302 F.R.D. 56
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Three actions against Comenity (WFNNB) alleging TILA and Regulation Z violations were consolidated for settlement purposes.
- Plaintiffs allege noncompliant account-opening disclosures and related Billing Rights Notices across LOFT, J. Crew, and Mandee/Annie Sez cards.
- A stipulation consolidated the three cases for settlement and proposed a settlement class of 72 members.
- Class representatives (Kelen, Taub, Milo) seek certification of a settlement class and appointment of class counsel Bromberg Law Office and Law Office of Harley J. Schnall.
- Judge Crotty previously certified the Kelen class; the current Order approves consolidation, class certification for settlement, and preliminary settlement approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consolidation is appropriate. | Consolidation promotes judicial economy and uniformity. | No opposition; consolidation inherently favorable. | Consolidation granted. |
| Whether the settlement class satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). | Numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy shown; common issues predominate; settlement is superior. | No substantive opposition; requirements appear met. | Certified as a settlement class. |
| Whether class counsel should be appointed. | Bromberg and Schnall have substantial TILA class-action experience and have represented named Plaintiffs. | No challenge; counsel meets requirements. | Bromberg and Schnall appointed as class counsel. |
| Whether preliminary approval of the settlement is appropriate. | Settlement is fair, reasonable, non-collusive, negotiated at arm’s length with mediator help. | Not contested; terms appear within range of possible approval. | Preliminary approval granted; notice procedures approved with minor modification. |
| Whether notice to the settlement class should be approved and a fairness hearing set. | Notice to be provided by Settlement Administrator; enables opt-outs and objections; hearing to follow. | No opposition; standard notice protocol. | Notice approved; hearing to be set per accompanying order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (settlement-only class considerations demand heightened scrutiny)
- In re American Intl. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 689 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) (determine Rule 23(a)/(b) and (e) in complex securities actions)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1995) (consolidation favored for efficiency when common issues exist)
- Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 306 F.3d 1247 (2d Cir. 2002) (predominance requires generalized proof of common issues)
- D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001) (settlement approval standards and court’s role in evaluating compromise)
- Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1995) (court should defer to private negotiations in class settlements)