1

class certification are met.

2

1.

3

The putative class satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality,

4
5

Rule 23(a)

typicality, and adequacy.
i.

Numerosity

6

While no “exact numerical cut-off is required” for the numerosity requirement,

7

“numerosity is presumed where the plaintiff class contains forty or more members.”

8

In re Cooper Cos. Inc. Sec. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 628, 634 (C.D. Cal. 2009). The

9

estimated class size in this case is almost 2 million members. (See Mot. 5.) Thus, this

10
11

class quite easily meets the requirement.
ii.

Commonality

12

Next, the claims of potential class members demonstrate common questions of

13

fact and law. All that is required under this element is a “single significant question of

14

law or fact.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 589. Here, the issues are essentially the same for all

15

members: they all received a Notification Call on their cellular telephones and were

16

unable to opt out, allegedly in violation of the TCPA. (See FCCAC ¶ 35.) Common

17

questions among the class include: (1) whether the calls used a “prerecorded voice,”

18

and (2) whether the calls complied with the FCC’s opt-out requirements.

19

generally id.) At this juncture, there are no discernable individualized issues that

20

might detract from the common questions of fact and law. As such, the class meets

21

this requirement.

22

iii.

(See

Typicality

23

The named plaintiff in this action also meets the typicality requirement.

24

Typicality in this context means that the representative claims are “reasonably co-

25

extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially

26

identical.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Here, Plaintiff Martin (like all class members)

27

contends that he received a robocall, that it was made without prior express consent,

28

and that it was not exempt per the FCC’s order. (See FCCAC ¶¶ 19–27.) This

8

1

demonstrates that the lead plaintiff shares common material factual and legal issues

2

with the other settlement class members.
iv.

3

Adequacy

4

Finally, the named plaintiff and his counsel appear to satisfy the adequacy

5

requirement for representing absent class members. This requirement is met where

6

the named plaintiffs and their counsel do not have conflicts of interest with other class

7

members and will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

8

1020. Here, there is no evidence of any potential conflicts. The class counsel appear

9

generally well qualified in that they have successfully litigated TCPA actions in the

10

past, and they seem to have diligently represented named plaintiff and the class

11

through the discovery and motion practice that has occurred in this case thus far.

12

(Sostrin Decl. ¶¶ 15–21, ECF No. 135-1; Lester Decl. ¶¶ 8–14, ECF No. 135-4.) As

13

such, the proposed class and its representatives satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements.

14

2.

15

This action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3), which has two requirements:

16

(1) that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any

17

questions affecting only individual class members, and (2) that resolution of the issues

18

in this case on a class-wide basis are superior to any other available methods of

19

adjudication.

20

predominate over individualized questions because the only issues that appear to be at

21

stake—whether the calls were prerecorded and whether the FCC exempts them from

22

the TCPA—are common to the class. (See FCCAC ¶¶ 47–53.) Further, a class action

23

appears to be a far superior method of adjudicating the class members’ claims. The

24

sheer number of class members demonstrates that individual actions would not be

25

efficient, and if each potential class member were to go it alone, the costs of litigation

26

for each plaintiff would dwarf any recovery.

27
28

Rule 23(b)(3)

Questions of law or fact common to class members in this case

Thus, the class may be certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(3).
IV.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

9

Next, the Court must assess the proposed settlement itself to determine whether

1
2

it is fair to all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

3

A.

Legal Standard

4

“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily

5

dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” Id. “Approval of a class

6

action settlement requires a two-step process—a preliminary approval followed by a

7

later final approval.” Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 314 F.R.D. 312, 319 (C.D. Cal.

8

2016). “At the preliminary approval stage, the court ‘evaluates the terms of the

9

settlement to determine whether they are within a range of possible judicial

10

approval.’” Id. (quoting Wright v. Linkus Enters., Inc., 259 F.R.D. 468, 472 (E.D.

11

Cal. 2009)). Thus, “the court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and

12

direct notice to the class if the settlement: ‘(1) appears to be the product of serious,

13

informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not

14

improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the

15

class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval.’” Id. (quoting Harris v.

16

Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 WL 1627973, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

17

29, 2011)).

18

B.

19
20

Discussion
The Court determines that the settlement negotiations appear fair and adequate

and observes that the proposed settlement has no obvious deficiencies.

21

1.

Adequacy of Negotiations

22

The Court is satisfied that the settlement here was the product of “serious,

23

informed, non-collusive negotiations.” See Spann, 314 F.R.D. at 319. Several factors

24

support Plaintiff’s contention that the settlement is fair: Plaintiff has declared that the

25

settlement was reached through arm’s length negotiations (Mot. 2); significant

26

discovery has occurred (Id. at 1); counsel has resolved TCPA actions before (see

27

Sostrin Decl. ¶¶ 15–21); GTL will be allowed to contest any award of attorneys’ fees

28

or an incentive award (Mot. 8–9); and the settlement agreement is not contingent on

10

1

an award of those fees (Id.). In other words, no markers of collusion appear present.

2

2.

Settlement Terms

3

After reviewing the terms of the settlement, the Court determines that there are

4

no obvious deficiencies, the settlement does not unfairly give preferential treatment to

5

named plaintiffs, and it falls within the range of possible approval.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Assessing a settlement proposal requires the district court to balance a
number of factors: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk
of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount
offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage
of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence
of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members
to the proposed settlement.
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. “Ultimately, the district court’s determination is nothing
more than an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations, and rough
justice.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525–26
(C.D. Cal. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[t]he initial
decision to approve or reject a settlement proposal is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial judge.” Id.
Here, as with most class actions, there was risk to both parties in allowing this
case to go to trial. As expressed in the motion for approval of the settlement, “both
Plaintiffs and Defendants strongly believe in the merits of their respective positions,
but they are also acutely aware of the uncertainties and risks associated with complex
class association litigation generally and this case in particular.” (Mot. 14.) It is from
this perspective that the Court now considers the fairness of the terms of the
settlement.
3.

Settlement Funds

The Court notes no obvious deficiencies in the amount and allocations of
settlement funds.
11

1

In the Ninth Circuit, there is no per se rule against incentive awards for class

2

representatives. However, “district courts [should] scrutinize carefully the awards so

3

that they do not undermine the adequacy of the class representatives.” Radcliffe v.

4

Experian Info. Sols. Inc., 715 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013). In addition, “[w]hile

5

attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded in a certified class action where so

6

authorized by law or the parties’ agreement, courts have an independent obligation to

7

ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have

8

already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d

9

935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011).

10

Here, however, the parties have not agreed to an amount for either attorneys’

11

fees or any incentive award. (Mot. 8–9.) Nor have they made the settlement of the

12

action contingent on either type of award. (Id.) As such, the Court sees no issue with

13

approving settlement on this basis; the Court will assess requests for any such awards

14

when they are filed.

15

4.

Release of Claims

16

“Beyond the value of the settlement, potential recovery at trial, and inherent

17

risks in continued litigation, courts also consider whether a class action settlement

18

contains an overly broad release of liability.” Spann, 314 F.R.D. at 327. Here, class

19

members and individuals who fail to opt out will release only the claims “aris[ing] out

20

of the Notification Calls, calls made by automatic telephone dialing systems, and/or

21

artificial or prerecorded voice calls to mobile telephones.” (Mot. 8.) The Court is

22

satisfied that the released claims concern only the issues at stake in this litigation and

23

therefore concludes that the release “adequately balances fairness to absent class

24

members and recovery for plaintiffs with defendants’ business interest in ending this

25

litigation with finality.” See Spann, 314 F.R.D. at 327–28.

26

5.

27

In order to find that notice to absent class members is sufficient, the Court must

28

Notice of Class Settlement

analyze both the type and content of the notice.

12

i.

1

Type of Notice

2

Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), “the court must direct to class members the best notice

3

that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members

4

who can be identified through reasonable effort.”
Here, counsel intends to use a consulting company to carry out Notice. (Mot.

5
6

6.)

It will use the email and mailing address records gleaned obtained through

7

subpoenas to the wireless providers corresponding with the cell phone numbers on

8

GTL’s list. (Id.) Then written notice will be effected through email and the U.S.

9

Postal Service, and internet publication will be accomplished through Facebook. (Id.

10

6–7.)

11

providers, this notice is sufficient and most practicable under the circumstances.

12

Because email and mailing addresses will be available through wireless
ii.

Content of Notice

13

Class notice must state “(i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the

14

class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may

15

enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court

16

will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and

17

manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on

18

members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(i)–(vii).

19

The parties have provided a copy of the written Notice as an exhibit. (ECF No.

20

135-2, beginning at 51). It is comprehensive, covering the basics of the case, the class

21

definition, and what the class action is claiming (violations of the TCPA). (See id.) It

22

also explains the procedure for opting out or objecting, the ability to appear at the final

23

approval hearing, and the binding effect on class members who do not opt out (even if

24

they do not submit a claim for payment). (Id.) The content of the Notice meets all of

25

the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(i)–(vii).

26

IV.

CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for

28

provisional certification of the class and preliminary approval of class settlement. Per

13

1

the parties’ request that the final approval hearing be held no sooner than 238 days

2

after the date of this Order (Mot. 18), the hearing shall be held on December 4, 2017

3

at 1:30 p.m. at the United States Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Courtroom 5D,

4

Los Angeles, CA 90012. Based on the parties’ settlement and the Court’s preliminary

5

approval thereof, the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT the following pending

6

motions: GTL’s Application to File Document Under Seal (ECF No. 120); GTL’s

7

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 111); Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude (ECF

8

No. 98); GTL’s Application to File Document Under Seal (ECF No. 87); and

9

Plaintiff’s original Motion to Certify the Class (ECF No. 72).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

April 7, 2017

14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14