We previously discussed the growing trend of moving for TCPA class certification at the outset of litigation in order to prevent a defendant from trying to moot a named plaintiff’s claims by making a Rule 68 offer of judgment.

In Haight v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., No. 13-1400 (M.D. Fla.), the Middle District of Florida recently denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class of individuals who allegedly received “automated calls” to cell phones in violation of the TCPA.  Plaintiff conceded that the motion was filed “solely to prevent any individual ‘buy off’ of the putative class representative.”  The court did not take kindly to the preemptive motion.  Indeed, it stated that the motion was motivated by the self-interest of counsel, and raised “serious public policy concerns about whether class action litigation should be driven by the interests of counsel rather than the issues of the client.”  The Court ultimately denied the motion because the plaintiff had failed to perfect service of the complaint.  But in doing so, it cautioned plaintiff’s counsel not to file another motion for class certification until he has “adequate facts and legal authority” to do so.

It is clear that the court was less than pleased with the preemptive class certification motion. Whether that plays a role in the outcome of the case remains to be seen.

A copy of the decision is available here.