Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-06314/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-06314-6/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 Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Amend Class Definitions 

Re: Dkt. No. 139 

Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definitions in this case. (Dkt. 

No. 139.) 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’ 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 150 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 5
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

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-Not- Call 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. 

 Plaintiffs now seek to amend these class definitions in light of their inability to obtain 

calling data (“Additional Calling Data”) from defendants’ recently-bankrupt dealer, Alliance 

Security (“Alliance”), which data plaintiffs apparently believed could be used to identify 

additional class members. Having carefully considered the pleadings and arguments of the parties, 

and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES 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)). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendments 

 Plaintiffs propose to amend the class definitions in this case as follows:1

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 included in the 

calling data obtained by Plaintiffs in this case; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone 

 1

 Strikethrough text indicates proposed deletions and bolded text indicates proposed 

insertions. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 150 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 5
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

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 included in 

the calling data obtained by Plaintiffs in this case; (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 number included in the calling data obtained by Plaintiffs in this 

case (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. 

B. Analysis 

 The Court finds that plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are not an appropriate mechanism to 

eliminate individuals from the proposed classes which cannot be identified with readily available 

data. Declining to amend the class definitions in this case is within the “broad discretion” of this 

Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(C) and Ninth Circuit case law. See Armstrong, 275 

F.3d at 871 fn.28. 

 Plaintiffs have not offered a sufficient basis for modifying the class definitions to exclude 

individuals covered by the Additional Calling Data. Significantly, plaintiffs make no showing that 

the individuals covered by the Additional Calling Data have TCPA claims against defendants 

which differ in any way from those of other class members. For example, plaintiffs believe that 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 150 Filed 09/14/17 Page 3 of 5
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

the Additional Calling Data covers individuals called between September 2015 and April 2016. 

(Dkt. No. 148 at 2.) Notably, named plaintiff Philip J. Charvat, the representative for the DNC 

Class, testified that he received a call on September 3, 2015. (Dkt. No. 85 at 8.) Similarly, the 

record shows that named plaintiff Abante Rooter & Plumbing, the Cell Phone Class 

representative, received a call on December 9, 2015. (Id. at 9.) Therefore, the Court finds that 

plaintiffs’ proposed modifications improperly and arbitrarily exclude individuals whose TCPA 

claims against defendants are substantially similar to those of other class members. 

 Further, plaintiffs have 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. Plaintiffs 

“have not sought relief from the stay in Alliance’s bankruptcy proceedings” and have not filed a 

motion to compel production in the District of Rhode Island.” (Dkt. No. 148 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ 

counsel concedes that the Additional Calling Data was in fact produced by Alliance in the MDL 

litigation, In re Monitronics, No. 13-md-2943 (N.D.W.V.), which suggests that plaintiffs here may 

be able to obtain such data in the future. 

 Finally, the proposed amendments would deprive defendants of the benefit of a “fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs’ argument that 

defendants may still move for summary judgment with regard to the members of the amended 

classes which potentially include hundreds of thousands of members does not persuade in light of 

plaintiffs’ position during class certification briefing that a “class action is superior to other 

available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” (Dkt. No. 85 at 21 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)).) Specifically, plaintiffs previously argued that “[c]lass 

 2

 In addition, defendants contend that the proposed amendments represent a breach of 

plaintiffs’ counsel’s fiduciary duty to members of the certified classes. Defendants’ position is that 

plaintiffs should be required to provide notice to the classes which plaintiffs successfully certified. 

However, defendants ignore the fact that plaintiffs intend to provide mailed notice to all class 

members who can be located from available calling data, in addition to providing internet notice. 

(See generally Dkt. No. 141, Declaration of Carla A. Peak.) 

The Court notes that the “website portal” notification procedure described in plaintiffs’ 

motion could result in individuals covered by the Additional Calling Data being informed 

incorrectly that they are in fact not part of the class. Therefore, any information provided to 

individuals via the website portal must include a disclaimer indicating that the website portal does 

not represent a definitive indication of individuals which are part of this class action. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 150 Filed 09/14/17 Page 4 of 5
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

treatment is superior to multiple individual suits or piecemeal litigation because it conserves 

judicial resources and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication.” (Id. at 22.) The Court 

concurs. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definitions in this 

case is DENIED. 

This terminates Dkt. No. 139. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

September 14, 2017

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 150 Filed 09/14/17 Page 5 of 5