Denicolo v. Viking Client Services, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-00210
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Denicolo v. Viking, Judge Rogers set the certified class periods and scheduled further case-management proceedings.
The certified Illinois Resident Class, California Rental Class, and California Resident Class, as well as the parties litigating the class claims. The order determines the dates covered by those classes but does not decide whether Viking violated the asserted laws.
What happened
In Denicolo v. Viking Client Services, Inc., the court addressed how far back three previously certified classes could pursue claims. The parties agreed that the Illinois Resident Class and California Rental Class would cover conduct from January 11, 2018, through March 29, 2021, but disagreed about the California Resident Class.
The court ruled that the California claims did not count from the original complaint because Michael G. Fox’s California-law claims differed significantly from Ronald G. Denicolo’s federal claims, and the original complaint did not give Viking adequate notice of Fox’s claims. The court also rejected Viking’s argument that the California class should be limited to the one-year period for one of its claims, concluding that the four-year period for California’s Unfair Competition Law applied.
Judge Yvonne Rogers ordered that the California Resident Class cover October 14, 2015, through March 29, 2021, and amended the class definitions to reflect that period and the agreed periods for the other two classes. The court also scheduled a case-management conference for August 30, 2021, and required an updated joint statement by August 23, 2021.
The detailed version
- Denicolo v. Viking Client Services, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-00210
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 19, 2021
Background
In an earlier order, the court certified three classes:
- The Illinois Resident Class, represented by Ronald G. Denicolo, asserting claims under the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- The California Rental Class, also represented by Denicolo, asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- The California Resident Class, represented by Michael G. Fox, asserting claims under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Remedies Act.
The court directed the parties to address the dates covered by each class. The parties agreed that the Illinois Resident Class and California Rental Class should cover conduct from January 11, 2018, through March 29, 2021. They disagreed about the starting date for the California Resident Class.
The original complaint, filed January 11, 2019, asserted claims brought only by Denicolo, including federal debt-collection claims and Illinois-law claims. The parties later stipulated to add Fox and his California-law claims. The amended complaint was filed October 14, 2019.
California Resident Class’s Starting Date
The plaintiffs argued that the California Resident Class should begin on January 11, 2015, four years before the original complaint, because the Unfair Competition Law provides the longest applicable limitations period. Viking argued that Fox’s claims did not relate back to the original complaint and that the class should instead be limited to the one-year period applicable to the Rosenthal Act.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, an amended claim may relate back to the original pleading in certain circumstances. When a new plaintiff is added, the court considered whether the original complaint gave the defendant adequate notice, whether relation back would unfairly prejudice the defendant, and whether the original and new plaintiffs had sufficiently similar interests.
The court concluded that Fox’s claims did not relate back. Denicolo’s original claims concerned federal debt-collection violations involving notices sent more than 30 days after alleged vehicle damage. Fox’s claims concerned California-law requirements for debt-validation disclosures, including claims involving a letter sent 24 days after the alleged damage. The court also noted that Fox’s Consumer Remedies Act claim had a pre-filing notification requirement and that the California claims involved different legal requirements and potential liabilities. Because the original complaint did not provide adequate notice of those claims and Fox and Denicolo did not have the required identity of interests, the court based the California class period on the October 14, 2019, filing date of the amended complaint.
Length of the California Class Period
The court rejected Viking’s argument that the California Resident Class should be limited to the Rosenthal Act’s one-year period. Relying on decisions from the California Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court held that the Unfair Competition Law’s four-year limitations period applied even though another law underlying the claims had a shorter period. The court also rejected Viking’s manageability concerns as a basis for shortening the period.
Order
Judge Yvonne Rogers ordered that the certified class definitions cover these periods:
- The Illinois Resident Class: January 11, 2018, through March 29, 2021. - The California Rental Class: January 11, 2018, through March 29, 2021. - The California Resident Class: October 14, 2015, through March 29, 2021.
The court also set a case-management conference for August 30, 2021, by videoconference and required the parties to file an updated case-management statement by August 23, 2021. The court did not resolve additional proposed refinements to the class definitions because the parties were still discussing them.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.