Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

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

Head v. Citibank, N.A.

Head v. Citibank, N.A.

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

January 27, 2022, Decided; January 28, 2022, Filed

No. CV-18-08189-PCT-ROS

Opinion

 [*148]  WO

ORDER

Plaintiff Christine Head seeks to certify a class of persons and entities within the United States who received a call with an artificial or prerecorded voice from Citibank, N.A. in connection with a past-due credit card account even though [**2]  the person or entity is not a Citibank customer. (Doc. 120 at 2). Head claims that Citibank's practice of using robocalls to non-customers violates the 47 U.S.C. § 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). (Doc. 120 at 2). Citibank argues class certification is inappropriate because individualized determinations would be required to establish whether each person who received a Citibank robocall may properly be considered a class member. (Doc. 134 at 19).

Head's motion for class certification (Doc. 120) will be granted in part. A class will be certified and Head will be named class representative.

On October 4, 2021, the Court granted Citibank leave to file supplemental briefing responding to Head's use of a recent case, Wesley v. Snap Finance LLC, 339 F.R.D. 277 (D. Utah 2021), in her reply (Doc. 138) to Citibank's opposition (Doc. 134) to her motion for class certification. (Doc. 140). Citibank's supplemental briefing contains a motion to exclude the testimony of Head's expert, Carla Peak, who was also an expert in Wesley.1 (Doc. 145 at 10). Citibank's motion to exclude Peak's expert opinion (Doc. 145) will be denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Christine Head is a resident of Arizona who is not now, and never has been, a customer of Citibank. (Doc. 118 at 4). Nevertheless, Citibank placed more than [**3]  100 robocalls to Head's cellphone number, (928) XXX-0023, between October and December 2017 regarding overdue credit account of a man named Jack Bingham. (Doc. 118 at 3-4). Head does not know Bingham and did not authorize him or anyone else to open a Citibank account using her cellphone number. (Doc. 118 at 4).

Head brought this action against Citibank seeking damages for Citibank's alleged violations of the TCPA. (Doc. 118). Head argues "Citibank routinely violates 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent."2 (Doc. 118 at 2).

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.

340 F.R.D. 145 *; 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16179 **; 111 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1603; 117 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1122; __ F.Supp.3d __; 2022 WL 263313

Christine Head, Plaintiff, v. Citibank, N.A., Defendant.

Prior History: Head v. Citigroup Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61147, 2020 WL 1671583 (D. Ariz., Apr. 3, 2020)

CORE TERMS

class member, notice, class action, class certification, argues, numbers, wrong number, prerecorded, notification, records, marked, cases, proposed class, numerosity, robocalls, putative class member, predominate, reliable, certify, commonality, artificial, questions, assigned, cellular telephone, common question, individualized, customer, damages, expert opinion, place a call

Business & Corporate Compliance, Communications Law, Federal Acts, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Certification of Classes, Prerequisites for Class Action, Adequacy of Representation, Superiority, Predominance, Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Class Members, Named Members, Class Attorneys, Appointments, Maintainability, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Helpfulness, Absent Members