Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 304

Transcription

1 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 304 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA DIVISION SARA JUDITH GARCIA GALDAMEZ, et al., Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civ. No: 1:15-cv-1605 (LMB/JFA v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. [Amended Proposed] ORDER GRANTING PARTIES JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND NOTICE TO CLASS The Court having considered the Parties Joint Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (the Motion, the exhibits thereto, and the records and files in this action, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, orders, adjudges, and decrees, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims at issue and parties involved in this action. 2. The Settlement Agreement between and among the Plaintiffs Sara Judith Garcia Galdamez, Jorge Armando Escobar Barillas, and Virginia de Jesus Peña Pozuelos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in this class action, and Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc. (the Parties is incorporated fully herein by reference and attached as 1

2 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 305 Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement ( Memorandum. The definitions used in the Settlement Agreement are adopted for use herein. 3. The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement proposed by the Parties, finds that it is without obvious deficiencies, and that it is sufficiently fair and reasonable to warrant providing notice to the Settlement Class of its terms. The Settlement Agreement is hereby preliminarily approved as sufficiently fair and reasonable to warrant providing notice to the Settlement Class of its terms. 4. The Settlement Agreement appears to have been the product of arm s length negotiation between the Parties and appears to have been made in good faith. 5. The proposed notice, attached to the Memorandum as Exhibit 2, is constitutionally adequate, and is hereby approved. The proposed notice will fairly and accurately inform the class members of the terms of the proposed Settlement and provide sufficient opportunity for them to make informed decisions regarding their rights. 6. The Court approves the notice plan for delivery of the notice as described in the Settlement Agreement. The notice will identify the opt-out deadline of sixty (60 days after the notice is mailed to Class members; to be timely, any written opt-outs must be post-marked by this deadline. The final fairness hearing will be scheduled for a date that is at least one hundred and eighty (180 days after the entry of this Order and thus complies with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C The notice plan also satisfies due process and constitutes the best practical notice under the circumstances of this case. The notice plan is thus approved and its implementation pursuant to the Settlement Agreement is hereby ordered. 2

3 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID# The Court hereby sets the following schedule of events: Event Days From Preliminary Approval Hearing Date Notice Complete 60 Days August 23, 2016 Opt-Out Deadline 120 Days October 24, 2016 Deadline to Submit Objections 120 Days October 24, 2016 Motion for Final Approval 150 Days November 21, 2016 January 6, 2017, Final Fairness Hearing 180 Days 10:00am 9. The Court also conditionally certifies the Settlement Class, because the Settlement Class satisfies the four requirements of Rule 23(a: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. In addition, the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements for certification in Rule 23(b, which requires that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and... [that] a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b( Numerosity. Rule 23(a(1 provides for class certification where the class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a(1. Here, the Class includes hundreds of individuals and as such the numerosity requirement is met. 11. Commonality. Rule 23(a(2 s requirement of common questions is also satisfied. This suit arises out of a form letter sent by defendant to every member of the class. Allegations 3

4 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 307 of a policy or practice of treating an entire class unlawfully such as alleged here satisfy the commonality requirement. Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, (11th Cir. 1986; Talbott v. GC Servs. Ltd. P ship, 191 F.R.D. 99, 103 (W.D. Va. 2000; Saur v. Snappy Apple Farms, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 281, 287 (W.D. Mich ( In cases involving the question of whether a defendant has acted through an illegal policy or procedure, commonality is readily shown because the common question becomes whether the defendant in fact acted through the illegal policy or procedure.. The Court finds that commonality requirement is satisfied. 12. Typicality. The typicality requirement is met when class representatives show that: (1 their interests are squarely aligned with the interests of the class members; and (2 their claims arise from the same events or course of conduct and are premised on the same legal theories as the claims of the class members. Fisher v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 217 F.R.D. 201, 212 (E.D. Va Here, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the settlement class, because they all received the same letter unlawfully seeking payment of interest on rent debt that was not in fact accruing interest. Accordingly, the Court finds that typicality requirement is satisfied. 13. Adequacy of Representation. The Fourth Circuit looks for two separate requirements: the named plaintiffs must not have any interests antagonistic to the class, and they must be represented by adequate class counsel. See Woodward v. Online Information Services, 191 F.R.D. 502, 506 (E.D.N.C (citations omitted. Here, the named Plaintiffs interests are aligned with those of the Settlement Class. Moreover, the Settlement Class is represented by lawyers who have extensive complex class action experience. Accordingly, the court finds the adequacy requirement met. 4

5 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID# Rule 23(b Factors. a. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate Over Individual Questions. Rule 23(b(3 s predominance inquiry focuses on whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 362 (4th Cir (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, , (1997; Lienhart v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 255 F.3d 138, 142 (4th Cir Predominance does not demand unanimity of common questions, it requires that the common questions outweigh individual questions. McCall v. Drive Fin. Servs., L.P., 236 F.R.D. 246, 254 (E.D. Pa (citing Johnston v. HBO Film Mgmt., Inc., 265 F.3d 178, 185 (3d Cir Here, Plaintiffs seek to remedy common legal grievances based on Defendants violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the form of charging interest on a debt that did not in fact accrue interest. Common questions predominate over individual questions, and these common questions should be resolved on a class-wide basis. The Court finds that predominance requirement is satisfied for settlement purposes because common questions may be resolved for all Class members in a single common judgment. b. Superiority. 16. The factors to be considered here in determining the superiority of the class mechanism are (1 the interest in controlling individual prosecutions; (2 the existence of other related litigation; (3 the desirability of concentrating the litigation in one forum; and (4 manageability. Newsome v. Up-To-Date Laundry, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 356, 365 (D. Md. 2004; Hewlett v. Premier Salons Int l, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 211, 220 (D. Md. l997. A class action is superior here. Individual actions, individually controlled by individual plaintiffs, would burden 5

6 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 309 both the Court and the class. The limited economic resources of most class members and the relatively small amounts that most of them stand to recover make individual actions impractical. Therefore, a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this case. 17. Because each element of Rules 23(a and 23(b(3 are satisfied, the Court finds it appropriate to conditionally certify the proposed Validation Notice Settlement Class, defined as all natural persons who received a letter of the same form or substantially similar form as the Validation Notice attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A from I.Q. Data, which sought the payment of interest on outstanding obligations owed pursuant to residential leases located in the Fourth Circuit States [Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland] during the Settlement Class Period [between December 1, 2014, and March 29, 2016]. 18. Furthermore, because each element of Rules 23(a and 23(b(3 are satisfied, the Court finds it appropriate to conditionally certify the proposed Interest Payment Subclass, defined as all natural persons who are members of the Validation Notice Settlement Class and who actually paid interest on all or a portion of the debt that I.Q. Data sought to collect. (Emphasis added. 19. Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. Sara Judith Garcia Galdamez, Jorge Armando Escobar Barillas, and Virginia de Jesus Peña Pozuelos are hereby appointed as Class representatives, and Legal Aid Justice Center and Tycko & Zavareei LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June, 2016 Hon. Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judg 6

7 Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 36 Filed 06/24/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 310 We Ask For This: DATE: June 24, 2016 //s// //s// Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg D. Sutton Hirschler III (VSB No (VSB No Charles M. Sims (VSB No LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation 6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite East Main Street, Twenty Fourth Floor Falls Church, VA Richmond, Virginia Telephone: ( Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Facsimile: ( simon@justice4all.org Charles.Sims@leclairryan.com Sutton.Hirschler@leclairryan.com Brenda Castañeda (VSB No Counsel for Defendant IQ Data International, Inc. Kim Rolla (VSB No LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( brenda@justice4all.org kim@justice4all.org Jeffrey Kaliel (pro hac vice Sophia Goren (pro hac vice TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( jkaliel@tzlegal.com sgoren@tzlegal.com Counsel for Plaintiffs 7