Griffin et al v. Capital One Bank et al
Filing
253
ORDER denying 246 Defendants' Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of Released Claims and for Sanctions. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/21/2012. (KAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KENNETH SPINELLI, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No.
8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ
CAPITAL ONE BANK, USA, ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants’
Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of Released Claims and for
Sanctions (Doc. # 246), filed on August 3, 2012. Plaintiffs
filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 249) on
August 17, 2012, and non-party the State of Mississippi filed
a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 251) on August
20, 2012.
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the
Motion.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs filed this action in state court on September
28, 2007, and Defendants removed the case to this Court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act on January 18, 2008.
(Doc. # 1).
After several amendments of the operative
Complaint, Plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc.
# 142) on August 11, 2010.
On August 13, 2010, the parties
filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement. (Doc. # 143).
On August 16, 2010, the Court
entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement (Doc.
# 147). That Order defined the “Settlement Class” as follows:
(1) All natural persons who have or had Capital One
credit card accounts in the United States and who
enrolled in and were charged for Payment Protection
on or after January 1, 2005 through July 31, 2010;
or (2) all natural persons, who had a billing
address in Florida at the time of enrollment in
Payment Protection, who have or had Capital One
credit card accounts and who enrolled in Payment
Protection on or after September 28, 2003 through
July 31, 2010.
Any cardholder who filed for
bankruptcy after enrolling in Payment Protection is
excluded from the class.
(Doc. # 147 at 2).
The parties filed a Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement on November 5, 2010 (Doc. # 201), and the Court
held a final fairness hearing on the Settlement on November
19, 2010. (Doc. # 229).
entered
its
Order
On November 23, 2010, the Court
granting
Plaintiffs’
Motion
for
Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation
(Doc. # 231).
Therein, the Court finally certified the
Settlement Class that it previously preliminarily certified.
Id. at 9-10.
The Court also noted “the Class Representatives
and all Final Settlement Class Members are deemed to have
absolutely and unconditionally released and forever discharged
2
the Released Parties from all Released Claims, and are forever
barred
and
enjoined
from
commencing,
instituting
or
maintaining any Released Claims against the Released Parties,
or any of them, in any action in this or any other forum.” Id.
at 11.1
1
In the Settlement Agreement, the parties defined
“Released Parties” as: “Capital One and its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, associates, agents,
successors, transferees, assignors, assignees, and/or assigns,
and their respective subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions,
associates, agents, successors, assignors, assignees, and/or
assigns, and each of their respective present, former or
future, officers, directors, shareholders, members, managing
members, agents, control persons, advisors, employees,
representatives, consultants, accountants, attorneys, and any
representative of the above.” (Doc. # 145-1 at 7).
The Settlement Agreement defined “Released Claims;”
however, the Court’s Order Finally Approving Settlement
amended that definition as follows: “Release of Class Claims.
Upon entry of the Final Judgment, the Class Representatives,
each Final Settlement Class Member, and each of their
respective spouses, executors, representatives, heirs,
successors, bankruptcy trustees, guardians, wards, agents and
assigns, and all those who claim through them or who assert
claims on their behalf (including the government in its
capacity in parens patriae), will be deemed to have completely
released and forever discharged the Released Parties, and each
of them, from any claim, right, demand, charge, complaint,
action, cause of action, obligation, or liability for actual
or statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution or other
monetary relief of any and every kind, including, without
limitation, those based on breach of contract or any other
contractual theory, unjust enrichment, violation of the Truth
in Lending Act, or the unfair and deceptive acts and practices
statutes of any of the states of the United States, or any
other federal, state, or local law, statute, regulation, or
common law, whether known or unknown, suspected or
unsuspected, under the law of any jurisdiction, which the
Class Representatives or any Final Settlement Class Member
3
The Court noted that “this settlement will resolve all
known class action cases against Capital One involving Payment
Protection.
This global settlement includes at least eight
other class action cases pending throughout the nation.” Id.
at 8.
The Court dismissed the case with prejudice and
declined to retain jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the
settlement or otherwise.2
Id. at 11.
At this juncture, twenty one months after this Court
disposed
of
this
case,
Defendants
seek
an
extraordinary
injunction enjoining the Attorneys General of the States of
Hawaii
and
Mississippi
from
prosecuting
cases
against
Defendants and seeking the imposition of monetary sanctions
against the Golomb & Honik law firm.
ever had, now have or may have in the future, whether accrued
or unaccrued, arising out of or in any way, directly or
indirectly, relating to any act, omission, event, incident,
matter, dispute, or injury regarding Payment Protection,
including, without limitation, the development, sale, pricing,
marketing, claims handling, or administration of Payment
Protection. The claims released hereby are referred to as the
‘Released Claims.’” (Doc. # 231 at 12-13).
2
The parties specifically requested that the Court
retain jurisdiction over the case to enforce the settlement
and included such language in their proposed order submitted
to the Court. (Doc. # 210-1 at 4). The Court declined to do
so and did not include any language in its orders indicating
that it would retain jurisdiction over this case.
4
II.
Discussion
Defendants seek relief from this Court pursuant to the
All Writs and Anti-Injunction Acts. The All Writs Act states:
“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of
Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid
of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
As explained in
Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1229 (11th Cir. 2005),
“[t]he purpose of the power codified in that statute is to
allow courts to protect the jurisdiction they already have,
derived from some other source.” The court further explained,
that the All Writs Act “gives a residual source of authority
to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute and
is an extraordinary remedy that is essentially equitable and,
as such, not generally available to provide alternatives to
other, adequate remedies at law.” Id. (Internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
The Anti-Injunction Act states: “A court of the United
States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in
State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect
or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. As explained
in First Alabama Bank v. Parsons Steel, Inc., 825 F.2d 1475,
5
1483 (11th Cir. 1987), “[t]he phrase ‘to protect or effectuate
its
judgments’
authorizes
a
federal
injunction
of
state
proceedings only to prevent a state court from so interfering
with a federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case
as to seriously impair the federal court’s flexibility and
authority
to
decide
that
case.”
(Internal
citations
and
quotation marks omitted).
Here,
the
Court
declines
to
enter
the
injunction
requested by Defendants and also declines to sanction the
Golomb & Honik law firm.
The relief requested by Defendants
is inappropriate for a number of compelling reasons.
The Court’s Order approving the settlement and closing
this case did not bind the States of Mississippi and Hawaii.
The Attorney General of Mississippi and Hawaii were not
defined as class members and did not have an opportunity to
participate in the litigation or opt out of the class.
It
would be a violation of the Due Process clause to now enjoin
such
Attorney
Phillips
General
Petroleum
via
Co.
the
v.
requested
Shutts,
472
injunction.
See
U.S.
812
797,
(1985)(“due process requires at a minimum that the absent
plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to remove himself
from the class
. . . [and] requires that the named plaintiff
at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent
6
class members.”).
In addition, the Court has no need to issue an injunction
“in aid of its jurisdiction.” This matter has been closed for
over a year, and the Court declined to retain jurisdiction
after disposing of the claims.
The Court no longer has
jurisdiction over this case and has no desire to preserve its
long-relinquished jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writs Act
or other law.
Likewise, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to
enjoin the state court proceedings to enforce the Court’s
judgment
pursuant
to
the
Anti-Injunction
Act.
“[A]ccommodation of the state and federal interests involved
when a federal court is asked to enjoin a state court’s
proceeding has led to the requirement that the party seeking
the injunction must make a strong and unequivocal showing of
relitigation.” First Alabama Bank, 825 F.2d at 1483-84.
As
explained by the State of Mississippi, the “relitigation prong
does not authorize injunctions against non-parties.” (Doc. #
251
at
2).
In
addition,
the
State
of
Mississippi
has
appropriately distinguished the cases cited by Defendants:
“The cases Capital One cites either involved matters of
continuing settlement administration, or injunctions issued
post-final settlement against the original class members
7
. . . . Capital One does not cite a single case holding that
a district court may -- or should -- issue an injunction to
prevent a non-party from litigating its claims.” Id. at 4.
If this Court were to grant the relief requested by
Defendants, it would not be enforcing any existing court order
that it has entered, rather it would be crafting an entirely
new injunction that would usurp the claims of two sovereign
states in violation of the Eleventh Amendment and other laws.
This Court agrees with the State of Mississippi that “the
State’s sovereign interests were neither raised, actually
litigated, nor resolved in the Spinelli action.” (Doc. # 251
at 8).
As explained in EEOC v. Wafflehouse, Inc., 534 U.S.
279, 308 (2002), a state’s sovereign interests cannot be
compromised or impeded by a private settlement agreement.
Furthermore, as stated in Herman v. South Carolina Nat’l Bank,
140 F.3d 1413, 1425 (11th Cir. 1998), “the government is not
bound by private litigation when the government’s action seeks
to enforce a [] statute that implicates both public and
private interests.”
It should also be noted that when a party seeks to use
the final disposition of a case in one court to preclude
litigation in a second court, it is for the second court, not
the first court, to determine whether the first action should
8
bar the second action from moving forward.
Thus, the Court
denies the Motion in all respects.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendants’ Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of Released
Claims and for Sanctions (Doc. # 246) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
21st day of August 2012.
Copies: All counsel and parties of record
9
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?