Hi TCPAWorld!
It seems that at the same time students are out of school for a break, motions for class certification are denied. Such is the case for the plaintiff in Brian J. Lyngas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., 2025 WL 3565507 (E.D. PA Dec 12, 2025). Recall that Plaintiff had a motion for class certification denied around the Christmas holidays last year (see the blog below where I discussed the previous motion for class certification and its denial).
Now, Plaintiff has once again been denied by the court in the same action in Brian J. Lyngas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., 2026 WL 752253 (E.D. PA Mar. 17, 2026).
To quickly go over the facts of the case, Plaintiff filed a TCPA lawsuit against Defendant alleging that Defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisement inviting more than 150,000 healthcare providers to participate in its online consensus server. Plaintiff contended in 2017, he received four such faxes without prior consent from him. Plaintiff moved to certify the following initial class definition:
“All persons (1) who were sent one or more facsimiles between September 29, 2026, and August 28, 2018, inviting them to participate in Impact Network’s “National Healthcare Census” in exchange for monetary payment; (2) who did not participate in and had never participated in the “National Healthcare Census” survey; and (3) as to whom Defendant has not produced evidence showing SK&A verified the person’s fax number.”
The court denied Plaintiff’s initial motion for class certification because Plaintiff failed to meet its burden as to the threshold class certification requirement of ascertainability.
Plaintiff now renewed their motion for class certification based on the amended class definition that included job reports which were spreadsheets that showed that given number of fax transmissions were sent to recipients who appear in the “Detail” sheet. The proposed class definition is below:
“All persons sent one or more invitations by fax during the period from September 2016 to September 2018 offering from $15 to $150 to participate in Impact Network’s “National Healthcare Census,” as reflected by a “SENT” (not a “FAIL”) disposition code on one of the 30 Odyssey Job Reports bates numbered IQV_00000310.xls, IQV_00000312.xls, IQV_00000314.xls, IQV_00000316.xls, IQV_00000320.xls, IQV_00000322.xls, IQV_00000324.xlsx, IQV_00000326.xls, IQV_00000328.xls, IQV_00000330.xls, IQV_00000332.xls, IQV_00000334.xls, IQV_00000336.xls, IQV_00000338.xls, IQV_00000340.xls, IQV_00000344.xls, IQV_00000346.xls, IQV_00000348.xls, IQV_00000350.xlsx, IQV_00000352.xls, IQV_00000354.xls, IQV_00000356.xls, IQV_00000358.xls, IQV_00000359.xls, IQV_00000360.xls, IQV_00000361.xls, IQV_00000362.xls, IQV_00000363.xls, IQV_00000364.xlsx, and IQV_00000365.xlsx, but excluding all persons whose fax number appears in Defendant’s list of participating healthcare providers produced as IQV_00000473.xls.”
The court denied the plaintiff’s renewed motion for class certification because (drum roll)…Plaintiff still failed to meet the ascertainability requirement just as before! Plaintiff argued that its amended class definition remedies this Court’s ascertainability concerns because Plaintiff now proposes to define the class, inter alia, as persons sent the consensus faxes as explicitly reflected in select Job Reports, rather than simply as individuals sent faxes and that its amended class definition further responds to this Court’s ascertainability concerns insofar as it omits the two Job Reports that lacked recipient names and drops the criteria that those whose fax numbers came from SK&A data are not class members. The court was not convinced even saying much as that it incorporated its analysis and reasoning denying the initial motion for class certification to this one. Talk about Plaintiff not learning their lesson to the point that the court just said our reasons are the same as before.
The court said that the ascertainability question is whether each class member received an unsolicited consensus fax. Plaintiff contended the class is ascertainable by putting forth the argument that the class can use the Job Reports that contain contact information, which purportedly track successful transmissions of consensus faxes. The court said that this argument “is largely indistinguishable in substance from the argument this Court rejected, in an Opinion affirmed by the Third Circuit, based on this Court’s finding that the Job Reports do not reliably reflect whether faxes were successfully sent.” In short, the court still said, just as before and again citing Steven A. Conner, DPM, P.C. v. Fox Rehab Servs., P.C., No. 23-1550, 2025 WL 289230, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan 24, 2025) that Plaintiff tried to rely on, that Plaintiff failed to provide a “reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.” Since the court already identified deficiencies with the previous class definition that relied on the job reports, court reasoned that “Plaintiff may not now enjoy a second bite of the apple by simply doubling down on its theory that the job reports are reliable.”
In short, the court is pretty much saying that the Plaintiff did not learn anything from the previous denial of class certification. The court agreed with Defendant in that just as before, the job reports do not reliably show that the consensus faxes were actually sent and this fact cannot be ignored when determining if the ascertainability requirement is satisfied. As a result, the court once again denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
The amazing partner Brittany A. Andres at Troutman Amin will be sure to go over such tactics that the defense uses in attacking class allegations and certifications at the Law Conference of Champions this May. With plaintiff once again being denied class certification, this case underscores not only the importance of the ascertainability component in determining class certification but also highlights how crucial it is to choose the right counsel who will be able to spot these pitfalls. That is why attending the Law Conference of Champions is so important. Among the various privacy, litigation, broader TCPA and compliance issues that will be discussed with a stellar cast, Brittany’s litigation tactics and strategy session will be one you must not miss.
As always, I will be sure to keep you updated on any news that arise from this case as soon as it happens. Talk to you soon!
