A Pennsylvania federal court has refused to certify a plaintiff as a class representative in a fair debt collection case because of the plaintiff's prior "misrepresentations" and "dishonesty" in the matter, including the procurement of a sham arbitration award.

In Bontempo v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., Civ. A. No. 06-745, 2008 WL 163051 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2008), Bontempo filed a putative class action against Wolpoff & Abramson (W&A) for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in attempting to collect a credit card debt. Bontempo moved for class certification. W&A opposed the motion, claiming that Bontempo did not satisfy the four prerequisites in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) required to certify a class action.

The Court agreed that Bontempo had shown that joinder of all members was impracticable, common questions of law or fact existed among the members, and that Bontempo's claim and defenses were typical among members of the class. The Court thus turned to whether Bontempo was a representative that would "fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class," as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

Since the Court was empowered to "consider the honesty and trustworthiness of the named plaintiff" when "judging the adequacy of a class representative," the Court examined Bontempo's prior conduct to determine his credibility and suitability as representative.

The Court was troubled by Bontempo's participation in a fraudulent scheme to eliminate the underlying credit card debt, noting that he had filed several untruthful letters disputing the existence of the debt, sent another letter falsely alleging forgery, and subsequently procured a fraudulent arbitration award through a sham administrator, Blue Ridge Arbitration, in an attempt to avoid liability.

The Court was also concerned with Bontempo's less than candid testimony when questioned about his prior fraudulent activities. Based on these two factors, the Court found Bontempo was "an inadequate class representative," and denied certification.