Matus v. Sport Squad, Inc.
0:24-cv-60954
| S.D. Fla. | Aug 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Greg Matus filed a class action against Sport Squad, Inc. d/b/a JOOLA, alleging unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
- The claims relate to nationwide purchasers of specific JOOLA Gen 3 pickleball paddles, which were marketed as approved by USA Pickleball when they were not.
- The proposed settlement class includes all U.S. residents who own and possess a JOOLA Gen 3 Paddle, excluding those who previously returned all paddles under a prior offer.
- The settlement provides eligible class members a $300 refund with proof of purchase or a $150 gift code without proof; attorneys’ fees and administration costs are separately paid by defendant.
- Plaintiff moved for provisional class certification, preliminary settlement approval, appointment of class representative and counsel, approval of a notice plan, and scheduling of a final approval hearing.
- The case concerns only claims against the defendant; the related indemnification claims against USA Pickleball Association are not resolved by this settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class Certification (Rule 23) | Class is numerous, meets commonality, typicality, adequacy | Unopposed | Class meets Rule 23 prerequisites, should be certified |
| Fairness of Proposed Settlement | Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and negotiated fairly | Unopposed | Settlement is within range of approval, is fair & adequate |
| Appointment of Class Representative | Matus is typical, has no conflicts, will adequately represent | Unopposed | Matus should be appointed class representative |
| Appointment of Class Counsel | Proposed counsel are qualified and experienced | Unopposed | Proposed co-lead counsel should be appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859 (11th Cir. 1986) (Numerosity requirement for class certification satisfied with as few as 31 class members)
- Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck, 202 F.R.D. 310 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (Commonality met where allegations involve a common course of conduct)
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (Typicality measured by nexus between named representative's claims and those of class)
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (Adequacy of representation requires no substantial conflicts of interest)