530 F.Supp.3d 1102
M.D. Fla.2021Background
- Plaintiff Natalie Kuhr sued Mayo Clinic Jacksonville (Mayo) and Professional Service Bureau, Inc. (PSB) alleging Mayo balance-billed PIP-covered medical charges and PSB sought to collect those excess amounts, violating the FCCPA and FDCPA.
- Action filed January 9, 2019; removed to federal court; parties conducted limited discovery and negotiated a class settlement.
- Settlement covers 371 potential Florida class members: Mayo already refunded/waived $515,502.20 (actual damages); defendants also funded a $500,000 statutory-damage pool (total settlement $1,015,502.20) plus up to $50,000 administration.
- Notice was mailed and posted; one person opted out, no objections were filed, and no class members attended the fairness hearing.
- Court granted final approval, certified the settlement class for settlement purposes only, denied the requested incentive award (per Eleventh Circuit precedent), and awarded attorneys’ fees of 20% of the total settlement ($203,100.44).
- Class members receive refunds/waivers automatically and a pro rata statutory award (about $802.43 each); uncashed checks and unclaimed funds go to Jacksonville Area Legal Aid (cy pres).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final approval — is the settlement fair, reasonable, adequate under Rule 23(e)? | Settlement returns full actual damages, supplies substantial statutory recovery, and includes procedural and injunctive relief; negotiated at arm’s length. | Agreed to settlement; no opposition. | Approved: Court found settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) and Bennett factors. |
| Class certification for settlement purposes — do Rule 23 requirements and notice satisfy due process? | Class meets Rule 23 requirements; Court-approved notice adequately informs class members. | No opposition; defendants consented to settlement-class certification. | Certified for settlement only; Court found notice the best practicable and constitutionally adequate. |
| Attorneys’ fees — what percentage of the common fund is reasonable? | Counsel requested 25% (reduced from higher percentages previously requested) of total settlement; argued customary awards around 25% and relied on lodestar cross-check. | Defendants agreed not to oppose requests within agreed limits but reserved the court’s determination. | Awarded 20% ($203,100.44). Court applied Camden factors and lodestar cross-check, finding 20% reasonable given the case’s duration, risk, results, and multiplier. |
| Incentive award and release scope — is incentive payment permissible; scope of release acceptable? | Plaintiff sought a named-plaintiff incentive award; class release was necessary to settle class claims. | Defendants did not oppose incentive award subject to court approval; release mutual and broad. | Incentive award denied as impermissible under Eleventh Circuit (Johnson); releases and scope approved as part of the settlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) (incentive awards to class representatives impermissible under Eleventh Circuit precedent)
- Camden I Condo. Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1991) (benchmark and factors for percentage-of-fund fee awards)
- Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating class settlement fairness)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (individual notice requirement for Rule 23(b)(3) classes)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process standard for notice)
- In re Home Depot Inc., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019) (discussion of percentage-of-fund benchmark range)
- Waters v. Int'l Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1999) (lodestar as cross-check in common-fund cases)
- Miller v. Rep. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 559 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977) (settlements are favored and reviewed for fairness)