Wess v. Storey, 2:08-cv-00623

Plaintiffs Angela Wess et al. filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) against Storey and related defendants over alleged time-barred collection actions.
Defendants are the assignee of a defunct buy-here, pay-here auto dealer and its counsel, accused of pursuing collection and litigation after expiration of the four-year statute of limitations.
This matter proceeded in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No. 2:08-cv-623, before Judge Michael H. Watson.
The parties reached a Settlement Agreement on March 8, 2010, and filed a Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, along with a motion for fees, costs, class certification, and dismissal, which the court heard and granted.
The court approved the settlement, certified the class under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), and awarded fees, costs, and modest incentive payments to the named class representatives, with dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and without taxing costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).	Wess argues the settlement provides meaningful relief given litigation risks.	Storey contends the settlement resolves disputes without admission of liability and reflects arm's-length negotiations.	The court granted final approval, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under the listed factors.
Whether the class was properly certified under Rule 23(a) and (b).	Class members share common questions related to FDCPA/OCSPA conduct.	Defendants contest commonality and typicality but acknowledge class-wide impact.	The court certified the class under Rule 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2).
Whether the attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments to class representatives are reasonable.	Counsel accepted contingent representation and achieved substantial benefits for the class.	Defendants did not oppose the requested fees and costs.	The court awarded $31,000 to class counsel and $3,000 each to the named plaintiffs as incentives.
Whether dismissal with prejudice and release terms are appropriate.	Settlement terms are consistent with class release without further litigation.	Defendants seek final resolution without continued disputes.	The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and approved the release as part of the settlement.

Franks v. Kroger Co., 649 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1981) (settlement approval factors; class actions favored but require safeguards)
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (three-step process for settlement approval under Rule 23(e))
In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., 137 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (multifactor analysis for fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement)
Bronson v. Bd. of Educ., 604 F. Supp. 68 (S.D. Ohio 1984) (contextual factors for assessing settlements in class actions)
Milken v. Michael, 150 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (nonexclusive list of considerations for reasonableness of settlements)