McMillion et al v. Rash Curtis & Associates
Filing
430
FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge 5/4/2020 on 5/4/2020. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2020)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
L. Timothy Fisher (SBN 191626)
Yeremey O. Krivoshey (SBN 295032)
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No. 276006)
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Classes
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
SANDRA MCMILLION, JESSICA
ADEKOYA, and IGNACIO PEREZ, on
Behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated,
v.
Plaintiffs,
RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES,
Defendant.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR
Case No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
Judge: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
1
FINAL JUDGMENT
2
3
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, 54, and 58, the Court now enters Final
Judgment on behalf of the certified Classes1, defined as follows:
4
(a) Skip-Trace Class 1: All persons who received a call on their cellular
telephones from June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis’
DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer whose cellular telephone
was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing.
5
6
(b) Skip-Trace Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded message
or robocall on their cellular telephones [or] landline phones from June 17,
2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis whose telephone number was
obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing.
7
8
9
(c) Non-Debtor Class 1: All persons who received a call on their cellular
telephones from June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis’
DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer whose telephone number
was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing and for whom Rash Curtis
never had a debt-collection account in their name.
10
11
12
(d) Non-Debtor Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded message
or robocall on their cellular telephones [or] landline phones from June 17,
2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis whose telephone number was
obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing and for whom Rash Curtis has
never had a debt-collection account in their name.
13
14
15
Excluded from the Classes are persons who provided their cellular
telephone in an application for credit to a creditor that has opened an
account with Rash Curtis in such debtor’s name prior to Rash Curtis first
placing a call using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or
prerecorded voice. Also excluded are Rash Curtis & Associates, any
entities in which Rash Curtis & Associates has a controlling interest, Rash
Curtis & Associates’ agents and employees, and any judge or magistrate to
whom this action is assigned, their staff, and immediate families.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The dissemination of the Class Notice, ECF Nos. 249, 293, 402: (a) constituted the best
practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances, (b) constituted notice that was
reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the
Action, their right to exclude themselves, the binding effect of the Final Judgment, to apprise Class
Members of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service
Award for the Class Representative and Class Members’ rights to object thereto, (c) and met all
applicable requirements of law, including, but not limited to, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and the Rules of this Court, as
1
This Final Judgment amends the Final Judgment entered on September 9, 2019. ECF No. 370.
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR
1
1
well as complied with the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative class action notices. No Class
2
Members requested exclusion, and no Class Members objected to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award
3
of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award for the Class Representative.
4
Consistent with the jury’s verdict on May 13, 2019, ECF No. 347, each member of the
5
Classes shall recover from the Defendant, Rash Curtis & Associates, the amount of $500 per call
6
made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for an aggregate award in favor of
7
the Classes of $267,349,000.
8
9
With regard to Plaintiff Ignacio Perez’s individual claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Plaintiff Perez shall recover from Defendant, Rash Curtis & Associates, the amount
10
of $500 per call made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for an aggregate
11
award in favor of Plaintiff Perez of $7,000. Plaintiff Ignacio Perez is also entitled to a service
12
award in the amount of $25,000 to be awarded out of the $267,349,000 common fund award.
13
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Class Counsel, is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees of 33.33
14
percent of the $267,349,000 common fund award ($89,116,333.33). Bursor & Fisher, P.A. is also
15
entitled to $277,416.28 in nontaxable costs to be awarded out of the $267,349,000 common fund.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The Classes and Plaintiff Perez are entitled to post-judgment interest on the jury’s award at
a rate of 2.36% per annum, dating back to September 9, 2019.
Count I of the Complaint for alleged knowing and/or willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act is dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is dismissed with
prejudice.
As to Counts III and IV of the Complaint for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
23
Act (“FDCPA”) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal
24
Act”), the Court previously granted partial summary judgment in favor of Rash Curtis &
25
Associates as to Plaintiff Perez’s claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d (harassment and abuse) and
26
1692e(11) (failure to disclose identity), as well as under California Civil Code §§ 1788.11(d)-(e)
27
28
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR
2
1
(harassment) and 1788.17 (violation of the FDCPA). See ECF No. 167. These claims have been
2
adjudicated in favor of Rash Curtis & Associates and are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
3
On March 5, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with
4
Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) with respect to all individual claims asserted
5
by Plaintiffs Sandra McMillion and Jessica Adekoya against Defendant Rash Curtis & Associates.
6
See ECF No. 292. Accordingly, Plaintiffs McMillion and Adekoya’s individual claims against
7
Defendant Rash Curtis & Associates are dismissed with prejudice. The parties will bear their own
8
attorney’s fees and costs as to these claims.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
Dated:
May 4, 2020
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?