### NUM BER 13-08- 0073 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
HICA EDUCA TION LOA N CORPORATION, SA LL IE M A E, IN C., A ND F LOW L A W FIR M PL LC , A pp ellan ts,
v . JOH N M . SU LL IVA N, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez App ellant s HICA Educa tion L oan Corporatio n (HICA), Sallie Mae, Inc. (Sallie Mae), and F low Law F ir m PLLC ( Fl ow ) chal len g e the tr ial co urt' s o rd er g ra nti ng cl ass ce rt ific ati on in fav or of appel lee Jo hn M. Sul li v an. By thir teen is sues , app ell ants co mplai n tha t t he tr ialA ser v i ci ng a gent adm i ni st er s t he co l l ect i on o ft he l oans on t he n ot e hol der ' s behal f

. I n ot her wor ds, 1 S a l l i e M a e a c ts a s H IC A 's c o l l e c ti o n a g e n t.

Sul l i v an a l so f i l ed a coun t er cl ai m a ga i nst H I C A, whi ch was e v ent ual l y non - sui t ed. O ur r ev i ew of 2 t he r ec or d do es n ot r ev ea l a ny r ei ns t at em en t o fSu l l i v an ' s co un t er cl ai m a ga i ns t HI C A. 2 cour t: (1) f ail ed to per

form a r ig or ous anal y si s b efore r uli ng on c erti ficat ion ; ( 2) abus ed i ts dis cr eti on i n c erti fyi ng the cl ass bec ause Sul li v an fail ed to m eet his burden of prov ing the
neces sar

y pr er eq uis it es to c erti ficat ion ; ( 3) er re d in is sui ng an or der g ra nti ng ce rt ific ati on t h a td id n o tin c lu d e a p ro p e r t ri a l p la n ; a n d (4 ) l a c k e d ju ri s d ic t io n o ve r S a ll ie M a e a n d Fl o w. W e r ev er se and r emand. BACKG ROUND HI CA ow ns the p ro mis sor

y note s for Sul li v an's st udent loa ns; the re cord r ev eal s t hat Sul li v an's loa ns w er e par t of a por tfoli o of l oans sol d to HI CA by Sal li e M ae. Sal li e M ae, how ev er , r emains the ser v ic ing ag ent fo r HI CA 's l oans. F low i s a Tex as law

fir m that 1
ass is ts HI CA

and Sal li e M ae i n c oll ect ing thei r del inq uent loa ns. In e ar l y 2 00 7, H IC A s ue d Su l l iv an f or d efa ul t. S ul l i v an t he n fi l ed c ou nt er c l ai ms ag ain st Sal li e Ma e and Fl ow al leg ing cl ass ac ti on c lai ms for, among othe rs , unl awful debt collection practices an d usu ry
. In March 2008 , Sulliv an f iled a m otion for class 2
cer ti f icati on, a sk ing the tr ial co urt t o c erti fy tw o c las ses : (1 ) the "S all ie Ma e C las s," or perso ns w ho were sent certa in form letters by Sallie M ae attem pting to collect HICA loa ns; and ( 2) the "Fl ow

Law F ir m Cl ass ," or persons w ho w er e sued by or sentce rt ain co ll ect ion let ters b y

F low att empti ng to col lec t H IC A l oan s. The tr ial co urt hel d a h ear ing on t he moti on and iss u e d an or der ce rt ify ing both r eq uest ed c las ses
. This i nter loc utor y appeal
ensue d. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 51. 014 (a)(3) ( Verno n 20 08).3 STAND AR D OF R EVIE W and APPLI CA BLE L AW Al thoug h w e r ev iew

a tri al cour

t' s deci si on to cert ify

a cl ass f or

abus e of di sc re ti on,
w e do not ind ulg e ev er

y pr esumpt ion i n fav or

of the t ri al cour

t' s d eci si on. Stonebr

idg e Li fe Ins . C o. v

. Pitts , 236 S.W .3d 2 01, 2 05- 06 ( Tex . 200 7) . Rat her , "ac tual co nformance w it h
ru le 4 2 i s in d is pensa ble ." Id. at 206. C ompli ance maynot be pr esumed— itmustbe appar ent fr om the re cord and the tr ial cour t' s or der

. Tex . S. R ental s, Inc . v . G om ez , 267 S.W .3d 2 28, 2 32 ( Tex . Ap p.– Co rp u s C hr is ti 2008, no p et.)

. A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis cr eti on w hen r uli ng on c las s ce rt if ica ti o n i f it does not p ro per ly appl y the law to the undi sput ed facts , ac ts ar bit ra ri ly or unr eason abl y , or

r ule s upon factua l ass erti ons not
s u p p o rt e d b y t h e re cor d. Me tho dist Hosp. of Dallas v. Tall , 9 7 2 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 8 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 1998 , no pe t.). To compl y

w it h r ule 42, the p arty

se eki ng cl ass ce rt if ica ti on mus t meetfour ini ti al prerequisites: (1) num erosity—"the class is so nu me rous tha t jo in d e r o f all mem bers is impr act ic abl e"; ( 2) co mmonali ty —"th er e ar e q uest ion s of law or f actcommon to t he c las s"; ( 3) t y pi c al i ty

— "t he c l ai ms o r

d efe ns es o f t he re pr es en ta ti v e pa rti es ar e ty pi c al of th e c l ai ms or def ense s of the class"; an d (4) adequa te repre sent ation —"th e represe nta tiv e pa rties w ill fair ly and adeq uatel y

pro te ct t h e i n te rests of the c las s." T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 4 2( a)

. The
numer osi ty re q uirement, in par ti cul ar , "is not based on numbers alo ne." Tall , 972 S.W .2d at 89 8. Ins tead, w e l ook to w hether j oin der of all cl ass members i s p ra cti cabl e i n l ig ht of the s iz e of the cl ass and factors s uch as jud ic ial ec onomy , t he nat u re o f t he ac ti on, g eog ra phi cal l ocat ion of c las s members , and the l ik eli hood t hat c las s members w oul d be abl e to pr osec ute i ndi v idu al law sui ts. Id.W e a d d re s s a p p e l l a n ts ' th i rd is s u e f i rs t b e c a u s e it is d i s p o s i ti v e o f th e a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 47. 1. 4 The pla int iff bea rs the bur den to est abl is h the ri g ht to proceed as a c las s. Id. at 897. W e ac know led g e tha t t he par ty se eki ng cer

ti ficat ion need not "p ro v e a p ri ma facie ca se or
ma ke a n e xte n siv e ev ide nti ar y sh ow ing to meet t he r eq uirements " of ru le 42. Leb ron v. Citicorp Ven dor Fin., In c. , 99 S.W .3d 676, 67 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 200 3, no pet. ). The par ty m ay "rel y on plead ing s a nd ot her mater ial s t hat w oul d notbe a dmis si ble at tr ial ." Id. How ever, the sup reme court no net hele s s requires the trial court to go beyond the mere ple adi ng s to "make a meanin g ful deter minat ion of t he c erti ficat ion i ss ues. " Sw. R ef. Co. , Inc . v . Be rn al , 2 2 S. W .3 d 42 5 , 4 3 5 (T e x. 20 0 0 ) (ci ti n g Cas tano v. Am

. Tobacc o Co. , 84 F. 3d 734, 744 (5 th C ir . 199 6) ). DI SC US SION B y t h e ir t h ir d is s u e , a p p e ll a n t s a rg u e t h a tS u ll iva n fa il e d t o m e e th is b u rd e n t o p ro ve

3 that the c las s i s s o numerous that joi nder of all members i s i mprac ti cal

. W e ag re e. The r ecord o f

f e rs s cantmater ial i n s uppor t of the numer osi ty

r eq uirement. F irst, Sul li v an's pl eadi ng s c ontai n the g ener al st atement thatthe pr opose d clas s "meets all the
re q uirements of Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 42" a nd al leg e that, "based on [S all ie Ma e and Flow 's] use of

form let ters[,] that the class is so num erou s that joinde r of all mem bers is i mprac ti cal ." How ev er , thi s Cou rt has hel d tha t c erti ficat ion dec is ion s s houl d be based
on mor e i nformati on th an th at t he mer e all eg ati ons in the plea din g s. See Tall , 972 S.W .2d at 89 9; see als o Ber

nal , 99 S.W .3d a t 435 ( re q uir ing the tr ial co urt t o l ook bey ond t he plea dings i n orde r to make a substa ntive dete rmina tion o n certif ication ); Lebr on , 99 S.W .3d at 68 0- 81 ( hol din g thatmer e all e gations thatthe cl ass met t he numerosi ty r eq uirement
w er e i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t c erti ficat ion ).5

Next, the ex hib it s Sull iv an prov ide d to the t ri al cour t atthe cl ass ce rt ific ati on hear ing inc lud ed w ri tten dis cov e ry p ro pounded on H IC A by Sul li v an r eg ar din g i nformati on pot ent ially

relev ant to num erosity. For ex am ple, Sulliv an asked HICA to adm it that certain numbers o f pers ons had bee n s ued on notes si mil ar to Su lli van 's , butH IC A deni ed th e
re q ues t

. S u l l iv an al so sentH IC A v ar iou s i nter ro g ator ies and re q uest s for product ion as ki ng for l is ts of pers ons w ho had si mil ar l oans, but HI CA

obj ect ed to thos e q uest ion s. The
re cord i s v oid of any

att empts by

Sul li v an to compel HI CA 's respo nses or other w is e pursue his di sc ov er

y . See Le br

on , 99 S.W .3d a t 681 ( re fusing to cer ti fy cl ass w her e pl ain ti ff had
am ple tim e for discovery but was not diligent in pursuin g it). Fi nal ly, co u nsel for S ull iv an te sti fied atthe cl ass ce rt ific ati on hear ing r eg ar din g
numer osi ty

as foll ow s: In th is case, I really don 't kn o w, b e c ause I haven't gotten any discov ery answ er s, so I don 'tkn ow how many persons are in the c las s. Itco uld —I do know thi s, becau se of an answ er , an ev asi v e answ er to one of my

r eq uest s for admis si ons if it 's deemed admi tted, there ar e mor e tha n 100

. . . be th at as it ma y , w e believe tha t num erosity is––is prese nt be cause of the nu mb ers. Coun sel for HICA denie d an y adm ission tha t the re w ere m ore tha n 1 0 0 p e ople that fell
w it hin the re q uest ed c las s. Al thoug h r epr esent ati ons made by co unsel at a c erti fi ca tion hear ing may

be cons ide re d "materi als " f or purpos es of a cl ass ce rt ific ati on dec is ion , se e Tall , 972 S.W .2d a t 899 , w e dec li ne to cr edi t the v ag ue spec ula ti ons and uns ubst anti ated compl ain ts of couns el in l igh t of the al most compl ete a bsenc e of any othe r ev ide nce of
numer osi ty

. See i

d. (rev er si ng ce rt ific ati on or der w her e the pl ain ti ff 's bar e al leg ati ons that the c las s c ontai ns "thous ands of members " and that the defendant eng ag ed i n w ro ng ful condu ct w er e notmatte rs of common k now led g e and thus not other w is e suppo rt ed by

any
ma terial in the record).Havi ng d eci ded t hat Sul l i v an f ai l ed t o est abl i sh on e of t he f our essen t i al p rereq ui s i t es t o cl ass 4 c e rti fic a ti o n , see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 42( a) , we ne ed n ot r each Sul l i v an' s r em ai ni ng i ssues b ecause our d e te rm i n a ti o n o n S u l l i v a n 's th i rd i s s u e d i s p o s e s o f th e a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1

. 6 W e c oncl ude t hat t h e record does not suppo rtthe factual as ser ti ons made by Sul li v an r eg ar din g numerosi ty

. See Tall , 972 S.W .2d at 898. Ther e i s v ir tual ly no mat er ial in the record—of numbers, thr eats to jud ic ial ec onomy , geog ra phi c l imi tati ons, or the li ke—to s ubst anti ate S ull iv an's as ser ti ons of numer osi ty

. See i d. Th eref ore, com pliance
w it h r ule 42 w as not d emonst ra ted, and t he tr ial co ur t abu sed it s d is cr eti on i n c erti fyi ng the cl ass
. See G om ez , 267 S.W .3d a t 232

. Appel lan ts' thi rd i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. 4 CO NC LUS ION The or der

of the tr ial courtgr anti ng clas s cer ti ficat ion is rev er sed. W e r emand th e
cas e to the t ri al cour

t for pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 8 th da y

of Oct ober , 200 9.