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.

Sheean v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

July 8, 2019

Michael Sheean, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. Defendant.

          [PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

          GEORGE CARAM STEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This Court having been advised that the parties to this action, Michael Sheean (“Plaintiff” or “Class Representative”), and Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. (“Defendant”), through their respective counsel, have agreed, subject to this Court's approval following notice to the settlement class members and a hearing, to settle the above-captioned lawsuit (“Lawsuit”) upon the terms and conditions set forth in the parties' class action settlement agreement (“Agreement”), which Plaintiff filed with this Court:

         NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the Agreement and all of the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, and it appearing to this Court that, upon preliminary examination, the proposed settlement appears fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that a hearing should and will be held on November 14, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom #206, after notice to the settlement class members, to confirm that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether a final order and judgment should be entered in this Lawsuit:

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

         This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Lawsuit and over all settling parties.

         In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, Defendant, through a claims administrator, will cause to be served written notice of the proposed class settlement on the United States Attorney General and the Attorneys General of each state in which any settlement class member resides.

         This Court conditionally certifies this case as a class action under to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following settlement classes:

TCPA Class: All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (3) from November 11, 2016 through February 25, 2019, (4) either (i) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to the intended recipient of Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.'s calls, or (ii) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, to which Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. was previously instructed to stop placing calls or informed that the number was a wrong number.
FDCPA Class: All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) from May 15, 2017 through February 25, 2019, (3) and in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (4) after Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. was instructed to stop placing calls to his or her telephone number or informed that the number was a wrong number.

         Defendant identified a total of 349, 744 TCPA settlement class members and 571 FDCPA settlement class members.

         This Court appoints Michael Sheean as the representative for the settlement classes, and appoints Aaron D. Radbil, Michael L. Greenwald, and James L. Davidson, of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, as class counsel.

         This Court preliminarily finds, for settlement purposes only, that this action satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23, namely:

A. The settlement class members are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all of them is impracticable;
B. There are questions of law and fact common to the settlement class members, which predominate over any individual questions;
C. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the settlement class members;
D. Plaintiff and class counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all of the settlement class members; and
E. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy, and a class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

         This Court preliminarily finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the settlement class members, especially in light of the benefits to the settlement class members, the strength of Plaintiff's case, the complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation, the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties, the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, and, the opinions of class counsel. See N.Y. State Teachers' Ret. Sys. v. Gen. Motors Co., 315 F.R.D. 226, 236 (E.D. Mich. 2016).

         This Court also considered the following factors in preliminarily finding that the settlement of this action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, ...


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.