Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jeffrey Schulken and Jenifer Schulken, Individually and On Behalf of A Class of Similarly Situated v. Washington Mutual Bank and Jpmorgan Chase Bank

November 13, 2012

JEFFREY SCHULKEN AND JENIFER SCHULKEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Lucy H. Koh

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS, a putative class action is pending before the Court entitled Schulken v. 3

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK and Agreement dated April 26, 2012 which, together with the Exhibits attached thereto, sets forth 7 the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice as 8 to Defendant upon the terms and conditions contained therein (the "Settlement Agreement"), 9 and the Court having read and considered the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits attached 10 thereto, and the Court having considered all of the submissions and arguments with respect to 11 the Motion for Final Approval and having held a Fairness Hearing on November 8, 2012; 12

WHEREAS, on January 5, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying 13 in part Plaintiffs' revised Motion for Class Certification and held that Plaintiffs met all the 14 requirements of Rule 23 and certified the "Inability to Verify Class" and the "TILA Notice 15

Subclass" pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), defined as follows: 16

The Inability to Verify Class: All HELOC borrowers nationwide who were parties to the "Schulken HELOC Contract" and whose HELOCs Chase blocked through 17 the 4506-T Program when the customers did not provide either a complete IRS Form 4506-T, paystubs, or both, upon Chase's request. 18

HELOC Contract to whom Chase sent a notice of suspension stating that Chase's reason for suspending the HELOC was a purported inability to verify the 20 borrower's financial circumstances. 21

Agreement with respect to the Inability to Verify Class and TILA Notice Subclass, as certified 23 by the Court. 24

Court's Preliminary Approval Order, and the substance of and dissemination program for the 26

Notice, which included direct U.S. mail notice and the creation of a settlement website, fully 27 complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Due Process, constituted the best 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL 1 CASE NO. 09-CV-2708-LHK ORDER

Washington Mutual Bank and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,Case No. 09-cv-2708-LHK; and 4

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ("Defendant" or "Chase") have agreed on a Settlement 6

The TILA Notice Subclass: All Inability to Verify Class members with the Schulken 19

WHEREAS, on July 25, 2012, this Court preliminarily approved the Settlement 22

WHEREAS, Notice to the Class Members has been provided in accordance with the 25 notice practicable under the circumstances, and provided due and sufficient notice to all persons 2 entitled to notice of the Settlement of this Action; 3

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement was arrived at as a result of arms' length 4 negotiations conducted in good faith by experienced attorneys familiar with the legal and 5 factual issues of this case and with the assistance of a mediator, Judge Wayne Andersen (Ret.), 6 and thus is supported by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel; 7

WHEREAS, the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, 8 adequate, and in the best interests of the Class and Subclass in light of the complexity, expense, 9 and duration of litigation and the risks involved in establishing liability and damages and in 10 maintaining the Action through trial and appeal; 11

WHEREAS, the Settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement 12 constitutes fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the 13

Released Parties. The Court finds that the settlement consideration provided to Class Members 14 is reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances of the claims and defenses asserted in the 15

Action, and the potential risks and likelihood of success of alternatively pursuing trials on the 16 merits; 17

Addendum A hereto are found to have validly excluded themselves from the Settlement in 19 accordance with the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order. 20

WHEREAS, the persons listed as having filed timely requests for exclusion listed on 18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. The Settlement Agreement is finally approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and 22 in the best interests of the Class. The Parties are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.