‘No Equitable Ground’ to Save Privacy Case From Dismissal, Says ECMC

Plaintiff Cynthia Lepur’s opposition to Educational Credit Management Corp.’s (ECMC) motion to dismiss her privacy complaint (see 2302170027) demonstrates she and her counsel “want unlimited bites at the apple,” said ECMC’s reply Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00014) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Lepur alleges ECMS, a student loan servicer, recorded its phone conversations with consumers without their consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. ECMC since 2015 has been “continuously harassed” by five “repetitive” class actions, including Lepur’s, based on the same claim, it said. Lepur’s case was filed as “a calculated strategy” to minimize or avoid completely any actual or potential outcomes unfavorable to Lepur in two other ongoing cases, it said: “The law does not allow a dispute to be litigated piecemeal in this manner.” Lepur admits in her opposition that her case arises from the same facts as the other cases, but asks the court to stay her case and not dismiss it due to the special circumstances of her action, said ECMC. “There are no special circumstances which would warrant saving this case from dismissal,” it said. The entire purpose of the “claim-splitting doctrine” is to avoid repetitive actions, promote judicial economy and convenience, and “not re-litigate a claim in a second suit if the first fails,” it said. Yet that’s exactly what Lepur “seeks to do,” it said: “She tacitly if not expressly admits that her suit should only proceed in the event that all the earlier-filed cases fail.” ECMC is forced to defend against the same claim “in a seemingly never-ending string of duplicative class action lawsuits,” it said. “There is no equitable ground to save this case from dismissal under these circumstances.”