In Badeen v. Par, Inc., plaintiffs failed to file their motion for class certification within 91 days of the complaint in which they first made class allegations. But the motion was filed with 91 of plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and struck the class allegations. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the 91-day clock runs from the most recently filed complaint. Under that standard, the motion was timely.
However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit on the merits. At issue in the lawsuit was lenders’ practice of hiring middlemen to handle collection on automobile loans. The middleman would then hire plaintiffs (and similarly situated persons) to perform the actual repossession of the automobiles. Plaintiffs complained that this lowered their compensation and was in violation of the Occupational Code, suing both the middlemen and the lenders. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants because there was no violation of the Occupational Code. The Court of Appeals agreed. Because the middlemen were not actually engaged in the collection of the delinquent loans, they did not need to be licensed collection agencies under the Occupational Code.