Margulis v. Generation Life Insurance, Company et al.

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to certify class (#23) and motion to delay ruling on that motion (#24) are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants motion to deny plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice (#26) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/18/15. (MRS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MARILYN MARGULIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GENERATION LIFE INS. CO., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14-CV-1462 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
against the defendants, Generation Life Insurance Company, Spring Venture Group,
LLC, and John Does 1-10, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). The matter was removed from state court on
August 22, 2014. The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss but permitted
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint (#20). Plaintiff amended her complaint (#21) and
on the same day filed a motion to certify class (#23) as well as a motion to delay ruling
on that motion (#24). Defendants moved to deny plaintiff’s motion for class certification
without prejudice (#26).
Plaintiff had also filed a motion to certify class with her original state court
complaint. This Court denied that motion without prejudice to refiling following the

1

issuance of the Case Management Order in this case (#12). Plaintiff explains that she
filed the motions to certify early to protect against individual settlement offers that
potentially could moot her claim for class-wide relief. See March v. Medicredit, No.
4:13cv1210 TIA, 2013 WL 6265070 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 4, 2013). Although this Court in
March advised that “in future cases, putative class action plaintiffs would be wise to
immediately file such motions to protect the class from similar motions to dismiss based
on offers of judgment,” this Court also stated that defendants “should not be able to use
offers of judgment [under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68] to thwart class actions.”
Id. at *3. As such, the March Court struck the defendant’s offer of judgment and denied
defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. at *4. Rather than permit plaintiff’s motion to certify
to pend indefinitely, this Court will deny the motion to certify without prejudice to
refiling at the appropriate time. In the event that offers of judgment similar to those in
March are made, this Court will entertain a similar motion to strike.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to certify class (#23) and
motion to delay ruling on that motion (#24) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to deny plaintiff’s motion
for class certification without prejudice (#26) is GRANTED.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2015.

_________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2