This case study examines three interrelated consumer law problems. First, it evaluates whether a proposed class action against an auto dealership meets the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certification requirements — numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy — and whether an arbitration clause affects that analysis. Second, it assesses a lender's compliance with Maryland's Interest and Usury Law and the federal Truth in Lending Act, focusing on disclosed finance charges and APR accuracy. Third, it analyzes three First Amendment and FDCPA challenges arising from a debt collection agency's practices, including a potentially misleading collection phrase, the right to petition, and Article III standing requirements in a postcard-exposure class action.
As set out in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Maryland Rules, the following requirements must be satisfied for a class to be certified:
Numerosity. The class must have enough members that it would be impractical to sue or be sued individually. In such cases, one member may act as a representative for all. The suggested threshold for probable class action is 40 members. Numerosity is determined based on the total number of customers, clients, members, or employees the defendant serves, as well as the resources all involved parties would need to litigate each case to completion. Where a case does not satisfy the numerosity requirement, the additional parties may instead be included as interested parties.
Commonality. The legal questions or presentable facts must be common to all persons in the class. The commonality requirement means that the claims or defenses involved must be at least similar across the class.
Typicality. The representative of the parties in a class action must have defenses or claims that are typical of the entire class. This requirement is essential because if the representative fails, the entire class loses, regardless of the strength of the other members' claims or defenses. To avoid losing a class action suit on the basis of special defenses unique to the representative, it is important that the representative is free from common legal issues that could undermine their credibility before the court.
Adequacy. The party or parties representing a class action suit must adequately and fairly protect the interests of all class members. This determination should be based primarily on interests and the suitability of the representative. Other qualities such as eloquence, cleverness, and public-spiritedness are secondary considerations, if relevant at all.
In the current case, Al Fare satisfies the adequacy and typicality requirements to serve as a class action representative in the case against Dodgy Dodge. However, it is noted that Al Fare is divorced, poorly educated, and has two Driving Under the Influence (DUI) convictions from a few years ago. Al Fare also holds a minimum-wage job, placing him among the poorest five percent of Dodgy Dodge's clients. These facts create numerous opportunities for the defendant to raise special defenses unique to Al Fare's situation — including the DUI convictions — which could challenge his standing. On this basis, Al Fare would not be best suited to serve as class representative, despite satisfying adequacy and typicality.
Regarding commonality, two other persons share a similar claim concerning the $500 fee, which satisfies that requirement. However, the numerosity requirement is not satisfied. Dodgy Dodge has approximately 200 clients, and only three of them have a similar claim. A class action suit in this case would therefore be disqualified.
Dodgy Dodge includes an arbitration clause and a class action waiver in the contract signed by its clients. On this basis, it would be advisable for clients to first pursue arbitration as a means of resolving the matter. If arbitration fails to produce a resolution, court intervention may then be sought.
Even though the current case does not qualify for class action, this does not mean a class action suit can never be brought against Dodgy Dodge. The law requires that contracts and agreements contrary to law yield to the law to the extent of the contradiction. If arbitration fails to resolve the $500 fee dispute, litigation becomes inevitable. Should the number of claimants ultimately meet the class action requirements, a class action would be possible regardless of the waiver — and would likely be the most efficient outcome for all parties, including Dodgy Dodge.
The Interest and Usury (I&U) law for Maryland is contained in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Common Law, Sections 12-101 through 12-127. Under Section 12-103, which governs I&U determinations, several categories apply depending on the loan's characteristics:
For loans in writing that specify the rate and are secured by a savings account, the rate cap is 8% with a 2% minimum. For loans in writing that specify the rate but are not secured by a savings account, the cap is 18%. For loans in writing that specify the rate and are secured by real property, there is no rate cap. For loans in writing that specify the rate, are not secured by real property, are repayable in installments, and have an established fee structure and repayment schedule, the cap is 18%.
From a broader review of the Investor Approved Extended Facility loan offered by TCC, the product appears to fall within the state-required rate cap of 18%, as the interest charged ranges from 10% to 15%. The loan extended to Customer A specifies the rate, has a clear six-month repayment structure, and is secured by savings or investment. It is therefore concluded that this loan falls under the 18% rate cap. Since the loan's rate is set at 12%, it is not in violation of Maryland I&U law. The applicable usury provision is Common Law Section 12-103(c)(2).
"TILA disclosure requirements and hidden charges"
"Misleading collection phrase and petition rights"
"Postcard class action lacks actual controversy"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.