Report and Recommendation - Class Certification Motion in Omar Encarnacion v. Financial Corporation of America

Sep 15, 2026

Upload by Mason

Court reviews Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 after considering Defendant’s opposition and Plaintiff’s reply in Omar Encarnacion v. Financial Corporation of America. The analysis addresses standing and whether the proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable, then applies the Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements (predominance and superiority), concluding the motion should be granted.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time7 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Plaintiff’s allegations and proposed class

Procedural history and deadlines

Analysis

Standing and ascertainability

Rule 23(a) prerequisites

Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION OMAR ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-566-FtM-38CM FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to FRCP 23 , Defendant Financial Corporation of America’s (“FCA”) response in opposition and Plaintiff’s reply. Docs. 31 , 34 , 38.2 Plaintiff seeks to certify this case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) , to designate himself class representative and to appoint Yitzchak Zelman, 1 A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions. A party’s failure to file written objections waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. 2 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. Esq. of Marcus & Zelman, LLC as class counsel. FCA opposes certification of Plaintiff’s proposed class. See generally Doc. 34. Because the proposed class meets all the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court respectfully recommends Plaintiff’s motion be GRANTED. I. Background Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against FCA on October 16, 2017, alleging one count of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U. S. C. § 1692, et seq. Doc. 1. Plaintiff alleges he is a “consumer,” and FCA is a collection agency and “debt collector” under the FDCPA. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 11 (citing 15 U. S. C. § 1692a(3) , (6)) . Plaintiff asserts he allegedly incurred a debt to creditor Lehigh Regional Medical Center some time prior to June 26, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 13-16 (citing 15 U. S. C. § 1692a(4)-(5)) . Plaintiff claims Lehigh Regional Medical Center contracted FCA to collect the debt, and FCA sent Plaintiff a collection letter on June 26, 2017. Id. ¶ 17, 19. The following information was located in the top right corner of the letter: ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION Re: Lehigh Regional Medical Center Account number : [Redaction]3948 Patient Name : Omar Encarnacion Date of Service : 11-07-16 Balance Due : $53.27 Doc. 1-1 at 3; see also Doc. 1 ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges the letter failed to clearly and explicitly identify Lehigh Regional Medical Center as the current creditor to whom the debt is owed as required by the FDCPA. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 22, 24-25, 27, 32, 48; see 15 U. S. C. § 1692g(a)(2) . Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Doc. 1 ¶ 49. Plaintiff’s Complaint sought to bring his claim on behalf of the following class: (a) all individuals with addresses in the State of Florida (b) to whom [FCA](c) sent an initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt (d) without properly identifying the name of the creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. Id. ¶ 36. FCA filed its Answer o

FAQs

What motion did the Court review in this case?

The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, along with Defendant’s response in opposition and Plaintiff’s reply.

What were the key issues the Court analyzed for class certification?

The Court assessed standing and whether the class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable, then evaluated Rule 23(a) prerequisites and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority.

Under what law did the Plaintiff bring the underlying claim?

Plaintiff alleged one count of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), contending the collection letter did not clearly identify the current creditor as required by the statute.

Sep 15, 2026

Upload by Mason