Trim v. Mayvenn, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-03917
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Trim v. Mayvenn: Judge Chesney granted Mayvenn’s motion to deny class certification because Trim was atypical and inadequate as class representative.
The ruling affects Lucine Trim’s proposed nationwide class action against Mayvenn, Inc. by denying class certification; the opinion does not state that Trim’s individual claim was dismissed.
What happened
In Trim v. Mayvenn, Inc., Lucine Trim alleged that Mayvenn sent two automated text messages to her phone even though the number was registered on the national do-not-call registry. She sought to represent a nationwide class of people who received similar telemarketing calls.
Mayvenn argued that Trim could not represent the class because a factual dispute existed about whether her phone was used for residential or business purposes, and because inconsistencies in her testimony raised credibility concerns. The court agreed that these issues could make Trim’s claim different from the class members’ claims and could prevent her from adequately representing them.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Mayvenn’s motion to deny class certification. The court did not address Mayvenn’s alternative arguments.
The detailed version
- Trim v. Mayvenn, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-03917
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
Lucine Trim alleged in the First Amended Complaint that Mayvenn, Inc. sent two automated text messages to her cellular phone without her consent, even though the number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. She brought a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, for herself and a proposed nationwide class called the National Do Not Call Registry Class.
Mayvenn moved to deny class certification, arguing that Trim was not a proper class representative. The court considered whether Trim satisfied two requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): typicality, meaning her claims were sufficiently similar to the class’s claims, and adequacy, meaning she and her lawyers could fairly and vigorously represent the class.
Typicality
Mayvenn argued that Trim’s alleged use of her personal cellular number for business purposes created a unique defense against her. The court agreed. To pursue the proposed class claim, Trim had to show that she was a residential telephone subscriber whose number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The court had previously found a dispute of material fact about whether Trim qualified as a residential subscriber.
The court concluded that this factual dispute could make Trim’s claim atypical because determining whether her number was residential or used for business could become a major focus of the litigation. The court therefore found that Trim had not met Rule 23(a)(3)’s typicality requirement.
Adequacy
Mayvenn also argued that Trim’s credibility problems made her an inadequate class representative. The court noted inconsistencies in Trim’s statements about whether and how she used her personal cellular number for business purposes. For example, testimony indicated that she used the number for sales calls, while an affidavit stated that she made those calls using a number provided by her work. A videotaped program showed her personal number while she identified herself as an employee and invited viewers to call or text her. In response to an interrogatory, however, she stated that there were no instances in which she had listed her cellphone number in work-related directories, postings, social media, or other public forums.
The court found these inconsistencies significant because they concerned an issue central to the litigation. Because Trim did not explain them in her opposition, the court concluded that she would likely have to spend substantial time and resources defending her credibility rather than vigorously prosecuting the case for the proposed class. The court therefore found that she had not met Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement.
Ruling
The court granted Mayvenn’s motion to deny class certification. It did not consider Mayvenn’s alternative arguments in support of the motion. The opinion does not state that Trim’s individual TCPA claim was dismissed.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.