United States District Court, E.D. Washington
MYRON HARGREAVES, CORTNEY HALVORSEN, BONNIE FREEMAN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, and PAUL J. WASSON AND MONICA WASSON, individually and the marital community, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY
O. RICE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT are Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and
Alternatively, Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal,
Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to Expedite each of these motions. ECF
Nos. 86, 87, 88. The Court has reviewed the briefing, the
record and files herein, and is fully informed. While these
matters were noted for hearing without oral argument on
October 25, 2017, in accordance with the Court's Jury
Trial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 16 at 7, and the Local Rules,
the Court resolves these matters without inviting a response
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
seek reconsideration of the Court's denial of class
certification arguing that the Court's ruling on lack of
numerosity is really a denial based on ascertainability,
which is not a requirement for class certification. ECF No.
86 at 7. Indeed, Plaintiffs contend that “all necessary
information can be readily determined by reference to
documents in the court files already identified -
specifically, the writs of garnishment, answers to writ,
judgments on answer, and satisfactions.” Id.
simply identifying the universe of potential class members to
include every garnishment action filed by Defendants within
the statute of limitations, Plaintiffs have not established
numerosity in order to support class certification. By simply
saying that the answer to the question of how many class
members there are lies within the state court records, does
not satisfy this Court's obligation to conduct a
“rigorous analysis” that the prerequisites of
Rule 23(a) have been satisfied. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-51 (2011). “A party
seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate
his compliance with the Rule-that is, he must be prepared to
prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous
parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”
Id. at 350 (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs are not “representative” of their
proposed classes because their complaint only concerned
collection of consumer debt by garnishment of bank accounts,
not the universe of garnishment proceedings. They have no
standing to assert more violations than those for which they
were allegedly harmed. “[A] class representative must
be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer
the same injury as the class members.” Id. at
348-49 (citations and internal quotation omitted).
extent class certification is committed to the discretion of
the Court, the Court declines to certify under these
circumstances. Moreover, the Court has now granted
Defendants' partial summary judgment, further making this
case ineligible and impracticable for class certification.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider is denied.
FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Plaintiffs seek certification for interlocutory appeal under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Plaintiffs are mistaken. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) allows a litigant to seek an
interlocutory appeal in the court of appeals. This Court has
no role in granting permission for an appeal. See Lambert
v. Nutraceutical Corp., 870 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2017).
The Court declines to bypass the Supreme Court's rule
that was the “product of careful calibration.”
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.Ct. 1702, 1709
(2017). Plaintiffs' motion for certification of
interlocutory appeal is denied.
TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
seek an extension of the deadline to submit dispositive
motions, reasoning “[n]ow that the Court has denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, summary
judgment is appropriate and will likely dispose of the
remaining issues in the case.” ECF No. 87 at 2.
Moreover, the Court has resolved Defendants' partial
summary judgment motion, drastically changing the complexion
of this case. For good cause shown, Plaintiffs' motion is
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 88) is
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Alternatively,
Certification of an ...