Martha Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747

Midland Funding and related entities sought nationwide class settlement of three FDCPA/common-law debt-collection suits against Midland.
District court certified the class and approved a settlement with a $5.2 million fund, $1.5 million in attorney fees, $10 nominal claims, and injunctive relief for one year.
Named plaintiffs would receive $8,000 collectively; unnamed class members would receive $17.38 per verified claim; a one-year monitor would oversee new affidavit procedures.
The settlement released class members’ claims and exonerated named plaintiffs’ debts, while Midland retained ability to collect debts from unnamed members.
Objectors challenged fairness, adequacy, and notice, arguing preferential treatment to named plaintiffs and perfunctory relief for unnamed members.
Sixth Circuit reversed, vacated certification and approval, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate?	Unnamed class members were unfairly treated relative to named plaintiffs.	Settlement balanced monetary relief with injunctive relief and avoided ongoing litigation costs.	Settlement was unfair to unnamed class members; district court abused discretion.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in certifying the nationwide settlement class?	Representation was inadequate and claims were not adequately protected.	Class certification met Rule 23 requirements and was properly managed.	District court abused discretion; class certification was improper.
Did notice to the class satisfy due process requirements?	Notice failed to inform about release implications on ability to challenge state judgments.	Notice conveyed enough terms to apprise class members of settlement.	Notice did not satisfy due process; due process not satisfied.
May Pelzer intervene to object to the settlement?	Permissive intervention is appropriate to present objections and conduct discovery if needed.	Intervention would unduly delay and discovery was not warranted.	district court did not abuse discretion; Pelzer permitted to intervene only to present objections.

UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) (class settlement must be fair, reasonable, and adequate)
Granada Invs., Inc. v. DWG Corp., 962 F.2d 1203 (6th Cir. 1992) (weight of factors in evaluating settlements)
Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983) (inequities in treatment signal unfair settlement)
Franks v. Kroger Co., 649 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1981) (preferential treatment raises fairness concerns)
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (adequacy of representation and counsel qualifications)
Senter v. Gen. Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1976) (adequacy of class representatives analysis)
Young v. Nationwide Mut. Insurance Co., 693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012) (superiority of class action when common threshold issues exist)
Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (class action superiority considerations)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice requirements)
Grunin v. Intl. House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975) (notice and fairness considerations in settlements)