October 29, 2020

Volume X, Number 303

Advertisement

October 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 27, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

26 Phone Calls, 22 Lawsuits, 22 Sets of Discovery—Turns Out Making a Defendant’s Life as Painful as Possible Violates the Claim Splitting Doctrine

Here’s a fun quick one for you TCPAWorld.

Guy receives 26 calls (allegedly) from a debt collector (allegedly) without consent. Rather than file one lawsuit (or, you know, no lawsuits) he elects to file 22 separate lawsuits against the defendant—18 pertaining to one call each and 4 pertaining to two calls each. Making matters more fun (burdensome), for each lawsuit he served a separate set of discovery, resulting in 22 sets of discovery being served on a Defendant.

Gross.

Interestingly, the Plaintiff outright admitted that he engaged in this conduct in the hopes of increasing his recovery under the FDCPA—which allows only $1,000.00 per violation (in Plaintiff’s mind, “per suit.”) He figured if he sued Defendant 22 times and Defendant was found liable 22 times he could collect 22 times the statutory penalty. That almost makes sense if you squint a little.

The Court was not impressed or amused, however.

In Laccinole v. Diversified Consultants, C.A. No. 1:19-CV-00149-MSM-LDA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65173 (D. R.I. April 14, 2020) the Defendant moved to dismiss the successive lawsuits arguing that the doctrine of claim splitting prohibits the filing of separate suits. The claim splitting doctrine generally holds that where multiple claims arise out of a single nexus of operative facts they must be pursued in a single case. The Court found that the purportedly illegal debt collection at issue in the case amounted to a single set of facts that could only give rise to a single case. So 21 cases dismissed.

While I hate to quibble with the right result here, it seems to me that each illegal call does give rise to a separate cause of action and is a separate claim—at least under the TCPA. While I don’t think that justifies bringing multiple lawsuits—and the district courts are well empowered to punish a party that engages in conduct that makes litigation needlessly expensive—it is critical to keep the single call = single claim rule in mind when assessing standing to pursue claims in a TCPA case. Stated simply: because each call is a separate claim a Plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each call he seeks to recover on. While this rule pays dividends even in individual suits, it is absolutely dynamite in thwarting class certification,

Have a good night TCPAWorld.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 107
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Eric Troutman Class Action Attorney
Of Counsel

Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems.

Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous...

213-689-6510
Advertisement
Advertisement