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.

Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

April 27, 2017

MEENA ARTHUR DATTA, Plaintiff,
v.
ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AWARDING COSTS RE: DKT. NO. 137, 139

          LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Meena Arthur Datta (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC (“Defendant”).[1] Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, ECF No. 137, and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, ECF No. 139.

         WHEREAS, a class action is pending before the Court in Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, No. 15-CV-00188-LHK;

         WHEREAS, the Court has received and reviewed the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release entered into between Meena Arthur Data as class representative and Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, dated on or about November 16, 2016 (the “Settlement Agreement”), and has considered the terms of the proposed settlement set forth therein;

         WHEREAS, all terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein;

         WHEREAS, on March 18, 2016, this Court certified the following Settlement Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3): (i) all persons with addresses in California, (ii) to whom Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a collection letter in the form of Exhibit “1” in an envelope in the form of Exhibit “2, ” (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., (iv) which was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (v) which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office, (vi) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action through the date of class certification. ECF No. 66.

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's ruling certifying the class: (A) the class as defined is sufficiently numerous such that joinder is impracticable; (B) common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members, and include whether or not Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civil Code § 1788.17 as alleged in the Complaint, (C) the claims of the named plaintiff are typical of the Class Members' claims; (D) the named plaintiff is appropriate and adequate representatives of the Class and her attorneys are qualified to serve as counsel for Plaintiff and the Class (E) a class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Members

         WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, this Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, approving the form and method of notice with amendments, and setting a date and time for a Final Approval Hearing to consider whether the Settlement should be finally approved by the Court as being fair, adequate, and reasonable, ECF No. 133 (“Preliminary Approval Order”);

         WHEREAS, the Preliminary Approval Order further directed that all Class members be given notice of the Settlement Agreement and of the date for the Final Approval Hearing;

         WHEREAS, the Court has received the declaration of the Claims Administrator attesting to the mailing of the Notice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, ECF No. 140;

         WHEREAS, no objections have been made to the Settlement; and

         WHEREAS, the Court having conducted a Final Approval Hearing on April 27, 2016, and having considered the arguments presented, all papers filed and all proceedings had therein;

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

         1. That all defined terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement; 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter ...


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.