United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
BLANCHE T. SMITH Plaintiff,
CASH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant.
Michael R. Barrett, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Cash America
International, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Class Allegations
(“Motion to Strike”) (Doc. 19). After Plaintiff
opposed and Defendant replied, the Court held the Motion to
Strike in abeyance while the Parties conducted targeted
discovery on five discrete issues:
1. Defendant's pawn loan business, practices, policies
2. Defendant's jewelry authentication process, including
practices, policies and procedures;
3. Defendant's policies and procedures specific to its
Bond Hill store in 2015;
4. Defendant's recordkeeping systems, policies,
procedures, and retention policies;
5. Defendant's employee training practices, policies, and
procedures for jewelry authentication
(Doc. 16). The Parties have fully briefed the Motion to
Strike (Docs. 19, 20, 21), and submitted supplemental
memoranda (Docs. 31, 32) after conducting the
above-referenced discovery. This matter is ripe for
Procedural Posture Relating to Motion to Strike
the Parties performed targeted discovery, they indicated that
they wished to submit additional briefing, although they were
initially uncertain of the form the briefing should take.
Regardless, the Court expressed a willingness to allow the
Parties to submit supplemental briefing, with the expectation
that the Parties would inform the Court of the anticipated
form of briefing. (June 30, 2017 Minute Entry); (Doc. 30,
with the June 30, 2017 Minute Entry, Plaintiff later sought
leave to file a sur-reply to the Motion to Strike. (Doc. 27).
Defendant then requested leave to file a response to
Plaintiff's sur-reply. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff
“vociferously disagree[d]” that such a response
was appropriate. (Doc. 29). Ultimately, the Court granted
Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply; however, over
Plaintiff's objection, it also granted Defendant leave to
file a response to the sur-reply. (Doc. 30). The Court
reasoned that “[g]iven that the Court allowed targeted
discovery, and given the Court's earlier representation
that it will allow the Parties to file supplemental
briefing and follow up in approximately 90 days (June 30,
2017 Minute Entry), the Court would prefer to hear from both
parties regarding how - if at all - extrinsic evidence
gathered during targeted discovery should affect the
Court's analysis of the pending Motion to Strike.”
(Doc. 30, PageID 384) (emphasis in original).
the Parties finished their briefing, the Court took the
matter under advisement.
Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations:
August 11, 2015, Plaintiff visited a Cash America location in
Bond Hill, Hamilton County, Ohio. (Id. at ¶
19). She was interested in obtaining a “pawn
loan” on a sterling silver metal cross with diamonds
(hereinafter referred to as the “pendant”).
(Id. at ¶¶ 19-20). Plaintiff had
previously pawned items at Defendant's store.
(Id. at ¶ 21). Defendant requested and
Plaintiff acquiesced to allow Defendant to inspect the
pendant. (Id. at ¶ 24). Defendant removed the
pendant from Plaintiff's line of sight and inspected it.
(Id. at ¶ 25). Defendant then returned the
pendant to Plaintiff, advising her that it would not make a
“pawn loan” on her piece of jewelry.
(Id. at ¶ 26). Plaintiff did not sign any
paperwork or otherwise provide any information to Defendant.
(Id. at ¶ 23). After leaving the store,
Plaintiff discovered that the pendant had been cut and some
form of acid poured over the pendant. (Id. at ¶
27). Plaintiff has had no further contact with Defendant.
(Id. at ¶ 29). She believes it would cost
approximately $40-$45 to fix the pendant. (Id. at
brought this action on behalf of herself and a putative
National class and Ohio subclass (Id. at ¶ 31),
asserting the following claims: 1) Trespass to Chattels; 2)
Fraudulent Concealment/Nondisclosure; 3) Breach of Bailment;
4) Violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act; 5)
Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
(“OCSPA”); and 6) Declaratory Judgment/Injunctive
Relief. (Doc. 3). The Court dismissed Count IV (Violation of
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act), but the other claims
remain pending. The issue before the ...