Blitz v. Xpress Image, Inc., 2006 NCBC 10 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2006, amended Aug. 25, 2006)(Diaz)

Plaintiff sought damages, as the representative of a class, for violation of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court found that individualized issues would predominate, and that class certification therefore was not appropriate. The individual issues were whether any class member had given the defendant "express permission" to send the advertisement, and whether any class member had an "established relationship" with the defendant. Even though the record before the Court was devoid on such matters, it held that it would still be required to conduct an individualized inquiry and the Court refused certification.

Full Opinion

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?