Ross v. CitiFinancial Auto, Ltd.
Filing
60
FINAL JUDGMENT approving settlement, granting 51 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; granting 53 Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs and Approval of Class Representative; and granting 57 Joint Motion to A mend Nunc Pro Tunc Court Order Granting Preliminary Approval to Proposed Class Settlement. The case is dismissed with prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction for the interpretation, administration, and consummation of the Stipulation and for the enforcement of the injunctions described the Judgment. See Judgment for Details. The Clerk should close the file. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 12/22/2014. (BJB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
SAMUEL ROSS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIFINANCIAL AUTO LTD.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:12-cv-1173-TJC-PDB
FINAL JUDGMENT APPROVING SETTLEMENT
The Court has reviewed and considered (1) the terms and conditions of the proposed
settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation (“Stipulation”) (Doc. 42-1),
dated May 30, 2014; (2) the parties’ submissions in support of final approval of the settlement
(Docs. 51, 52, 55, 56, 58); (3) the joint motion to amend the class definition (Doc. 57); (4) the
application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and a class
representative incentive award (Doc. 53); (5) any objections to the proposed settlement; and (6)
the record in this litigation. The Court held a Fairness hearing on December 19, 2014, the record
of which is incorporated herein.
Upon due consideration, the Court enters the following
FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS:
A.
Capitalized terms used in this Order that are not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meaning assigned to them in the Stipulation.
B.
The Court has jurisdiction over this Action and over all the parties to this Action,
including all members of the Settlement Class.
C.
The Settlement Class conditionally certified in the Preliminary Approval Order was
appropriately certified for settlement purposes, but should be amended as set forth in the joint
motion to amend (Doc. 57). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C). Additionally, Class Counsel and the
Class Representative have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of
entering into and implementing the settlement.
D.
The notice to putative Settlement Class Members was comprised of individual
mailed notice to all Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that this notice (i) constituted the
best notice practicable under the circumstances, (ii) constituted notice that was reasonably
calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the putative Settlement Class Members of the
pendency of the Action and of their right to object and to appear at the Fairness Hearing or to
exclude themselves from the Settlement, (iii) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and
sufficient notice to all persons entitled to be provided with notice, and (iv) fully complied with due
process principles and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
E.
The Court has reviewed a memorandum and declaration submitted by counsel for
CitiFinancial Auto Ltd. ("CitiFinancial") in support of compliance with the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) (Doc. 58). The Court finds that notice of the settlement (the "CAFA
notice") was provided to State and federal authorities in substantial compliance with 28 U.S.C. §
1715(b) and that the CAFA notice complied with the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). Specifically,
the Court finds that (i) the CAFA notice was sent to the appropriate State and federal authorities,
(ii) the CAFA notice contained all of the information required to be included in the notice by the
Class Action Fairness Act, (iii) the CAFA notice provided State and federal authorities sufficient
time to file objections or inquire about the settlement, and (iv) no federal or State authorities
submitted any inquiry, objection, or other response to the CAFA notice to the Court or counsel for
the parties. Accordingly, the parties have substantially complied with their obligations under 28
U.S.C. § 1715(b) and no Settlement Class Member may avoid the settlement on the basis of alleged
2
noncompliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). See Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp.
2d 964, 973 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., Case No. 6:07-cv-1785-GAP-KRS,
slip op. at 2-3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2009).
F.
The Court has held a Fairness Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement; has been advised that there are no objections to the settlement; and has
given fair consideration to the filings in support of final approval.
G.
The settlement is the product of good faith, arm’s length negotiations between the
Class Representative and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and CitiFinancial and its counsel, on the
other hand.
H.
The settlement, as provided for in the Stipulation, is fair, reasonable, adequate, and
proper, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
considered a number of factors, including: (i) an assessment of the likelihood that the Settlement
Class would prevail at trial; (ii) the range of possible recoveries available to the Settlement Class
Members, including CitiFinancial’s potential counterclaims; (iii) the consideration provided
pursuant to the settlement, as compared to the range of possible recovery discounted for the
inherent risk of litigation, including the risk of maintaining a class through trial; (iv) the
complexity, duration, and expense of such litigation in the absence of a settlement; (v) the nature
and extent of any objections to the settlement; and (vi) the stage of the proceedings at which the
settlement was reached. See, e.g., Faught v. American Home Shield, 668 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.
2011).
I.
There have been no objections to the settlement and no Settlement Class Members
have requested exclusion from the settlement.
3
J.
Upon entry of this Order, all Settlement Class Members (as permanently certified
below) shall be subject to and bound by all of the provisions of the settlement, the Stipulation, and
this Order.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, as well as the submissions and
proceedings referred to above, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED:
Certification of Class and Approval of Settlement
1.
The settlement and the Stipulation are hereby approved as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and the requirements of due process and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied. The parties are ordered and directed to
comply with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation.
2.
The Court having found that each of the elements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied, for purposes of settlement only, the Settlement Class is
certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and includes the following persons:
All persons who, from September 12, 2008 to April 8, 2014: (a) have or had a Retail
Installment Sales Contract ("RISC") held by CitiFinancial Auto Ltd.
("CitiFinancial") secured by a motor vehicle purchased in Florida; (b) had their RISC
serviced by Santander Consumer USA, Inc. ("Santander"); (c) had their motor
vehicle repossessed in Florida by CitiFinancial, Santander or their agents; (d) were
sent a post-repossession notice from Santander while it was servicing a RISC owned
by CitiFinancial which failed to describe CitiFinancial as the secured party; (e) still
have their loan owned or serviced by CitiFinancial or Santander; (f) against whom
CitiFinancial or Santander has not obtained a deficiency judgment; (g) have not
obtained a discharge in bankruptcy applicable to any such RISC; (h) have not filed
for bankruptcy following the repossession of the motor vehicle securing the RISC;
(i) do not have a co-borrower on the RISC that has obtained a discharge in
bankruptcy applicable to any such RISC or that has filed for bankruptcy following
the repossession of the motor vehicle securing the RISC; (j) were not on active duty
in the U.S. Military to trigger the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
at the time the repossession of the motor vehicle securing the RISC took place or at
the time the post-repossession notice was sent; and (k) have not had their RISC
reinstated after the repossession of the motor vehicle securing the RISC took place.
4
The Court readopts and incorporates herein by reference its preliminary conclusions as to the
satisfaction of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, (Doc. 50), and
notes again that because this certification of the Class is in connection with the settlement rather
than litigation, the Court need not address any issues of manageability that may be presented by
certification of the statewide class proposed in the settlement. Moreover, the joint motion to
amend the class definition (Doc. 57) is granted. Thus, to the extent the class definition in the
Court's Preliminary Approval Order differs from the definition stated above, the definition stated
above controls.
3.
For purposes of settlement only, Plaintiff is certified as representative of the
Settlement Class and Class Counsel is appointed counsel to the Settlement Class. The Court
concludes that Class Counsel and the Class Representative have fairly and adequately represented
the Settlement Class with respect to the settlement and the Stipulation.
4.
Notwithstanding the certification of the foregoing Settlement Class and
appointment of the Class Representative for purposes of effecting the settlement, if this Order is
reversed on appeal or the Stipulation is terminated or is not consummated for any reason, the
foregoing certification of the Settlement Class and appointment of the Class Representative shall
be void and of no further effect, and the parties to the proposed settlement shall be returned to the
status each occupied before entry of this Order without prejudice to any legal argument that any
of the parties to the Stipulation might have asserted but for the Stipulation.
Releases and Injunctions
5.
Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members shall and hereby do release, remise, and
forever discharge CitiFinancial and Santander, as broadly defined in the Stipulation under
"Released Parties," from all actual and potential claims, actions, rights of recovery, and causes of
5
action of any kind, whether for damages or restitution, of any kind and in any amount, including
but not limited to punitive damages, special damages, speculative damages, statutory damages,
mental anguish, emotional distress, exemplary damages, consequential damages, costs, attorneys’
fees, penalties, fines, injunctive or other equitable relief, or any other relief, remedy, or right of
action of any kind or nature, relating in any way to the RISCs, whether known or unknown,
suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, actual or contingent,
liquidated or unliquidated, that: (1) arise out of or are related in any way to any or all of the acts,
omissions, facts, matters, transactions, and occurrences that were directly alleged, asserted,
described, set forth, or referred to in the Action; or (2) are, were, or could have arisen out of or
been related in any way to the financing, repossession, post-repossession sale, collections, or
deficiencies regarding any loans or RISCs. The claims discussed in this paragraph are hereafter
referred to as "Released Claims."
6.
The Settlement Class Members are permanently enjoined from filing, commencing,
prosecuting, intervening in, participating in as class members or otherwise, or receiving any
benefits or other relief from, any other lawsuit in any state, territorial or federal court, or any
arbitration or administrative or regulatory or other proceeding in any jurisdiction, which asserts
claims based on or in any way related to the Released Claims against CitiFinancial or Santander,
as broadly defined in the Stipulation under "Released Parties." In addition, Settlement Class
Members are enjoined from asserting as a defense, including as a set-off or for any other purpose,
any argument against CitiFinancial or Santander, as broadly defined in the Stipulation under
"Released Parties," that if raised as an independent claim would be a Released Claim.
6
Applications for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses and
Representative Plaintiff Incentive Award
7.
The Court has reviewed the application for an award of fees, costs, and expenses
submitted by Class Counsel and the exhibits, memoranda of law, and other materials submitted in
support of that application. (Docs. 53, 56.) The Court recognizes that CitiFinancial has not
opposed the application for the class representative incentive award of $5,000 to be paid by
CitiFinancial or an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of $217,500 to be paid by CitiFinancial. This
agreement is in addition to the other relief to be provided to Class Members under the Agreement.
On the basis of its review of the foregoing, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s request for
attorneys’ fees and expenses is fair, reasonable, and appropriate and hereby awards fees and
expenses to Class Counsel in the aggregate amount of $ 217,500 and an incentive award to Plaintiff
in the amount of $5,000, to be paid by CitiFinancial in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation.
Other Provisions
8.
Neither the Stipulation nor any provision therein, nor any negotiations, statements
or proceedings in connection therewith shall be construed as, or be deemed to be evidence of, an
admission or concession on the part of the Plaintiff, any Settlement Class Member, CitiFinancial,
Santander, or any other person of any liability or wrongdoing by them, or that the claims and
defenses that have been, or could have been, asserted in the Action are or are not meritorious, and
this Order, the Stipulation or any such communications shall not be offered or received in evidence
in any action or proceeding, or be used in any way as an admission or concession or evidence of
any liability or wrongdoing of any nature or that Plaintiff, any Settlement Class Member, or any
other person has suffered any damage; provided, however, that the Stipulation and this Order may
be filed in any action by CitiFinancial, Santander, or Settlement Class Members seeking to enforce
the Stipulation or the Final Judgment by injunctive or other relief, or to assert defenses including,
7
but not limited to, res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, or any theory of
claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim. The Stipulation’s terms
shall be forever binding on, and shall have res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and
future lawsuits or other proceedings as to Released Claims and other prohibitions set forth in this
Order that are maintained by, or on behalf of, the Settlement Class Members or any other person
subject to the provisions of this Order.
9.
In the event the Stipulation does not become effective or is canceled or terminated
in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, then this Order and Final Judgment
shall be rendered null and void and be vacated and all orders entered in connection therewith by
this Court shall be rendered null and void.
Entry of Judgment; Continuing Jurisdiction
10.
All Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice.
11.
Without in any way affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, this Court hereby
retains jurisdiction as to all matters relating to (a) the interpretation, administration, and
consummation of the Stipulation and (b) the enforcement of the injunctions described in paragraph
6 of this Order.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2014.
8
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?