Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02540/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02540-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD HOLMES, an individual, on his

own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COLLECTION BUREAU OF AMERICA, a

California corporation, and BAY AREA

CREDIT SERVICE, LLC, a California limited

liability company, and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02540 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT

A TO MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT COLLECTION

BUREAU OF AMERICA

This matter was filed as a class action on behalf of all persons whom defendants — which

are both collections agencies — reported to credit reporting agencies as owing undisputed debts

when the debts were in fact disputed. Putative class representative Harold Holmes has settled his

individual claims with defendants and dismissed the action without settling on behalf of the class. 

Plaintiff’s settlement agreement with one defendant, Collection Bureau of America, was

submitted under seal as exhibit A to plaintiff’s motion to dismiss CBA. Plaintiff moves to seal

exhibit A.

The motion to seal is GRANTED. However, this in no way implies that the Court has

blessed the settlement of plaintiff’s individual claims without vindicating the rights of the absent

class members. Rule 23(e) was changed in 2003 to permit such settlements before class

certification without court approval, but such settlements lend themselves to potential abuse

Case 3:09-cv-02540-WHA Document 90 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

because they do not benefit the absent class members but nevertheless may use their presence to

inflate the value of settlement for individual plaintiffs and their attorneys. The Court will not

place its imprimatur on a settlement where there is no way to tell whether or not any such abuse

occurred here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02540-WHA Document 90 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2