Martha Vassalle v. Midland Funding, 655 F. App'x 352

This appeal concerns a nationwide class settlement resolving FDCPA and related state-law claims alleging Midland used affidavits that falsely attested to affiants’ personal knowledge in debt-collection suits.
The Sixth Circuit previously vacated approval of an earlier settlement (Vassalle I) because named plaintiffs received debt forgiveness and large incentive awards while unnamed class members got minimal cash and were barred from using the affidavit falsity as a defense; the case was remanded.
On remand the parties negotiated a revised settlement: Midland pays $5.2 million (≈ $18.75 to claimants), injunctive reforms of affidavit practices (five-year term) monitored by a Special Master, reduced incentive awards ($1,000 each), and a narrower release preserving individual defenses and vacatur actions (but barring collective vacatur suits).
The district court approved the revised settlement, certified the class, and found the notice adequate; objectors appealed the approval, certification, and notice.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the revised agreement cured the prior preferential-treatment problems, preserved class members’ abilities to challenge affidavits in individual proceedings, and that the injunction and notice were acceptable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revised settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate	Settlement provides class relief, injunctive reforms, and reasonable attorney and incentive awards; cures prior defects	Settlement is reasonable; parties bargained for these terms	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; disparity cured and relief adequate
Whether class certification satisfies adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4)	Named plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and vigorously represent class; interests aligned post-revision	Objectors: named plaintiffs remain inadequate due to counsel payments, sealed materials, and limits on vacatur relief	Affirmed: adequacy satisfied; no antagonistic incentives and counsel qualified
Whether Rule 23(b)(3) superiority is met	Class action is superior given common threshold issues, advanced posture, and limited individual recoveries; members can opt out	Objectors: release and limits on collective vacatur impair superiority and individual control	Affirmed: narrowing of release and preserved individual defenses restore superiority
Whether class notice satisfied due process	Notice described settlement terms, release exceptions, and how to get more information; encouraged consulting counsel	Objectors: notice omitted certain limitations (e.g., scope of vacatur relief) and failed to disclose sealed materials	Affirmed: notice reasonably apprised class; omissions not so misleading as to violate due process

Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2013) (prior opinion vacating earlier settlement for preferential treatment of named plaintiffs)
UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) (factors for approving class settlements)
Robinson v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 566 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for settlement approval)
Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983) (settlement may be invalid if it gives preferential treatment to named plaintiffs)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (enforcement of settlements is contractual in nature)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (requirements for permanent injunction)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23(a) requirements)
Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 9 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 1993) (reasonableness standard for common-fund fee awards)
Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (superiority and when individual suits are impracticable)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due-process standard for class notice)