Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Do-Not-Call Lawsuit Over Unique Plaintiff Defenses

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• Case: Hudson-Bryant v. OCMBC Inc. d/b/a LoanStream, et al.
• Decision Date: May 27, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether a proposed TCPA class met Rule 23 certification requirements
• Key Allegation: Plaintiff alleged telemarketing calls violated the National Do Not Call Registry provisions of the TCPA
• Court Holding: Plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23 typicality and adequacy requirements
• Outcome: Motion for class certification denied
• Notable Detail: Court also found plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with local meet-and-confer requirements and indicated sanctions may be considered

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit against mortgage lender OCMBC Inc., doing business as LoanStream, finding that unique defenses surrounding the named plaintiff would likely dominate the litigation and undermine her ability to adequately represent a proposed nationwide class.

In Hudson-Bryant v. OCMBC Inc., Judge Fred W. Slaughter concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy, two essential elements for class certification under federal law. The ruling highlights the challenges plaintiffs may face when their individual circumstances create defenses that are not shared by other proposed class members.

Court Criticizes Counsel’s Procedural Violations

Before addressing the merits of class certification, the court sharply criticized plaintiff’s counsel for failing to comply with Central District of California Local Rule 7-3, which requires attorneys to meet and confer regarding a contemplated motion at least seven days before filing.

The court found that counsel relied on a telephone conversation that occurred approximately one year before the class certification motion was filed and failed to provide the required declaration outlining the parties’ positions on disputed issues. An email sent on the day the motion was filed also failed to satisfy the local rule’s requirements.

Judge Slaughter noted that plaintiff’s counsel had previously been warned in the same case for violating the same rule and stated that the procedural violation alone was sufficient grounds to deny the motion. The court further indicated it would issue an order requiring counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Unique Facts Created Significant Individual Defenses

The lawsuit stemmed from two alleged telemarketing calls made in October 2021 to a telephone number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2003. The number originally belonged to the plaintiff’s 90-year-old mother and was later converted from a landline to a cellular telephone.

The court identified several factual issues unique to the plaintiff that would likely become central to the litigation.

Among them, the calling records allegedly associated with the proposed class contained the mother’s name rather than the plaintiff’s name. The records also included an address where the plaintiff did not live and an email address belonging to her brother. The court noted that a major issue at trial would be whether the plaintiff herself qualified as the “residential subscriber” who registered the number on the National Do Not Call Registry, as required under the TCPA’s do-not-call provisions.

The court also pointed to evidence suggesting the plaintiff’s mother may have consented to receive the calls through an opt-in lead generation campaign. According to the ruling, LoanStream presented evidence that the mother or another family member may have submitted personal information that resulted in the calls being placed.

Plaintiff’s Conduct During Call Weighed Heavily in Analysis

According to the record, when the caller asked whether she was her mother, the plaintiff responded “yes” despite later admitting during her deposition that the statement was inaccurate. The plaintiff testified that she answered in that manner because she held power of attorney for her mother.

Judge Slaughter concluded that this alleged misrepresentation created credibility concerns and additional individualized defenses that would likely require substantial litigation resources to address. The court found that these issues could distract from claims belonging to other class members whose circumstances were materially different.

Citing prior TCPA decisions from California federal courts, the court determined that the plaintiff would likely need to devote significant time and effort rebutting defenses regarding ownership of the phone number, consent, and her statements during the call. That focus, the court concluded, could prejudice absent class members and potentially affect settlement dynamics.

Why the Decision Matters

The ruling serves as another reminder that TCPA class certification battles often turn on the circumstances of the proposed class representative rather than solely on the alleged calling practices at issue.

For companies defending TCPA class actions, the decision demonstrates how individualized issues involving consent, ownership of telephone numbers, subscriber status, and credibility can create obstacles to certification. For plaintiffs, the ruling reinforces the importance of selecting a representative whose circumstances closely mirror those of the broader proposed class.

Because the court found the plaintiff failed to establish typicality and adequacy under Rule 23(a), it declined to analyze the remaining class certification requirements and denied the motion outright.