Law case study Section 9

As laid out in both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Maryland Rules, for a class to be certified, the requirements are that;

· The class should have numerous members such that it would be impractical, to sue or be sued one by one. In such a case, it would take only one to act as a representative for all. The suggested number for probable class action is 40. Numerosity is determined based on the total number of customers/clients/members/employees the defendant serves and the resources that would be needed by all the involved parties to run all the cases to completion. Ordinarily, for a case that doesn’t satisfy the numerosity requirement, and the “others” can be included as interested parties.

· The law questions involved or the facts presentable ought to be common to the entire persons involved in the class. Commonality requirement means that the claims or the defenses involved should at least be similar.

· The representative of the parties involved in a class action ought to have typical defenses or claims of the entire class. This requirement is essential because, if the representative fails, then the entire class loses, regardless of the strength of their claims or defenses. To avoid losing a class action suit on the basis of special defenses, it is important that the member representing the class is unblemished with common legal issues that can dent their credibility before the court.

· Lastly, the party or parties representing a class action suit ought to adequately and fairly protect the interests of the entire class members. It should be noted that this requirement ought to be based on interests of the class and the suitability of the representative. It is important that the adequacy requirement should be determined primarily on the basis of interests only. Other skills and features like eloquence, cleverness, and public-spiritedness should be secondary if at all needed.

In the current case, Al Fare has the adequacy of interests, typical claims to qualify to be a class action representative in the case against Dodgy Dodge. It is noted that AL Fare is divorced, poorly educated, and has two Driving Under the Influence (DUI) convictions from a few years back. In addition, Al Fare has a minimum wage job with means he is probably among the poorest 5% of Dodgy Dodge clients. In this case, there are numerous opportunities for the defendant can raise special defenses unique to the case of Al Fare regarding among other, DUI, to challenge Al Fare’s case. Therefore, on this basis, it is considered that Al Fare wouldn’t be best suited to be a class representative despite satisfying the adequacy and typicality requirements. There are other two persons with a similar claim of the $500 fee, which...

However, the numerosity requirement in this court case is considered to be unsatisfactory. Dodgy Dodge has about 200 clients, and so far, only 3 of the clients have a similar claim. A class action suit, in this case, would be disqualified.
In addition, Dodgy Dodge has an Arbitration clause and class action waiver in the contract signed by clients. To this end, it would be advised that clients should first seek arbitration avenues to solve the matter; however, if such effort is in vain, then the intervention of the court can be sought. Even though the current case is determined to not qualify for a class action, this doesn’t mean a class action suit cannot be brought against Dodgy Dodge. The law requires that contracts and agreements that are contrary to the law, the law takes preceded to the extent of the contradiction. If arbitration fails to solve the $500 fee issues, a court case is inevitable, and if the number of cases meets the class action requirements, then a class action is inevitable despite the class action waiver – in any case, it would be the best option even for Dodgy Dodge.

Section 10

a. Compliance with Maryland Interest & Usury law

The interest and usury (I&U) law for Maryland is contained in the annotated code of Maryland common law section 12-101-127. According to section 12-103 which determines I&U, there are varying requirements that are used to determine the interests cap. For loans that are in writing and set forth the rate, the rate cap is 8% and 2% minimum. For loans that are in writing and set out the rate but are not secured by a saving account, the rate cap is at 18%. For loans that are in writing and they have a rate set forth they have no rate cap. For loans in writing and the rate is set forth but are not secured with a real property, they are to be repaid in installments and with an established fee structure and a schedule for repayment, the rate cap is at 18%. From a broader perspective of the Investor Approved Extended Facility loan offered by TCC, it is considered to be within the state required rate cap of 18% for the interest charged ranges from 10-15%.

The above are the possible categories the provided case would lay. The loan extended to customer A has a rate set forth, it has a clear repayment structure of six months, and it is secured by saving or investment. It is therefore concluded that the loans lie under the 18% rate cap. Based on this, the loan is considered to be not in violation of Maryland I&U laws for its rate are set at 12%. The usury law that applies to this loan is common law section 12-103(c)(2).

b. Compliance with federal Truth in Lending Act

The federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA) requires that lenders should make known to consumers what they…