Class action; Alleged violations of the Occupational Code & the Regulation of Collection Practices Act (RCPA); Statutes allowing recovery of actual damages or a minimum amount of recovery regardless of actual damages incurred; Rodriguez v Hirshberg Acceptance Corp (Rodriguez I); MCR 3.501(A)(5); Individual claims

The court held that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ putative class action based on MCR 3.501(A)(5) to the extent that they sought damages for violations of the Occupational Code and the RCPA. But as the court rule did not preclude their individual claims, it erred in dismissing those claims. Plaintiffs’ claims related to the business model in the collection industry that includes the use of forwarders or forwarding companies operating “as intermediaries between creditors and local collection agents.” Plaintiffs alleged “that this business model negatively affects licensed local collection agents.” They sought damages from defendants in part for alleged violations of the Occupational Code and the RCPA, which “provide for recovery of actual damages or a minimum amount of recovery regardless of actual damages incurred.” In Rodriguez I, the court held that MCR 3.501(A) barred class actions based “on statutes that provide for minimum amounts of recovery regardless of actual damages unless the statutes expressly permit recovery through class actions. Because neither the Occupational Code nor the RCPA expressly permit recovery through class action, the trial court reasoned that it was required to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims” based on Rodriguez I. Plaintiffs correctly noted that Rodriguez I was no longer binding as it was vacated. But this did not mean that it was wrongly decided; it only meant that the court was not bound by its reading of MCR 3.501(A)(5). It had to decide for itself whether the court rule barred class actions like the one here. It agreed with Rodriguez I and held “that MCR 3.501(A)(5) precludes class actions seeking to recover damages under statutes that mandate a minimum amount of recovery regardless of actual damages incurred and do not expressly permit recovery through class actions, like the Occupational Code and the RCPA.” But the court concluded that the court rule could not “be plausibly interpreted as preventing a plaintiff from bringing individual claims under statutes that authorize minimum amounts of recovery without regard to actual damages that are not recoverable through a class action.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded.