Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-06314/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-06314-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., ET 

AL., 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

ALARM.COM INCORPORATED, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 15-cv-06314-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND CLASS

DEFINITIONS

Dkt. No. 164 

On May 5, 2017, this Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as modified by 

the Court, (Dkt. No. 126), and certified three classes, namely: 

Cell Phone Class: All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or its 

agents, on Defendants’ behalf, instituted one or more non-emergency telephone 

calls; (b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) to a recipient’s cellular 

telephone number; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system 

or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) 

except those persons that provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) 

prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf. 

Residential Class: All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or its 

agents, on Defendants’ behalf, initiated one or more non-emergency telephone 

calls; (b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) to a recipient’s residential 

telephone line number; (d) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; 

(e) at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided 

Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance 

or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf. 

National Do-Not-Call Class (“DNC Class”): All persons in the United States 

who: (a) received more than one call, made by Alliance on Defendants’ behalf; 

(b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) in a twelve-month period; (d) on 

their a cellular telephone line number or residential telephone line (e) whose 

cellular or residential telephone line number(s) appear on the National Do-NotCall Registry; (f) at any time since June 30, 2010; (g) except those persons that 

provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) 

from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 176 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 On September 14, 2017, this Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend these class 

definitions by excluding individuals covered by calling data which plaintiffs were unable to obtain 

from Alliance due to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings (the “Additional Calling Data”). (Dkt. No. 

150.) The Court noted that plaintiffs had made no showing that “the individuals included in the 

Additional Calling Data have TCPA claims against defendants which differ in any way from those 

of other class members.” (Id.) Further, the Court found that plaintiffs’ proposed amendments 

would “improperly and arbitrarily exclude individuals whose TCPA claims against defendants are 

substantially similar to those of other class members” and “deprive defendants of the benefit of a 

‘fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.’” (Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)).) 

Finally, the Court noted that “plaintiffs [had] not shown that the Additional Calling Data can never 

be obtained, or that they have exercised due diligence, but nevertheless failed, to obtain the data.” 

(Id.) 

 Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definitions in this case as 

follows:1

 

Cell Phone Class: All persons in the United States, to whom: (a) Alliance’s or its 

agents Nationwide Alarms, LLC, on Defendants’ behalf, instituted one or more 

non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) 

to a recipient’s cellular telephone number; (d) through the use of an automatic 

telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time 

since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided Defendants with 

their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents 

Nationwide, on Defendants’ behalf. 

Residential Class: All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or its 

agents, on Defendants’ behalf, initiated one or more non-emergency telephone 

calls; (b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) to a recipient’s residential 

telephone line number; (d) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; 

(e) at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided 

Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance 

or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf. 2

 1

 Strikethrough text indicates proposed deletions and bolded text indicates proposed 

insertions. 

2

 Plaintiffs seek to decertify the Residential Class which is not opposed. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 176 Filed 01/25/18 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

National Do-Not-Call Class (“DNC Class”): All persons in the United States 

who: (a) received more than one call, made by Alliance on Defendants’ behalf; 

(b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) in a twelve-month period; (d) on 

their cellular telephone line or residential line; (e) whose cellular or residential 

telephone line number(s) appear on the National Do-Not-Call Registry; (f) at any 

time since June 30, 2010 December 30, 2011; (g) except those persons that 

provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) 

from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf.3

 (Dkt. No. 164.) 

 Having carefully considered the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and for the reasons 

set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(C) permits a court to “alter[] or amend[]” an order granting class 

certification “before final judgment.” The Ninth Circuit has similarly stated that district courts 

may modify a class definition as a result of developments during the course of litigation. See 

Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 871 fn. 28 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that Rule 23 “provides 

district courts with broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified, and to revisit 

that certification” and that “the district court may redefine the class”) (citing Penk v. Oregon State 

Bd. of Higher Educ., 816 F.2d 458, 467 (9th Cir.1987)). 

 District courts have a responsibility to review continually “the appropriateness of a 

certified class in light of developments subsequent to class certification.” Schilling v. TransCor 

Am., LLC, 2012 WL 4859020, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Richardson v. Byrd, 709 F.2d 

1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1983) (“Under Rule 23 the district court is charged with the duty of 

monitoring its class decisions in light of the evidentiary development of the case. The district 

judge must define, redefine, subclass, and decertify as appropriate in response to the progression 

of the case from assertion to facts.”) 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Recent Discovery Developments 

Following this Court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definitions in 

this case, plaintiffs undertook sufficient efforts to determine whether plaintiffs could obtain the 

 3

 The noted modification is not opposed. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 176 Filed 01/25/18 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Additional Calling Data and identify additional class members. First, plaintiffs filed a motion to 

lift the stay in Alliance’s bankruptcy proceeding to allow plaintiffs to (i) use the Additional 

Calling Data which Alliance produced in the Monitronics MDL in this case and (ii) take 

depositions of Alliance and its officers. On November 13, 2017, Alliance agreed to allow 

plaintiffs to use the data produced in the Monitronics MDL in this case. On November 15, 2017, 

the bankruptcy court granted plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay and to permit depositions of 

Alliance and its officers. (Dkt. No. 164, Declaration of Beth Terrell (“Terrell Decl.”) ¶ 5.) 

Second, plaintiffs provided the Additional Calling Data to their expert to analyze and identify 

additional class members. (Id., ¶ 6.) Third, plaintiffs confirmed through the Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition of Alliance that Alliance had fully responded to plaintiffs’ subpoena and that the 

Additional Calling Data was comprehensive and up-to-date. (Id. Ex. B, Deposition of Matthew 

Pits (“Pitts Dep.”) at 40:3- 44:23; 93:4-95:5.) Fourth, plaintiffs attempted to conduct additional 

discovery by issuing subpoenas to all 38 of Alliance’s small “subdealers” which requested calling 

data for telemarketing calls on behalf of Alliance since January 30, 2011, as well as related 

documents including scripts and correspondence. (Terrell Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs received no 

calling records in response to any of the 38 subdealer subpoenas. (Id.) 

B. Analysis 

1. Cell Phone Class 

Plaintiffs have now obtained all call records from Alliance and its agent, namely 

Nationwide, and Nationwide’s calling platform (the “Ytel System”). This Additional Calling Data 

indicates that some individuals who fall within the Cell Phone Class cannot be identified because 

these individuals may have received a call from a subdealer which failed to preserve calling data. 

Plaintiffs attempted to identify such individuals by issuing subpoenas to all 38 of Alliance’s 

subdealers. However, plaintiffs received no additional call data in response to these subpoenas. 

 The Court finds the individuals who received calls from Alliance or Nationwide have 

TCPA claims against defendants which differ from those of individuals who received a call from a 

subdealer. Specifically, individuals who were called by Alliance or Nationwide can establish that 

defendants called their phone numbers by using the calling data which Alliance and Nationwide 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 176 Filed 01/25/18 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

have produced in this litigation. By contrast, individuals who were called by subdealers which did 

not retain calling data lack a common methodology for establishing that defendants called their 

cell phone numbers. 

 Accordingly, a Cell Phone Class which includes both individuals who were called by 

Alliance or Nationwide, and those who were called by another subdealer which failed to preserve 

calling data, is not “sufficiently cohesive” under the “predominance inquiry” to warrant classwide 

adjudication. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998)).4

 Therefore, the 

Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to narrow the Cell Phone Class definition to exclude individuals 

who were not called by “Alliance’s agent Nationwide.” 

2. Residential Class 

To prove the TCPA claim asserted by the Residential Class, plaintiffs must establish that 

(i) an artificial or prerecorded voice (ii) was used to place calls (iii) to a residential telephone 

number (iv) without prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). Joseph Moretti, the owner 

of Nationwide, recently testified that Nationwide used the Ytel system to call leads from a variety 

of sources, some of which involved live agents. (Terrell Decl., Ex. C, Deposition of Joseph 

Moretti at 20:19-.21:1; 50:12-52:6; Ex. D, Deposition of Justin Ramsey at 101:20-104:7.) 

Therefore, the Court finds that some of the individuals associated with residential telephone 

numbers included in the Ytel records likely did not receive a call using an artificial or prerecorded 

voice. All such individuals thus lack valid TCPA claims. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). Neither 

party has proffered a classwide mechanism to determine whether Residential Class members 

received a call involving an artificial or prerecorded voice or a live agent. Defendant does not 

oppose plaintiffs’ motion to decertify the Residential Class. (Response at 2.) 

 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to decertify the Residential Class is GRANTED on the 

ground of non-opposition that the Residential Class as defined lacks commonality and 

 4

 Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to “assert that any of the arguments” which plaintiffs 

proffered in support of plaintiffs’ motion to certify the Cell Phone class “have changed.” (Dkt. 

No. 171, Defendants’ Response (“Response”) at 2.) Defendants do not persuade, as they ignore 

the fact that plaintiffs have now sought and obtained the Additional Calling Data from Alliance 

which indicates that the Cell Phone Class as defined includes individuals called by vendors other 

than Alliance whose TCPA claims differ from those individuals who received calls from Alliance 

or Nationwide. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 176 Filed 01/25/18 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

predominance. See United Steel Workers v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 

2010) (“[A] district court retains he flexibility to address problems with a certified class as they 

arise, including the ability to decertify.”). 

3. DNC Class 

 Plaintiffs previously moved for certification of a DNC Class with a class period which 

commences on December 30, 2011. (Dkt. No. 85 at 12-13.) This class period reflects the fouryear statute of limitations for TCPA claims. However, due to clerical error, the Court certified a 

DNC Class commencing on June 30, 2010. (Dkt. No. 126 at 17:1-7.) Plaintiffs now move to 

correct that clerical error. In light of defendant’s lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs 

request to modify the class period with regard to the DNC Class. (Response at 2.) 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs’ motion to amend class definitions is GRANTED.

The Residential Class is hereby DECERTIFIED and the remaining class definitions are amended as 

follows: 

Cell Phone Class: All persons in the United States, to whom: (a) Alliance’s or its 

agents Nationwide Alarms, LLC, on Defendants’ behalf, instituted one or more 

non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) 

to a recipient’s cellular telephone number; (d) through the use of an automatic 

telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time 

since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided Defendants with 

their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents 

Nationwide, on Defendants’ behalf. 

National Do-Not-Call Class (“DNC Class”): All persons in the United States 

who: (a) received more than one call, made by Alliance on Defendants’ behalf; 

(b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) in a twelve-month period; (d) on 

their cellular telephone line or residential line; (e) whose cellular or residential 

telephone line number(s) appear on the National Do-Not-Call Registry; (f) at any 

time since June 30, 2010 December 30, 2011; (g) except those persons that 

provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) 

from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf. 

This terminates Dkt. No. 164. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

January 25, 2018

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 176 Filed 01/25/18 Page 6 of 6