Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc.

Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

January 8, 2020, Filed

No. 18-50551

Opinion

 [*764]  JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us, ] "the class action is 'an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.'" Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011) (quoting [**2]  Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-1, 99 S. Ct. 2545, 61 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1979)). As Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes clear, multiple conditions must be met before a district court may certify a class. The putative class certified here failed to satisfy several of those conditions, including commonality, typicality, and predominance. In addition, the putative class presents substantial questions of Article III standing. Accordingly,  [*765]  we reverse the class certification order and remand for further proceedings.

Nina Flecha neglected to pay for the medical care she received from Seton Medical Center Hays. To help Seton collect on that debt, Medicredit, Inc., a voluntary debt collection service provider, sent Flecha a series of collection letters—including the one at the heart of this suit. That letter stated:

Your seriously delinquent Seton Medical Center Hays account remains unpaid despite past requests for payment.

At this time, a determination must be made with our client as to the disposition of your account. Your failure to cooperate in satisfying this debt indicates voluntary resolution is doubtful. However, if it is now your desire to clear your account, you need to promptly remit the balance in full.

The letter concluded: "To discuss payment arrangements call our office."

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

946 F.3d 762 *; 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 481 **; 105 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1025; 2020 WL 91267

NINA FLECHA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MEDICREDIT, INCORPORATED; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellants

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127620 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2018)

CORE TERMS

class certification, class member, unnamed, putative class, class action, certification, commonality, district court, legal action, predominance, conditions, fails, class-wide, class representative, common issue, collection, certify

Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Appellate Review, Banking Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Debt Collection, Unfair Practices, Prerequisites for Class Action, Commonality, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, De Novo Review, Questions of Fact & Law, Adequacy of Representation, Numerosity, Typicality, Predominance, Superiority, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Certification of Classes, Class Actions, Constitutional Law, The Judiciary, Case or Controversy, Standing, Preliminary Considerations, Justiciability