Monitronics Telemarketing Class Actions Consolidated into MDL

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated four class action lawsuits against Monitronics International Inc., alleging that the home security company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls to individuals who had their names on the national Do Not Call Registry or contacted cell phones without the person’s consent.

The panel made its decision on Dec. 16, 2013, and sent the MDL to be tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia with Judge Irene M. Keeley presiding.

The panel created the Monitronics MDL in West Virginia federal court because that is the court where the first TCPA lawsuit against Monitronics was filed, and “Plaintiffs in three of the four actions support this district, and the sole opposing plaintiff supports it as an alternative.”

The panel also added that the first TCPA lawsuit against Monitronics is “the most advanced action” and that puts Keeley “in a particularly favorable position to structure this litigation so as to minimize delay and avoid unnecessary duplication of discovery and motion practice.”

The JPML decided to consolidate the four TCPA class action lawsuits against Monitronics because of the “common factual allegations” that the cases share “regarding Monitronics’ policies and procedures for calling customers, directly or through agents, for the purpose of selling home security products or services, as well as its procedures for obtaining and recording a consumer’s consent to receive such calls.”

Consolidating the lawsuits into an MDL was supported by three out of four of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Kerry O’Shea, who filed a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California, did not support combining the cases into an MDL. Three of the co-defendants — UTC Fire and Security Americans Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and ISI Alarms NC Inc. — also opposed consolidation of the TCPA lawsuits.

Those who opposed centralizing the class action lawsuits argued that the four cases did not contain enough common factual questions. While some of the lawsuits concerned telemarketing calls to individuals whose names were on the national Do Not Call Registry, others concerned telemarketing calls that were made to the cell phones of individuals without prior consent, they argued. They also said that the lawsuits involved different agents or dealers, not to all the defendants.

However, the JPML argued that while some of the issues are different, there are enough common issues, particularly those regarding “Monitronics’ policies and procedures for calling consumers … as well as its procedures for obtaining and recording the consumer’s consent for such calls.”

The panel also contended that “all actions allege that Monitronics willfully violated the TCPA, and are likely to rely on the same alleged history of complaints to regulatory authorities and Monitronics’ knowledge of its TCPA obligations.”

While the JPML agrees that there are some differences in some of the cases, it also said that it thinks that those opposing centralization overstated the differences.

“Two actions propose virtually identical nationwide classes of persons who received automated telemarketing class on wireless lines,” the panel wrote. “Another action proposes a nationwide class that encompasses both types of the allegedly distinct violations — that is, calls to those on the Do Not Call Registry and calls using a prerecorded message.”

The panel said that consolidating the cases will offer the opportunity to put the lawsuits “before a single judge who can structure pretrial proceedings to accommodate all parties’ legitimate discovery needs while ensuring that common witnesses are not subjected to duplicative discovery demands.” However, the TCPA lawsuits may end up being sent back to separate courts for their final trials.

The new Monitronics TCPA MDL is In re: Monitronics International Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, MDL No. 2493, in the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

UPDATE: November 2017, the Monitronics telemarketing calls class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim.

UPDATE: On Oct. 19, 2018, Top Class Actions viewers started receiving checks in the mail worth $42.35. Congratulations to everyone who filed a claim and got PAID!

Help for Victims of TCPA Violations

If you received an unsolicited text message or cell phone call, you may be able to take legal action against the company(ies) responsible. Consumer class action settlements for TCPA violations typically pay out $100 to several hundred dollars to Class Members. See if you qualify to participate in a class action lawsuit by filling out the short form at the TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation.