Griffin et al v. Capital One Bank et al

Filing 261

ORDER: The Court construes Mr. Ellis' October 19, 2013, letter to the Court 260 as a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and declines to exercise jurisdiction over the issues raised therein. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/25/2013. (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 an October
19, 2013, handwritten letter to the Court submitted by class
member Tarvis Ellis. (Doc. # 260).

For the reasons that

follow, the Court construes the letter as a Motion to Enforce
the Settlement Agreement and declines to exercise jurisdiction
over the issues raised therein.
Discussion
Kenneth Spinelli, Arthur Griffin, and other Plaintiffs
filed this action against Capital One Bank and Capital One
Services, Inc. (collectively “Capital One”) in state court on
September 28, 2007. (Doc. # 2).

Capital One 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, the Plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended
Complaint (Doc. # 142) on August 11, 2010, containing the

following counts: (1) breach of contract and fraud in the
inducement; (2) violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1601; (3) violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201; and (4)
violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of other
states.
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).

On November 23, 2010, the Court

2

entered

its

Order

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 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
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).

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
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

Since

that

time,

various

parties

and

counsel

have

requested relief from the Court regarding the finality of the
settlement.

For instance, on August 3, 2012, Capital One

filed its Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of Released Claims and
for Sanctions. (Doc. # 246).

Therein, Capital One sought an

order enjoining the Attorneys General of the States of Hawaii
and Mississippi from prosecuting cases against Capital One and
seeking the imposition of monetary sanctions against the
Golomb & Honik law firm.

On August 22, 2012, the Court

entered an Order denying the Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of
Released Claims and for Sanctions. (Doc. # 253).

The Court

explained: “[T]he 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.” (Id. at 7).
At this juncture, Mr. Ellis seeks an order enforcing the
settlement. (Doc. # 260). In his letter, Mr. Ellis indicates:
“Please take notice that the Judgment entered in the above
entitled case has not been satisfied which is in violation of
the Equal [Protection] Clause and the 4th and 14th Amendments
of the State and United States Constitution and Class Action
5

Fairness Act.” (Doc. # 260). Mr. Ellis also notes: “This
Plaintiff never received no monies of this law suit: and I am
still paying a Capital One law suit card payment every month.
I have paid one card off, and still paying a monthly payment
on another card; . . . I pray that this Court will make sure
that I get due process of law soon.” (Id.).
The Court notes that Mr. Ellis has tendered several
letters to the Court indicating that he has not received
settlement funds.

See (Doc. ## 254, 258, 259, 260).

As a

courtesy to Mr. Ellis and with the aim that the parties could
resolve the issue of a $20.00 class settlement payment without
court intervention, the Court previously directed Capital One
to address Mr. Ellis’ concerns. (Doc. # 255).

Capital One

responded that it sent Mr. Ellis settlement funds in the
amount of $20.00, which Mr. Ellis cashed on March 14, 2011.
(Doc. # 256).

The Court thereafter issued an Order finding

the issue to be moot. (Doc. # 257).
It appears that Mr. Ellis is not satisfied with the
Court’s resolution of this matter. However, in the context of
this long-closed case, the Court determines that it lacks
jurisdiction to address Mr. Ellis’ present concerns.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
6

The Court construes Mr. Ellis’ October 19, 2013, letter
to

the

Court

(Doc.

#

260)

as

a

Motion

to

Enforce

the

Settlement Agreement and declines to exercise jurisdiction
over the issues raised therein.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
25th day of October, 2013.

Copies: All counsel and parties of record

7