McFalls v. NCH Healthcare System, Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER granting 106 Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. By December 4, 2024, McFalls must file a reply brief that addresses the Court's concerns about the proposed class and whe ther it includes members who have not suffered cognizable damages under FDUTPA; McFalls must also address the question of numerosity if the Court were to limit the class to nurses who have incurred a debt to NCH by leaving the program early and eith er paid the debt (or a portion of it) or remain liable to NCH for the fee. Within seven days of receiving McFalls' reply brief, NCH must file a supplemental brief addressing her arguments and the Court's concerns above. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 11/25/2024. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LAUREN MCFALLS, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the Proposed Rule 23
Class,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:23-cv-572-SPC-KCD

NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
INC. and NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lauren McFalls’ Unopposed Motion for
Leave to File a Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
(Doc. 106.) The motion is GRANTED. But as discussed below, the reply brief
must also address whether the proposed class is sufficiently numerous under
Rule 23(a). Defendants NCH Healthcare System Inc. and Naples Community
Hospital, Inc. (collectively “NCH”) will also be required to file a supplemental
brief addressing the issue of numerosity.
I. Background
McFalls is a registered nurse. (Doc. 1 ¶ 65.) In May 2021, she accepted a
position in NCH’s Specialty Fellowship Program (“Fellowship Program”). (Id.

¶ 71.) In “consideration for the training” she would receive, McFalls agreed to
work at NCH for two years. (Id. ¶ 74.) She also agreed to “pay back the
[Fellowship Program] fee of $5,000” if she did not complete her two-year
commitment. (Doc. 1-2 at 2.)
McFalls left NCH after eleven months. (Doc. 1 ¶ 95.) So NCH deducted
$477.90 from her final paycheck and refused to pay out “35 hours of accrued
paid time off in the amount of $897.91.” (Id. ¶¶ 99-100.) NCH then forwarded
the outstanding balance of the Fellowship Program fee to a debt collector. (Id.
¶ 101.)
McFalls brought this suit to challenge the fee. She claims NCH
represented that the training was worth at least $5,000. (See Doc. 94 at 2.) But
what she received was worthless. (See id. at 2-4.) She believes the fee is not
reflective of the training’s value but is instead meant to prevent nurses from
leaving NCH’s employment. (See id.)
McFalls believes the fee violates several statutes. (Doc. 24 ¶¶ 159-177.)
Because every nurse in the Fellowship Program agrees to pay the same fee if
they do not stay for at least two years, McFalls wants to certify a class action
for her claims under Florida’s Declaratory Judgment Act—Florida Statute §
86.011—and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act—Florida
Statute § 501.204. (Id. ¶¶ 159-177, 198-201.) The proposed class would consist
of “[a]ll nurses who are or were subject to NCH’s Specialty Fellowship Program
2

Employment Agreement and the training repayment provisions therein at any
point from July 31, 2019, through trial.” (Doc. 94 at 1.)
II. Discussion
When considering a motion to certify a class action, a court “must accept
all allegations of the complaint as true and assume that cognizable claims are
stated.” Neumont v. Florida, 198 F.R.D. 554, 559 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2000). But
it “may look beyond the pleadings . . . to determine whether the requirements
of Rule 23 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] have been satisfied.” Id.
Rule 23 governs class certification. Doe v. Ladapo, No. 4:23CV114-RHMAF, 2023 WL 8271764, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2023). A class action is only
appropriate when the plaintiff “satisfies all the requirements of [Rule] 23(a)
and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).” Grames v. Sarasota Cnty.,
No. 8:20-CV-739-CEH-CPT, 2021 WL 778897, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2021);
Navelski v. Int’l Paper Co., 244 F. Supp. 3d 1275, 1303 (N.D. Fla. 2017). On top
of the Rule 23 requirements, “[t]he plaintiffs must also demonstrate that the
proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.” Navelski, 244
F. Supp. 3d at 1304.
Under Rule 23(a), McFalls must show “the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Generally,
forty prospective class members is adequate, twenty is inadequate, and
anything in between is left to the court’s discretion. See Ladapo, 2023 WL
3

8271764, at *2. Although proving numerosity is a “low hurdle,” a plaintiff
“must ordinarily demonstrate some evidence of the number of purported class
members; mere speculation and general allegations of numerosity will not
suffice.” Nazario v. Pro. Acct. Servs., Inc., No. 216CV772FTM99MRM, 2018 WL
1449177, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2018); Palm Beach Golf Ctr.-Boca, Inc. v.
Sarris, 311 F.R.D. 688, 694-695 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2015).
McFalls contends that “the proposed class includes at least 238
individuals based upon records produced by NCH[.]” (Doc. 94 at 10.) As best
the Court can tell, this number represents every nurse who participated in the
Fellowship Program after July 31, 2019 and agreed to pay the $5,000 fee unless
they completed a two-year commitment. (See id. at 1.) NCH contends that this
figure is bloated. As they tell it, many of the prospective class members do not
have to pay the $5,000 fee because they have completed their two-year
commitment or are currently employed. (See Doc. 104 at 6.) As a result, those
prospective class members cannot satisfy a key element of the FDUTPA
claim—damages. (Id.)
“Actual damages are a required element of a FDUTPA claim.” St.
Francis Holdings, LLC v. Pawnee Leasing Corp., No. 8:20-CV-1101-T-02, 2020
WL 6287684, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2020). Prospective class members who
have not experienced an actual loss cannot state a claim. See Marrache v.
Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 17 F.4th 1084, 1101 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Franklin L.
4

Firm, P.A. v. Stacey, No. 8:19-CV-1839-MSS-AAS, 2020 WL 10503003, at *3
(M.D. Fla. May 7, 2020). And if there are prospective members who cannot
state a claim, the court may refuse to certify the class. See Walewski v. Zenimax
Media, Inc., 502 F. App’x 857, 861 (11th Cir. 2012); Justice v. Rheem Mfg. Co.,
318 F.R.D. 687, 693-694 (S.D. Fla. April 27, 2016); C.C. & P.C. v. Sch. Bd. of
Broward County, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134530, *24-25 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23,
2014).
As mentioned, McFalls seeks to certify a class that includes “[a]ll nurses
who are or were subject” to the Fellowship Program Fee. (Doc. 94 at 1.) As
defined, the class appears overbroad—it includes members who may not have
a claim under FDUTPA because they have not paid anything, nor have an
outstanding debt to NCH. See Marrache, 17 F.4th at 1101. The Court cannot
tell whether the proposed class will satisfy Rule 23 if it excludes nurses who
completed their two-year commitment (and thus owe nothing) or had their fee
waived. See Franklin L. Firm, P.A., 2020 WL 10503003, at *3.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. McFalls’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 106) is GRANTED.
2. By December 4, 2024, McFalls must file a reply brief that
addresses the Court’s concerns about the proposed class and

5

whether it includes members who have not suffered cognizable
damages under FDUTPA;
3. McFalls must also address the question of numerosity if the Court
were to limit the class to nurses who have incurred a debt to NCH
by leaving the program early and either paid the debt (or a portion
of it) or remain liable to NCH for the fee.
4. Within seven days of receiving McFalls’ reply brief, NCH must file
a supplemental brief addressing her arguments and the Court’s
concerns above.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 25, 2024.

Copies: All Parties of Record

6