Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp.

Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp.

Opinion

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a "motion to strike class allegations" filed by Defendant Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation ("Bridgecrest"). (Doc. 65.) For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

In this action, which was initiated in July 2019, Plaintiff Tonya Canady ("Canady") alleges that Bridgecrest violated the Telephone Communications Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. ("TCPA"), by placing calls to her cell phone throughout 2018 and 2019 without her consent while using an artificial or automated voice. (Doc. 1.)¹ The complaint is styled as a "Class Action Complaint" and alleges that Canady is pursuing claims "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated." (Id. at 1-2.) To that end, in the "Class Allegations" [*2]  section of the complaint, Canady alleges that she is bringing claims on behalf of a "Pre-recorded Class," which "consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) subscribing to a cellular telephone number (3) to which Bridgecrest placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using a pre-recorded message (5) within 4 years of the date this complaint is filed (6) after receiving a request to no longer call that number." (Id. ¶ 24.) The complaint also includes allegations concerning why "[t]here are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class [that] predominate over any questions that affect only individual class members" (id. ¶ 31); allegations concerning why Canady is a proper class representative (id. ¶ 32); and allegations concerning Canady's counsel's experience in handling class actions (id. ¶ 33).

On October 2, 2019, Bridgecrest moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement that Canady's husband signed when purchasing a truck from Bridgecrest's predecessor in interest. (Doc. 17.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.