Brown v. FEDChex, LLC et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for class certification [Doc. # 4 ] is moot. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/22/13. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JENNY BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDCHEX, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:12-CV-1207 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for class certification
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Defendants have not responded to the motion, and the
time allowed for doing so has expired.
Plaintiff brings this action against defendants FedChex Recovery, LLC, and
Universal Casualth Company, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The TCPA prohibits any person, including debt collection
agencies, from calling cellular phones using autodialers or prerecorded messages
without the called party’s consent. Plaintiff alleges that Universal hired FedChex, a debt
collection agency, to collect outstanding debts. Plaintiff further alleges that FedChex
called plaintiff’s cellular telephone without plaintiff’s consent using an automatic
telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice, in violation of the TCPA.
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of a class defined in her motion as
follows:
All persons with numbers in the area codes 314, 636, 573, 417, 816, and
660 or (b) [sic] who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
this action (28 U.S.C. §1658), and on or before a date 20 days following
the filing of this action, (c) defendants (or someone on their behalf) called
using predictive dialing equipment (d) where defendants did not obtain
the phone number called from the called party, with respect to the
subject matter of the alleged debt being collected (for example, where

the number was obtained through skip tracing or captured by the
defendant’s equipment from an inbound call, or defendants was [sic]
calling a wrong number).
Subsequent to filing the motion for class certification, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint which defines the purported class as follows:
All persons nationwide whose cell phone either defendant called using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice,
to collect an alleged debt owed to Universal, where the phone number
was obtained from some source other than from the called party, for
example, where either defendant’s records show that the number called
reached the wrong person, was obtained through skip tracing, the
Internet or captured by equipment from an inbound call.
Plaintiff did not file an amended motion for class certification.
Based on the amended complaint, it appears that the plaintiff intends to seek
certification of a class that is significantly different from the class described in her
motion. Thus, the pending motion for class certification is moot. In order to obtain
certification of the class described in the amended complaint, plaintiff will have to file
a new motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for class certification [Doc. #4]
is moot.

____________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2013.

-2-