Judge Otis D. Wright, III, in the Central District of California, denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit against a real estate listing platform. Plaintiff, who alleged unlawful telemarketing calls, failed to meet several requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including commonality, predominance, typicality, and adequacy.
Individualized Consent Issues Undermine Class Cohesion
The court’s decision highlighted the individualized nature of consent obtained through various third-party websites. The defendant sourced leads from at least 500 unique websites, each with different consent language and mechanisms. The court found that determining whether each class member had provided adequate consent would require a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis—effectively “mini-trials” for each website and user. This lack of uniformity precluded a finding of predominance, a key requirement for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
Plaintiff’s Unique Circumstances and Credibility Issues
The court also found that the named plaintiff was not a typical or adequate class representative. Evidence showed that the plaintiff had used multiple names and email addresses, provided inconsistent testimony, and may have actively solicited the calls at issue. The plaintiff’s credibility and unique circumstances—such as requesting follow-up calls and admitting to ulterior motives for engaging with real estate agents—posed individualized defenses that would distract from the broader class claims.
No Standing for Injunctive Relief
The court further held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), as there was no evidence of a real and immediate threat of future harm. The defendant had ceased contacting the plaintiff and others on the National Do Not Call Registry, eliminating the basis for prospective relief.
Procedural and Evidentiary Shortcomings
The court noted additional procedural deficiencies, including plaintiff’s failure to submit sufficient evidence in support of the motion for class certification and untimely filings. These missteps provided independent grounds for denial and serve as a reminder of the importance of procedural rigor in class action practice.
PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, v. MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, No. 2:22-CV-04948-ODW (ASX), 2025 WL 3719226 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025).
