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.

Noye v. Yale Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 15, 2019

T JASON NOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v.
YALE ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant

          ORDER [1]

          Yvette Kane, District United States District Judge.

         AND NOW, on this 15th day of August 2019, in accordance with the Memorandum issued concurrently with this Order, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and notice to class (Doc. No. 89) is GRANTED as follows:

         1. The Court has considered the proposed settlement of the claims asserted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by a class of consumers defined as follows (the “Settlement Class”): all individuals who were subject to at least one consumer report created by Yale containing one or more traffic violations; offenses listed as pending awaiting trial; driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence, or operating while intoxicated offenses; felonies; misdemeanors; or violations, infractions, or summary offenses; which included records provided by Pennell from its court searches, less those reports which included admitted convictions on the application and those where Yale personally spoke to the applicants and confirmed the public record, from November 24, 2010 through November 30, 2017.

         2. The Settlement Agreement entered between the parties appears, upon preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the proposed settlement is preliminarily approved, pending a Final Approval Hearing as provided for herein.

         3. The prerequisites to a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) have been preliminarily satisfied, for settlement purposes only, in that:

(a) The Settlement Class consists of approximately 1, 115 members;[2]
(b) The claims of the Class Representative are typical of those of the other members of the Settlement Class;
(c) There are questions of fact and law that are common to all members of the Settlement Class; and,
(d) The Class Representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Classes and has retained Class Counsel experienced in consumer class action litigation who have and will continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class.

         4. For settlement purposes only, this action is preliminarily maintainable as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) because (a) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and (b) questions of fact and law common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

         5. If the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved, is not upheld on appeal, or is otherwise terminated for any reason before the Effective Date, then the Settlement Class shall be decertified; the Settlement Agreement and all negotiations, proceedings, and documents prepared, and statements made in connection therewith, shall be without prejudice to any Party and shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission or confession by any Party of any fact, matter, or proposition of law; and all Parties shall stand in the same procedural position as if the Settlement Agreement had not been negotiated, made, or filed with the Court.

         6. The Court appoints Plaintiff TJ Noye as the Class Representative. The Court also appoints James A. Francis and David A. Searles of the law firm of Francis & Mailman, P.C. and Marielle Macher of the Community Justice Project as Interim Counsel (“Interim Class Counsel”) for the Class.

         7. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) on Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at the United States District Court, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 in Courtroom 1 at 9:30 a.m. for the following purposes:

(a) To determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be granted final ...

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.