Wood et al v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. et al, No. 1:2020cv00042 - Document 241 (N.D. Miss. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER denying without prejudice 195 Motion to Certify Class; granting 221 Alliance Collection Service Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; and granting 223 North Mississippi Health Services, North Mississippi Clinics, LLC, North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., and Tupelo Service Finance's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Taylor B McNeel on 9/29/2023. (kb)

Download PDF

Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION STANLEY WOOD and CHASTITY WOOD, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons v. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-42-TBM-RP NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH SERVICES, INC. et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Wood et al v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. et al Doc. 241 I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Watkins v. Allstate Property and Cas. Ins. Co. Watkins Lawson v. FMR LLC Id Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc. Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc. Spano v. Boeing Co. Id II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In re McCoy Ashcroft v. Iqbal Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly Iqbal/Twombly Oceanic Expl. Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. ZOC Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Tuchman v. DSC Commc’ns Corp. Chaudhary v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Cook v. City of Dallas Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Casey Enterprises, Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. Anderson Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Celotex Corp. III. FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT CLAIMS A. Whether the Woods have standing to assert their FDCPA claims against Alliance Perez v. McCreary, Veskelka, Bragg & Allen, P.C. Perez TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife Lujan TransUnion Id i. Whether Chastity and Stanley have alleged a concrete injury TransUnion Bragg & Allen, P.C. Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, TransUnion per se TransUnion Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C. TransUnion Sayles Perez Sayles v. Advanced Recovery Sys., Inc. Id Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins Id Perez TransUnion Demarais v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A. Vazzano v. Receivable Mgmt. Services, LLC ii. Whether Stanley has statutory standing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. Church v. J Ritter Law P.C. Services, LLC Drummond v. Equifax Info. Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab’y, Inc. consumer Id any person Montgomery v. Huntington Bank any Betzler v. Citimortgage, Inc. Russell v. Goldman Roth Acquisitions, LLC McNab v. Statewide Recovery Ser. Inc. Todd v. Collecto, Inc. any Rawlinson v. Law Off. of William M. Rudow, LLC any person Coleman v. Credit Mgmt., LP person Montgomery Johnson v. Bullhead Invs., LLC Schmitz v. Valentine & Kebartas, LLC Barasch v. Est. Info. Services, LLC See Todd v. Collecto, Inc. Todd Milijkovic v. Shafritz and Dinkin, P.A. B. Statute of limitations Bernard v. Brannigan Villalba v. Houslanger & Associates, PLLC Lewis v. Titlemax of Arizona Inc. Aviles v. Wayside Auto Body, Inc. Williams v. Cook Lambert v. United States Martinelli v. Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C. Rotkiskie v. Klemm Rotkiski Rotkiskie Davis v. Johnson Lambert v. United States Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C. Id Starns v. Andrews Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States Granger v. Aaron’s, Inc. See Mark v. Spears see also Cox v. Steak N Shake, Inc. Williams v. Cook after Solomon v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. i. Section 1692d(5) See Williams ii. Section 1692g(a)(2) Mark v. Spears See also Champ v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Coll. District Gruen v. Edfund Cox v. Steak N Shake, Inc. see also Keys v. Smith iii. Section 1692g(a)(4) See Drake v. Fitzsimmons iv. Section 1692g(b) v. Section 1692e(2)(A) vi. Section 1692e(10) vii. Section 1692f(1) C. Merits i. Whether the Woods’ claims under Section 1692d(5) fail as a matter of law Clark v. Cap. Credit & Collection Servs., Inc. Tyler v. Mirand Response Sys., Inc. Karp v. Fin. Recovery Services, Inc. Id Id Reed v. Receivable Recovery Services, L.L.C. Arvie v. Dodeka, LLC Padilla v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc. Clingaman v. Certegy Payment Recovery Servs. Tucker v. The CBE Grp., Inc. VanHorn v. Genpact Servs., LLC Carman v. CBE Grp., Inc. Zortman v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. ii. Whether the Woods’ claims under Section 1692g(b) fail as a matter of law RedHawk Holdings Corp. v. Schreiber Trustee of Schreiber Living Tr. RedHawk Pippin v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co. Sayles v. Advance Recovery Sys., Inc. consumer consumer consumer consumer Sayles Sayles Sayles v. Advance Recovery Sys., Inc. consumer See Warner v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. see also Turner v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. iii. FDCPA claims based on Mississippi Code Section 83-9-5 Id Sayles Bartl v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC Sayles Bartl IV. STATE LAW CLAIMS Black v. Panola Sch. Dist. Scales v. Slater Mendoza v. Murphy Henson v. Columbus Bank and Tr. Co. rel. Jackson v. University of N. Texas United States ex A. Violation of Mississippi Code Section 83-9-5 per se i. Whether Section 83-9-5 provides a private right of action a. Textual analysis Republic of Sudan v. Harrison Caraco Pharm. Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S See Rotkiske v. Klemm Id Nichols v. United States Hobson v. Chase Home Fin., LLC Tunica Cnty v. Gray Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of Schertz, Texas Alexander v. Sandoval Green Valley Special Util. Dist. right Doe remedy Gonzaga Univ. v. Alexander purpose argudeno United States v. Nazerzadeh b. Subject matter and context of the text the purpose must be derived from the text Id United States v. Nazerzadeh Id United States v. Sharp textually permissible meanings Sharp the commissioner of insurance Id Id Id Id Id not See Gozlon—Peretz v. United States is available contractual statutory Marlow, L.L.C. v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. DePriest v. Barber should Smith v. Webster content Hobson Tunica Cnty textually permissible meaning Sharp ii. Even if Section 83-9-5 did provide a private right of action, it would not apply to these Defendants Id iii. Violation of statutory law/negligence per se Isgett By and Through Isgett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Miller v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company per se iv. Remaining FDCPA claims based on Section 83-9-5 Id Id B. Fraud and misrepresentation Holland v. Peoples Bank & Tr. Co. Hobbs Auto., Inc. v. Dorsey i. Balance billing Black Scales ii. Tax time deal Hospital Defendants Celotex Corp. v. Catrett C. Breach of contract Id E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House Adams v. Greenpoint Credit, LLC between the original parties Celotex Corp. D. Civil conspiracy claims Rex Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch MultiPlan, Inc. v. Holland Meadows v. Hartford Life Ins. Co. against Alliance Wells v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co. Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP v. LifeCare Holdings Inc. V. CLASS CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS Chavez A. Standard for class action certification Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard rigorous Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes Chavez Id Califano v. Yamasaki See Horton v. Goose Creek Index. Sch. Dist. B. Rule 23 prerequisites Ibe v. Jones in fact Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes Ibe v. Jones John v. Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. 1. Clearly defined class Id See In re Monumental Life Ins. Co. Rogers v. Epson Am., Inc. Frey v. First Nat. Bank Sw. 2. Numerosity Fleming v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC Pederson v. La. State Univ. In re TWL Corp. Id Id evidence See Wal-Mart Mielo v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations, Inc. Molinari v. Financial Asset Management Sys., Inc. See Mielo Id Id Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. Zeidman Comcast Corp. v. Behrend Hinton V. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED See also Katz v. Curis Pharmacy, LLC see also Hinton v. District of Columbia IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED ____________________________ TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.