Bickelmann v. Assil Sinskey Eye Institute
Plaintiff and appellant Belinda Bickelman (plaintiff) received by facsimile transmission an unsolicited announcement on her home business facsimile machine. In response, she filed a class actionon behalf of herself and all others who received the unsolicited facsimile announcementagainst the drafters of the announcement, defendants and respondents Assil Sinskey Eye Institute (Eye Institute), Kerry K. Assil, M.D., Inc., and Kerry K. Assil (Dr. Assil). The complaint was based on, inter alia, an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act).
On appeal from the order denying her class certification motion, plaintiff raises a number of issues relating to the trial courts denial of her class certification motion and her motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena served on Global Crossing. We hold that (i) the trial court applied the correct legal criteria in determining whether the requisite community of interest existed; (ii) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues did not predominate; and (iii) even if the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena, any such error was harmless. Court therefore affirm the orders denying plaintiffs class certification motion and the motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena. The trial courts orders denying plaintiffs class certification motion and motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena are affirmed.
Comments on Bickelmann v. Assil Sinskey Eye Institute