53 F.R.D. 182 (N.D.Ga. 1971), C. A. 14843, Rogers v. Coburn Finance Corp. of DeKalb

Docket Nº:Civ. A. 14843.
Citation:53 F.R.D. 182
Opinion Judge:EDENFIELD, District Judge.
Party Name:Roosevelt ROGERS v. COBURN FINANCE CORP. OF DeKALB, individually and d/b/a Coburn Finance Corp. of Doraville, Ga.
Attorney:Joseph L. Abraham, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff. Lefkoff & Hanes, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
Case Date:September 22, 1971
Court:United States District Courts, 11th Circuit, Northern District of Georgia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 182

53 F.R.D. 182 (N.D.Ga. 1971)

Roosevelt ROGERS

v.

COBURN FINANCE CORP. OF DeKALB, individually and d/b/a Coburn Finance Corp. of Doraville, Ga.

Civ. A. No. 14843.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

September 22, 1971

Action was brought as a class action under the Truth in Lending Act. On motion by the lender to terminate the class action, the District Court, Edenfield, J., held that where, even if the suit were to be maintained as a class action, the court would still be required to physically examine in detail several thousand disclosure statements furnished to borrowers, questions of fact and connected questions of law common to the class did not predominate over questions affecting individual members and suit could not be maintained as class action.

Motion granted.

Joseph L. Abraham, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

Lefkoff & Hanes, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

EDENFIELD, District Judge.

This action presents a claim under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (1970), in which plaintiff seeks to recover the statutory penalty, plus allowable costs and reasonable attorney's fees, provided by the Act. Jurisdiction exists under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (1970). Plaintiff has brought this as a class action and the matter is now before the court on defendant's motion to terminate the class action.

In order to maintain this suit as a class action plaintiff must satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any one

Page 183

of the three subdivisions of Rule 23(b). It appears that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied in this case, and the question is whether the class action may be maintained pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)1 which states:

‘ An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP