SHOW CAUSE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION

 

BRIAN L. WILLIAMS,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLAR ALTERNATIVES INC

JEFFREY D. CANTIN,

Defendant.

Case No.

SHOW CAUSE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.

I, BRIAN L. WILLIAMS, the pro se Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, hereby submit this Show Cause Response to the Court’s Order dated 18th July 2023 requesting that I show cause why the Plaintiff’s Class Action Allegations should not be summarily dismissed.

  1. INTRODUCTION.

 

  1. I am the Plaintiff in this matter, proceeding pro se and with the Court’s prior grant

of Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis under the provisions of 28 USC § 1915(a).

 

  1. In the interest of justice and to provide a fair and proper understanding of the case,

I respectfully request that the Court refrain from summarily dismissing the Plaintiff’s Class Action Claims on the grounds that the Plaintiff is acting pro se and has been deemed an inadequate class representative.

 

  1. As an initial matter, I respectfully acknowledge the Court’s concerns regarding my

adequacy as a class representative to pursue claims on behalf of others under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

 

  1. I understand the importance of competent representation in class actions and assure

the Court that I will diligently address the concerns raised. In my response, I will demonstrate that my claims have met the threshold requirements for certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  1. ARGUMENT.

 

  1. Granting of In Forma Pauperis Status.

 

  1. The Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions

of 28 USC § 1915(a) has been granted by the Court. This grant indicates that the Plaintiff, who is acting pro se, has shown financial inability to afford the costs associated with litigation.

 

  1. As such, the Court has recognized the Plaintiff’s economic constraints and, by

granting the Motion, has provided him with the opportunity to pursue his claims without the burden of excessive court fees and costs.

 

  1. Compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

TCPA Claims and Class Representation: Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the prerequisites for class certification, which include numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The plaintiff contends that these requirements have been met in this case.

 

  1. Numerosity: The class proposed in the Complaint consists of a significant number

of individuals, making joinder of all members impracticable. The size of the class alone meets the numerosity requirement.

 

  1. Commonality: The Plaintiff and potential class members share common legal and

factual issues, stemming from the Defendant’s alleged violations of the TCPA. These common questions of law and fact predominate over individualized issues, satisfying the commonality requirement.

 

  1. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same course of conduct that

allegedly injured other class members. The injuries suffered by the Plaintiff are representative of the injuries faced by the putative class, meeting the typicality requirement.

 

  1. The Court’s Obligation to Assess Adequacy: The Plaintiff acknowledges that the

Court has the obligation to assess the adequacy of class representation. However, the determination of adequacy should be based on factors such as the Plaintiff’s understanding of the claims, the commitment to fairly and adequately represent the class, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

 

  1. The Plaintiff has demonstrated his understanding of the TCPA claims in his

Complaint, and Motion for Class Certification provides assurance of his commitment to represent the class members diligently and fairly.

 

  1. While the Court has raised concerns about the Plaintiff’s adequacy as a class

representative, the Plaintiff submits that he possesses a genuine interest in fairly and adequately representing the interests of the class. The Plaintiff is committed to this litigation and will diligently pursue the claims of all class members.

 

  1. Pro Se Status and Equal Protection.

 

  1. As a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff understands the challenges that come with self

representation. However, the Plaintiff has taken extensive measures to educate himself on the relevant legal principles and procedural requirements. The Plaintiff has diligently researched the TCPA and other pertinent laws governing class actions, and is fully capable of presenting his case effectively.

 

  1. The Plaintiff acknowledges that while it is true that pro se litigants may face

challenges in navigating legal procedures, they are entitled to equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that pro se litigants are to be accorded the same access to the courts and the same procedural rights as parties represented by counsel (see: Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)).

 

  1. Further to the above, Courts have consistently recognized that pro se litigants can

serve as class representatives under certain circumstances. Courts have held that a pro se litigant can adequately represent a class when:

 

  1. The claims are relatively simple and straightforward.
  2. The pro se litigant is familiar with the facts of the case and has a personal stake in the outcome.
  3. The pro se litigant has demonstrated an understanding of the class action requirements and procedures.
  4. There are no available or willing counsel to represent the class.

 

  1. The crux of this action lies in the claims brought forth under the Telephone

Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Plaintiff understands that the Court has expressed concerns over his ability to adequately represent the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff respectfully argues that his pro se status should not automatically disqualify him as an adequate class representative.

 

  • CONCLUSION.

 

  1. In light of the above, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its

position regarding his adequacy as a class representative. The Plaintiff firmly believes that his claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, and is prepared to address any additional concerns the Court may have.

 

 

Dated:                                                                                                            Respectfully submitted,

[Your Signature]

[Your Name (printed)]

Top of Form

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )