Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in granting parties’ motion to approve proposed settlement of class action relating to plaintiffs’ claim that defendant failed to live up to promises made regarding its general-use, prepaid gift cards, where customers could not use remaining portions on said cards during “split-tender” transactions when customers attempted to purchase items that cost more than remaining portions of said cards. Proposed agreement called for: (1) class members to receive up to $20 in reimbursement for monthly fees actually incurred on remaining balances at times when stores refused to process split-tender transactions, as well as to receive reimbursements of $8 for monthly services fees, $5 for check issuance fees and $5 in other service fees; (2) known class members to receive total of $1.8 million in benefits out of potential $9.6 million in potential benefits; and (3) three sets of attorneys to receive attorney fees totaling $2.2 million and $40,000 in expenses. Ct. rejected Intervenors’ argument that proponents of settlement were required to submit brief in support of proposed settlement prior to deadline for submitting objections to settlement, where Ct. noted that: (1) there is no requirement that said brief be filed; and (2) notice of proposed settlement should provide class members with all information needed to make informed decision regarding merits of settlement. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly consider merits of defendant’s pending appeal on issue as to whether class members were required to arbitrate their individual claims, when finding that proposed $1.8 million benefit to known class members was reasonable.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Class Action