Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc. case brief summary
181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner was sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692-1692o, by respondents, who obtained a class certification, due to petitioner's actions n the collection of debts for its clients. Petitioner had already settled a prior class action concerning the same action and sought to deny respondent's class certification. The district court denied petitioner's motion, and petitioner sought discretionary review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and held that respondent was entitled to proceed as a class action at this time in the underlying lawsuit because its case and a parallel case were not final or reached any judgment.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure




181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner challenged the judgment of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, which denied its motion to deny class
certification to respondents in a lawsuit under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692-1692o.CASE FACTS
Petitioner was sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692-1692o, by respondents, who obtained a class certification, due to petitioner's actions n the collection of debts for its clients. Petitioner had already settled a prior class action concerning the same action and sought to deny respondent's class certification. The district court denied petitioner's motion, and petitioner sought discretionary review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court determined that it had a right to review the appeal, and that it was proper to do so in this instance.
- The court determined that the prior action was not final, and therefore had no impact on the current case.
- The court stated that because both cases were still in trial stage, it would be wrong to decertify respondent's class at this time.
- The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion and remanded for further proceedings.
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and held that respondent was entitled to proceed as a class action at this time in the underlying lawsuit because its case and a parallel case were not final or reached any judgment.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment