Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
October 15, 2018, Decided; October 15, 2018, Entered on Docket
CASE NO. 16-24077-CIV-GOODMAN [CONSENT CASE]
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Estrellita Reyes,1 individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued Defendant BCA Financial Services, Inc. for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). The TCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call a person's cellphone absent an emergency or prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
The Court certified Reyes's proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Reyes v. BCA Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 16-24077-CIV, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106449, 2018 WL 3145807 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2018). BCA moves the Court to reconsider its ruling on the class certification motion. [ECF No. 139]. Reyes filed an opposition response, [*2] and BCA filed a reply. [ECF Nos. 144; 148]. As outlined below, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration for several reasons.
To begin, the Court will not reconsider rulings on issues already resolved in the class certification motion unless BCA shows that there is a "(1) manifest error of fact; (2) manifest error of law; or (3) newly discovered evidence." In re Daughtrey, 896 F.3d 1255, 1280 (11th Cir. 2018). Most of BCA's reconsideration motion is premised on issues that the Court has already addressed in its class certification motion. Those issues include: (1) that no adequate plan was proposed for ascertaining the identity of potential class members; (2) that BCA's records cannot query when "B" or "WN" codes and flags were attached to a telephone number; (3) that the methodology used by Reyes's class-administration expert is fatally flawed; and (4) that the proposed method for ascertaining potential class members' identities, and, in particular, the use of self-identifying affidavits, cannot be squared with Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 621 Fed. Appx. 945, 946 (11th Cir. 2015).
BCA has not established that the Court committed manifest errors of fact or law when resolving those issues in Reyes's favor. Nor does BCA present any newly discovered evidence relevant to those issues. Instead, BCA simply [*3] raises the same arguments on these issues and concludes that the Court got it wrong in the first place. A motion for reconsideration, however, "is not a vehicle to re-argue issues resolved by the court's decision[.]" In re Daughtrey, 896 F.3d 1255, 1280; see also Underwood v. Lampert, No. 02-21154-CIV, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51115, 2005 WL 8155004, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2005) ("In order to demonstrate clear error, the party must do more than simply restate its previous arguments[.]").
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176628 *; 2018 WL 5004864
ESTRELLITA REYES, Plaintiff, v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
Subsequent History: Appeal filed, 10/25/2018
Prior History: Reyes v. BCA Fin. Servs., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106449 (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2018)
class certification, one-way, summary judgment motion, reconsideration, mediation, reconsideration motion, consent defense, parties, patients, waived, potential class member, summary judgment, telephone, numbers, merits, district court, cases, phone number, certify