Buccaneers Could Lose On and Off the Field: Attempt to Reverse Auction TCPA Class Settlement Batted Down by Eleventh Circuit
A leading Plaintiff's TCPA firm filed a class action against the Buccaneers in 2013, arguing certain company faxes violated the TCPA. The faxes in question contained advertisements promoting football ticket sales, and were alleged to have been sent without consent. While the class certification motion was pending in the original class action, one of the plaintiff's attorneys left the firm and moved to another Plaintiff's firm.
A rather entertaining email exchange then ensued between lawyers at this new firm, in which they discussed cutting the original putative class counsel out of a settlement by filing suit with a new class representative and settling at a lower amount, in a plan they themselves described as "Machiavellian." Such attempts to "reverse auction" class settlements are frowned on by federal courts, and largely prevented by case law which gives preference to first-filed class actions.
In 2016, this second firm filed a new TCPA class action against the Buccaneers based on substantially the same facts as the 2013 class action, and shortly thereafter announced a $25 million dollar settlement of the same, an amount far below what the settlement demands had been in the 2013 lawsuit. The 2016 case was filed long after the statute of limitation for the faxes at issue had expired, but as part of the settlement, the Buccaneers declined the penalty by waiving any statute of limitation defense.
Once the 2013 class representatives found out about the new class settlement, they moved to intervene, which was denied by the district court, as the Court decided that all issues could be addressed at a class fairness hearing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the class representatives from the first class action should have been able to intervene in the newly filed class action. The opinion noted that the settlement of the second class action appeared to have been motivated by an attempt to grab attorney's fees instead of securing the best result in a class action.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion continues a clear preference for first-filed class actions and protects the right of putative class members to intervene at an early stage to challenge settlements that may not be in the best interest of the class as a whole. While the opinion focused on the infighting between the various Plaintiff firms, now that the Court has allowed intervention, the Buccaneers face additional hurdles when it comes to settling this class action at a discount.
Topics
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- Article III Standing
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Auto-Dialer
- Automatic Telephone Dialing System
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Bitcoin
- Blockchain
- BNPL
- Business Records
- California
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Car Dealership
- CARES Act
- CCPA
- CDC
- CFPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Claim-Splitting
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Climate Change
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Commercial Foreclosure
- Communications
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Connecticut
- Connecticut Insurance Department
- Constitutional Claims
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- COVID-19
- CPRA
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Credit Reporting Agencies
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- cyber regulation
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Breach
- Data Privacy Laws
- Data Security
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Dispute
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Department of Financial Services
- DFPI
- DFS
- DFS Part 500
- Digital Financial Asset Law
- Disclosure
- Discovery Rule
- District of Columbia
- Document Retention
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- ECOA
- Economic Impact Payment
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Eleventh Amendment
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Eviction
- Excessive Fines Clause
- Executive Order
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Lending
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Administration
- Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Registration
- Financial Regulatory
- Financial Risk
- FinTech
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- FTC
- Furnishers
- GDPR
- hacking
- Hardship Declaration
- HealthTech
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Human Intervention Test
- Hunstein
- IDFPR
- Illinois
- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
- Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Investigation
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Kentucky
- kickbacks
- Lack of Standing
- Landlord and Tenant
- Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- LGBTQ
- Licensing
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Discharge
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Marketing Services Agreements
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Material Misrepresentation
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Debts
- Medical Expenses
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loan Acceleration
- Mortgage Loans
- Mortgage Servicers
- Mortgage Servicing
- Motion to Dismiss
- MSA
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York Department of Financial Services
- New York Legislation
- New York Real Property Procedures and Acts
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NMLS
- North Carolina
- North Carolina Consumer Finance Act
- North Dakota
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- NYCRA
- NYS DFS
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Origination
- Paragraph 22
- Part 500
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- PPP
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Preemption
- Privacy
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Right of Action
- Private Student Loans
- Property Rights
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Redlining
- referral fees
- Regulated Entities
- Regulated Non-Depositories
- Regulated Organizations
- Regulation
- Regulation X
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Relief
- Remote Working
- Residential Foreclosure
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right of Redemption
- Right to Cure
- Right to Cure Notice
- Right to Reinstate
- Risk Management
- Robocalls
- Rohit Chopra
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Separation of Powers
- Settlement
- Settlement Conference
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Standard of Proof
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stimulus
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Implications
- Tax Lien
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texas
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Unfair and Deceptive Practices
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Usury Laws
- Utah
- Video Conferencing
- Virginia
- Virtual Currency Business Act (VCBA)
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act