In Church v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-3172 (SDW)(LDW), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201523, at *9 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2022), Judge Wigenton allowed an FDPCA class representative to limit the class to a single zip code.
In this case, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: (1) all New Jersey residents who received a CBHV letter on behalf of Ramapo, and (2) all residents with the zip code 07503 who received a CBHV letter on behalf of Optimum. (Motion at 9.) CBHV only objects to the Optimum class, claiming that “artificially” narrowing the class to a single zip code as a form of “legal gamesmanship” opens it up to future litigation. (Opp’n at 8-9.) Church v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-3172 (SDW)(LDW), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201523, at *8-9 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2022) In Hassine v. Simon’s Agency, Inc., this District denied a similar objection, holding that there is “no case law . . . that requires a plaintiff to bring only a nationwide or statewide class action under the FDCPA. Indeed, courts have repeatedly certified classes in FDCPA actions that limited the geographic scope of the class members.” No. 18-9031, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125865, 2021 WL 2646990, at *5 (D.N.J. Apr. 29, 2021) (granting motion for class certification where limiting the class definition to a single municipality ensured class members would obtain “some sort of measurable recovery” and did not “demonstrate any sort of gamesmanship”).