McCurdy v. Professional Credit Service
MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Final Approval Hearing held on 11/15/2017 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Attorney Fees 52 and awards a total of $86,687.51 for class counsel's attorneys' fees, l itigation costs and expenses; The Court GRANTS the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 54 . Signed on 11/15/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. James Davidson present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Timothy Fransen present as counsel for defendant(s). (Court Reporter Deborah Cook.) (ck)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JENNIFER MCCURDY, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated,
Case No. 6:15-cv-01498-AA
PROFESSIONAL CREDIT SERVICE,
ORDER FINALLY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND AWARD ING
ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES
On June 5, 2017, Jennifer McCurdy ("Plaintiff'') filed her unopposed motion to
preliminarily approve the parties' proposed class settlement.
On July 26, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement.
On August 15, 2017, Defendant caused to be served (through the Class Administrator) the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") notice required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715 on the United States
Attorney General and the Attorneys General of all 49 states where a class member had his or her
last known address.
Also on August 15, 2017, First Class, Inc. distributed notice of the parties' proposed class
settlement, as ordered.
On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed her unopposed motion to finally approve the patiies'
On November 15, 2017, this Court held a faimess hearing regarding the proposed
Having considered Plaintiffs unopposed motion, this Com1 finally approves the proposed
This Com1 also confirms that it has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties to it.
This Court affirms its certification of the following class:
All persons with an address within the United States, to whom Professional Credit
Service sent an initial written communication between April 1, 2015 and April 30,
2015, that stated: "If you dispute any account referenced in this letter, please send
all information regarding the dispute to P.O. Box 70127, Springfield, OR 97475,"
in connection with the collection of a consumer debt.
This Com1 also affirms its appointment of Jennifer Mc Curdy as class representative for the
class, and the following attorney and law firm as class counsel for class members:
James L. Davidson
Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
This Court approves the terms of the parties' settlement, the material terms of which
include, but are not limited to:
1. Defendant will create a non-reversionary settlement fund in the amount of$25,000,
which will be distributed on a pro-rata basis to each Pmticipating Class Member;
2. Defendant will pay to Ms. McCurdy $1,000;
3. Defendant has confirmed that it voluntarily removed from its collection letters the
language at issue in this litigation, and that it will not re-inset1 that language into
its collection letters in the future; and
4. Defendant will pay the reasonable costs of notice and administration of the
settlement separate and apat1 from any monies paid to Plaintiff, class members, or
This Court additionally finds that the parties' notice of class action settlement, and the
distribution thereof, satisfied the requirements of due process under the Constitution and Rule
23(e), that it was the best practicable under the circumstances, and that it constitutes due and
sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice of class action settlement. See Decohen v. Abbasi,
LLC, 299 F.R.D. 469, 479 (D. Md. 2014) ("Under the circumstances of this case, when all class
members are known in advance, the Court finds that the method of direct mail notice to each class
member's last known address-and a second notice if the first was returned as undeliverablewas the best practicable notice.").
This Court similarly finds that the parties' notice of class action settlement was adequate
and gave all class members sufficient information to enable them to make informed decisions as
to the parties' proposed settlement, and the right to object to, or opt-out of, it.
This Court additionally finds that Plaintiffs and Defendant's settlement, on the terms and
conditions set fotih in their Class Action Settlement Agreement ("the Settlement Agreement"), is
in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the class
members. See Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n ofSan Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217, 103 S. Ct. 1219, 75 L.Ed.2d 456 (1983) (discussing the
factors to be assessed in determining whether a settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate and
This Court finds that the class members were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to
object to the settlement. No class member(s) objected to the settlement. No class members made
valid and timely requests for exclusion.
This order is binding on all class members, including class members who did not make a
This Court approves the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The released claims
are consequently compromised, settled, released, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by
vittue of these proceedings and this order.
This Court awards a total of$
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?