United States District Court, E.D. New York
SONIA PEREZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES LLC, doing business as CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES OF FL LLC Defendant.
Kleinman, LLC Co-Attorneys for the Plaintiff, Abraham
Kleinman, Esq., Of Counsel
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC Co-Attorneys for
the Plaintiff, Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq., Of Counsel
Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC Attorneys for
Defendant, Kristen H. Smith, Esq., Of Counsel
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER
D. SPATT, United States District Judge.
Perez (“Perez” or the “Plaintiff”)
commenced this putative class action against the Defendant,
Central Credit Services LLC, doing business as Central Credit
Services of FL LLC (“CCS” or the
“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47
U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. Presently before
the Court is a motion by the Plaintiff for class
certification, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (“Rule” or “Fed R. Civ.
P.”) requesting that the Court certify the class. For
the following reasons, the motion is denied without prejudice
to renewal following discovery.
October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced this action against
the Defendant by filing a putative class action complaint.
That same day, the Plaintiff filed the present motion,
seeking a ruling certifying the class. The Plaintiff also
filed a motion to enter the instant motion and continue it
until the Defendant entered an appearance.
November 29, 2017, the Defendant answered the complaint.
parties will hold their initial conference before Magistrate
Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on March 7, 2018.
determining whether class certification is appropriate, a
district court must first ascertain whether the claims meet
the preconditions of Rule 23(a).” Teamsters Local
445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Bombardier Inc., 546
F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 2008). Rule 23(a) requires the
Plaintiff to establish the following four conditions:
“(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 classes; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). After establishing Rule
23(a)'s four preconditions, the claims must also satisfy
one of the scenarios in Rule 23(b)(1)-(3). Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b). “The party seeking class certification bears the
burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence
that each of Rule 23's requirements has been met.”
Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 547 (2d Cir.
2010) (internal citations omitted).
a motion for class certification “is proper only if the
trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338,
350-51, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)
(internal citations and quotations omitted). Although such a
decision is to be made as early as practicable, Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(c)(1)(A), “this does not mandate precipitous
action.” Chateau de Ville Prods., Inc. v.
Trans-Witmark Music Library, Inc., 586 F.2d 962, 966 (2d
instant case, the Court is unable to conduct the
“rigorous analysis” required by Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., as this motion was filed contemporaneously
with the class action complaint and prior to any discovery or
the filing of an answer. Even at the present juncture, there
has been little or no discovery that has taken place.
discovery is needed on factual issues associated with class
certification. Neither party's interests are properly
served by determining class certification prior to the
completion of the discovery process. See Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No.
3:12-cv-1208, 2013 WL 4782378, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 6, 2013)
(“Here, such ‘rigorous analysis' is
impracticable, at least on the current record, because the
plaintiff filed its motion for class certification prior to
discovery.”). The Court finds that at ...