v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERRCI, LLC.

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for “certification of the

transacting class” (ECF No. 145). Since this is Plaintiffs’ second motion for certification, the

court must determine whether the request is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23( c) (l)(C). TheRule reads as follows:

(c) Certification Order; Notice to Class Members; Judgment;

Issues Classes; Subclasses.

(1) Certification Order.(A) Time to Issue. At an early practicable time after a person sues

or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine byorder whether to certify the action as a class action.(B) Defining the Class; Appointing Class Counsel. An order thatcertifies a class action must define the class and the class claims,issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule23(g).(C) Altering or Amending the Order. An order that grants ordenies class certification may be altered or amended before

final judgment.

Generally a Court may revisit a prior denial of a class certification motion if there is a change in

the circumstances or facts since the prior denial. Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, 269 F.R.D.430, 433-34 (D.N.J. 2010). One district court explained that “in the absence of materially
evidentiary developments. Richardson v. Byrd, 709 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. Tex. 1983); Tern/I v.Electroijix Home Prods., 274 F.R.D. 698, 700 (S.D. Ga. 2011). In this motion, for the most part,

the motion to certify the transacting class is based on the same facts as set forth in the firstmotion to certify a class. (ECF No. 141).

The defendant, RCI, operates a program which allows a timeshare owner to deposit

his/her timeshare interval, and exchange it for a different timeshare (vacation exchange), or for avariety of services including, but not limited to, airline tickets (“Points Program”). At the BlueBay Resort located in Mexico, all of the named Plaintiffs exchanged a period of nights for points.

These accumulated points could be redeemed for airline tickets. The Complaint alleges that

class members accumulated points to redeem for airline tickets. This was a far better value thanvacationing at the Blue Bay Resort or exchanging them for a different timeshare. As such,

putative class members would buy many nights at the Blue Bay and exchange them for points.

Under the RCI program, the use of the points could be accelerated.

At some point, RCI realized it was losing money on the redemption of points for airline

tickets, and RCI unilaterally imposed a cap of 60,000 points that could be used annually to

purchase airline tickets. According to the Complaint, the cap blocked putative class members

from redeeming their points to buy airline tickets because a single ticket had a point value of

45,000 points. In the first motion for class certification, the putative class members had acquired

more than 60000 points and were therefore impacted by the cap. The class was defined as:

2
this initial methodology. However, that percentage was in error. According to the facts RCI

developed in refuting certification, it found 1,195 of the 3,523 proposed Blue Bay members

never transacted with RCI in the Points Program or vacation exchange program. Of the 2,328remaining members, an additional 430 never used the Points Program. As such, the Court found

the putative class was overbroad because so many members never used the Points Program, andtherefore no relationship existed between a class member and loss of the ability to redeem for

airline tickets.

About a month after denying the first motion for class certification, Plaintiff filed its

motion for certification of the transacting class. The proposed class is narrowed to 1,339members who redeemed points in excess of 55,000 points prior to February 29, 2008. The

proposed class is defined as:

All persons residing in the United States who entered into a

Participation Agreement with RCI at a Blue Bay Resort prior toFebruary 29, 2009, and for whom RCI’s records reflect at least onePoints Partner exchange in excess of 55,000 points prior toFebruary 20, 2008.

Plaintiffs argue that each class member had at least one transaction wherein 55,000 points wereredeemed; and one could reasonably deduce that another redemption by such participants in the

same amount would most likely recur.

3
the new motion), hence, no new facts were disclosed. In addition, there were no material updates

in the law which may show a change of circumstances. In fact, the expert (Dr. Goedde)

employed the same “before and after” methodology in both class motions, and class counsel

relies on the same named Plaintiffs. In the absence of any material change in circumstances, the

Plaintiff does not meet the standard to certify a new class. The motion is denied. In re

FleetBoston Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87425 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2007).

ORDER

This matter having comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for certification of a

transaction class (ECF No. 145); for the reasons set forth above;

IT IS on this 3 day of November, 2014;ORDERED that the motion to certify the transacting class (ECF No. 145) is denied.

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

4