Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marquita Sanders, et al v. W&W Wholesale Inc

September 11, 2012

MARQUITA SANDERS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
W&W WHOLESALE INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are individuals who allegedly used their credit cards in 2010 and 2011 at Defendant W&W Wholesale Inc.'s (W&W) stores and were allegedly provided printed receipts containing the expiration dates of their credit or debit cards. Plaintiffs contend that by printing the expiration dates on the credit or debit card receipts, W&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). Plaintiffs also allege that W&W willfully violated FACTA. Plaintiffs now move to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff can move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) (Rule 23(a)), which provides the following:

(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The Seventh Circuit has indicated that "[c]ertification as a class action can coerce a defendant into settling on highly disadvantageous terms regardless of the merits of the suit," and thus a class can be certified by a court only if the court is convinced "after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied." CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc., 637 F.3d 721, 724 (7th Cir. 2011)(emphasis in original)(internal quotations omitted). The certification of a class in a case is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550 (2011)(quoting Califano v. Yamasaki,442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)).

A court may certify a class if the "numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation" requirements of Rule 23(a) are met and one of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) (Rule 23(b)) are also met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2548-50; see also Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006)(stating that a "district court may certify a class of plaintiffs if the putative class satisfies all four requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)-numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation-and any one of the conditions of Rule 23(b)"); Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 2002)(stating that "a determination of the propriety of class certification should not turn on likelihood of success on the merits"); Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 592 (7th Cir. 1998)(stating that "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the federal district courts with broad discretion to determine whether certification of a class-action lawsuit is appropriate").

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to certify the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.