Cardenas v. IMS Fund LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-04041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cardenas v. IMS Fund LLC, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein deferred a decision on IMS Fund’s request to separate class discovery until the Rule 16 conference.
Erica Cardenas and IMS Fund LLC; the proposed class may also be affected because the requested discovery procedure concerns whether class discovery will proceed separately from discovery on Cardenas’s individual claim.
What happened
In Erica Cardenas v. IMS Fund LLC, IMS Fund asked for permission to seek separate discovery about Cardenas’s individual claim before conducting discovery about the proposed class. The case concerns Cardenas’s allegation that IMS Fund sent three text messages to a phone number listed on the federal Do-Not-Call Registry.
IMS Fund argued that individual issues—including who subscribed to or regularly used the phone, who registered the number, whether Cardenas could have replied “STOP,” and whether she suffered actionable harm—could resolve her claim without class discovery. IMS Fund also identified legal questions about whether three texts and calls to a cellular phone could support the claim. Cardenas opposed the request.
The court did not decide whether discovery should be separated. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein stated that the issue would be addressed at the Rule 16 conference scheduled for September 12, 2024.
The detailed version
- Cardenas v. IMS Fund LLC · No. 1:24-cv-04041
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 4, 2024
Background
This putative class action arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Cardenas alleges that IMS Fund sent three text messages to her cellular phone even though the number had previously been registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Her complaint asserts one count based on 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), a regulation concerning calls to residential subscribers whose numbers are on that registry.
IMS Fund submitted a pre-motion request seeking a conference about an anticipated motion to bifurcate class discovery. Bifurcation here means separating discovery about Cardenas’s individual claim from discovery concerning the proposed class. IMS Fund argued that limited discovery about Cardenas’s individual circumstances could lead to a motion resolving her claim and make class discovery unnecessary.
Defendant’s Proposed Individual Discovery
IMS Fund identified several proposed topics:
- whether Cardenas was the subscriber or a regular user of the phone number and therefore had standing, meaning the legal ability to bring the claim; - whether Cardenas personally registered the number on the Do-Not-Call Registry; - why she did not respond “STOP” to the messages; - whether she suffered actionable damages; and - whether receiving three text messages, or receiving calls on a cellular phone rather than a traditional residential landline, could support a claim under the cited regulation.
IMS Fund asserted that limited jurisdictional discovery had shown the number belonged to Cardenas’s husband, Mark Cardenas, rather than Cardenas. It argued that Cardenas could still need to show that she was a regular user to establish standing. IMS Fund also pointed to an allegation in the amended complaint that Cardenas was the number’s sole owner and exclusive user. These assertions were arguments made in the request; the court did not decide their truth.
IMS Fund further argued that Cardenas’s allegations of damages were conclusory and that the proposed discovery could support a dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the claim without a trial. Cardenas opposed the request in its entirety.
Court Action
The court’s endorsement did not grant or deny bifurcation and did not decide any standing, damages, regulatory, or class-certification issue. Instead, the court stated: “The Court will address this issue at the Rule 16 conference on September 12, 2024.” Rule 16 concerns case-management proceedings. Thus, the text supplied reflects a scheduling direction about when the issue would be addressed, not a ruling on the anticipated motion or on the merits of Cardenas’s claim.
Disposition
The court deferred consideration of the bifurcation issue to the Rule 16 conference. No disposition of the anticipated motion to bifurcate appears in the supplied text.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.