Martha Vassalle v. Midland Funding (2016)

See Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 365 (6th Cir. 2016) (“The quick-pay provision does not harm the class members in any discernible way, as the size of the settlement fund available to the class will be the same regardless of when the attorneys get paid.”); see also Br. of Appellees 31 (representing that Class Counsel “can return [the] funds [awarded] if approval of the settlement [is] revised in any way”).

The district court awarded the award on other grounds and affirming the same settlement after the district court provided further explanation in 742 F. App’x 846 (5th Cir. 2018)); Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 361 (6th Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential); Tennille v. W.

Found., No. 23-1312 15 865 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2017) (vacating a class-action settlement with an incentive award on other grounds and affirming the same settlement after the district court provided further ex- planation in 742 F. App’x 846 (5th Cir. 2018)); Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 361 (6th Cir. 2016) (unpublished); Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp., 855 F.3d 860 , 867–68 (8th Cir. 2017); Roes, 1– 2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1057 (9th Cir. 2019); Tennille v. We…

Found., No. 23-1312 15 865 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2017) (vacating a class-action settlement with an incentive award on other grounds and affirming the same settlement after the district court provided further ex- planation in 742 F. App’x 846 (5th Cir. 2018)); Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 361 (6th Cir. 2016) (unpublished); Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp., 855 F.3d 860 , 867–68 (8th Cir. 2017); Roes, 1– 2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1057 (9th Cir. 2019); Tennille v. We…

Found., 865 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2017) (vacating a 4 class action settlement with an incentive award on other grounds and affirming 5 the same settlement after district court provided further explanation in 742 F. 6 App’x 846 (5th Cir. 2018)); Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp., 855 F.3d 860, 867 (8th Cir. 7 2017); Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 361 (6th Cir. 2016); Tennille v. W.

Found., 865 F.3d 285, 296 (5th Cir. 2017) (vacating a class action settlement with an incentive award on other grounds and affirming the same settlement after district court provided further explanation in 742 F. App’x 846 (5th Cir. 2018)); Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp., 855 F.3d 860, 861 (8th Cir. 2017); Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 360 (6th Cir. 2016) (un- published); Bezdek v. Vibram USA, Inc., 809 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2015); Tennille v. W.

Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 330 (2010); Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 363 (6th Cir. 2016); Karnofel v. Colvin, No. 4:14-CV-00135, 2015 WL 4644965 , at *1 (N.D.

Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 359 (6th Cir. 2016) [Vassalle II] (quoting UAW v. Gen.

In addition to the seven factors listed above, the Sixth Circuit has also looked to whether “the settlement ‘gives preferential treatment to the named plaintiffs while only perfunctory relief to unnamed class members.’” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 359 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 , 925 n.11 (6th Cir. 1983)).

Mich. Feb. 15, 2022) (finding the parties did not establish adequacy in a combined FLSA and Rule 23 proposed settlement where there was a two-tier recovery system and the representative plaintiff would recover at the higher tier of recovery); cf. Pelzer, 655 F. App’x at 364 (“[T]he most important aspect of the adequacy factor of Rule 23 is that all the class members’ interests are aligned.

To determine the adequacy of representation requirement, a court must consider two elements: “‘1) the representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representative[] will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 364 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Am.

To determine the adequacy of representation requirement, a court must consider two elements: (1) “the representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class”; and (2) “it must appear that the representative] will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 364 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Notice “Due process requires the class notice to be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 368 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting UAW, 497 F.3d at 629 ).

“Put another way, we review the adequacy of class representation to determine whether class counsel are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation, and to consider whether the class members have interests that are not antagonistic to one another.” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 364 (6th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up, and quotations and citations omitted).

To determine the adequacy of representation requirement, a court must consider two elements: “1) the Case No. 2:20-cv-6229 Page 5 of 22 representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representative[] will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 364 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Corp., 356 F.3d 781 , 784 (7th Cir.2004) (“[T]he reason for appealing to cy pres is to prevent the defendant from walking away from the litigation scot-free because of the infeasibility of distributing the proceeds of the settlement...to the class members.”). 7 Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 359 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. High Tech.

Notice “Due process requires the class notice to be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an -12- opportunity to present their objections.’” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 368 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting UAW, 497 F.3d at 629 ).

Notice “Due process requires the class notice to be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an -12- opportunity to present their objections.’” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 368 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting UAW, 497 F.3d at 629 ).

Vassalle, 655 F. App'x 352, 359 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing UAW, 497 F.3d at 641 ).

“The purpose of the law-of-the-case doctrine is to ensure that the same issue presented a second time in the same case in the same court should lead to the same result.” Howe II, 801 F.3d at 739 (emphases in original) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983) (“the [law-of-the-case] doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent sta…

Agr., ECF No. 64, at 24 ¶ 5.1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel argue that “[s]uch ‘provisions are common.’” (Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Final Approval, ECF No. 76-1, at 16 (quoting Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 365 (6th Cir. 2016)).) While courts in this circuit have found “quick-pay” provisions like this one to be objectionable in certain cases, see, e.g., Hart v. BHH, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 74 , 77 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), the Court does not find such an arrangement to be problematic here be…

“Put another way, [courts] ‘review[] the adequacy of class representation to determine whether class counsel are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation, and to consider whether the class members have interests that are not antagonistic to one another.’” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 364 (6th Cir. 2016) (second alteration in original) (quoting Stout v. J.D.

Thus, while the release eliminates some avenues class members could use to seek relief, it leaves many others open.” Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 361 (6th Cir. 2016).

See, e.g., Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 365 (6th Cir. 2016) (“The quick-pay provision does not harm the class members in any discernible way, as the size of the settlement fund available to the class will be the same regardless of when the attorneys get paid.”); In re Whirpool Corp. Front-loading Washer Prod.

The Sixth Circuit has articulated factors to help courts determine whether a settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” for preliminary approval: “(1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7) the public int…

The Sixth Circuit has set forth factors to help courts determine whether a settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” for purposes of preliminary approval: “(1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery 17 engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7) t…

See, e.g., Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App’x 352, 362 (6th Cir. 2016) (“A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove that he has suffered an irreparable injury, and a district court cannot issue such an injunction without providing its reasons, see Fed.

Co., 710 F.2d 271 , 275 (6th Cir. 1983)); see also Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655 F. App'x 352, 365 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding same); see also Moore v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2701, 2017 U.S. Dist.