Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01511/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01511-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Renia Bogner and Jeff Bogner, on behalf

of themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Masari Investments, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; Joseph F.

Musumeci, P.C., an Arizona professional

corporation; and Joseph F. Musumeci, a

licensed Arizona attorney,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1511-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On June 2, 2009, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #49. The

Court certified, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3), a class defined as:

(i) All persons with mailing addresses in Arizona, (ii) to whom a letter was

sent or caused to be sent by Defendants in the form of the demand letter sent

to Plaintiffs, (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt allegedly due Masari

Investments, LLC, (iv) arising out of a transaction involving goods or services

primarily used for personal, family, or household purposes, (v) sent on or after

August 18, 2007, (vi) which was not returned as undeliverable by the United

States Postal Service.

Id. at 8, ¶ 2.

The parties have filed a joint motion for preliminary and final approval of class action

settlement agreement. Dkt. #60. Having reviewed the proposed settlement agreement

(Dkt. 60-1) and the supporting memorandum (Dkt. #59), and having considered the relevant

Case 2:08-cv-01511-DGC Document 61 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

factors, see Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998), the

Court finds that the proposed settlement appears to be fundamentally fair, adequate, and

reasonable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The Court will grant the parties’ motion to the extent

they seek preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement.

The Court finds the proposed class notice (Dkt. #60-3) to be adequate except with

respect to the description of the class claims. Id. at 1. The proposed class notice (see id. at 2)

shall be revised to include the following description of the claims:

Plaintiffs allege in this action that collection letters Defendants sent to

Plaintiffs and class members violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., because the letters falsely state that any dispute over

the validity of the alleged debt must be made in writing. Specifically,

Plaintiffs allege (1) that the letters violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) because the

notice provisions of that section do not contain a requirement that a dispute be

made in writing, and (2) that the letters violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e because they

are false and deceptive in that they misrepresent Plaintiffs’ and the class

members’ rights under § 1692g(a). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that

Defendants’ practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and an

award of statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1692k.

See also Dkt. #54 at 2.

Defendants shall, subject to the supervision of class counsel, complete notice to all

potential class members by December 4, 2009. See Dkt. #60-1 at 7-8. The deadline for class

members to opt-out of this action or file objections to the proposed settlement will be

February 5, 2010. See id. at 8. The parties shall, by February 19, 2010, file with the Court

(i) proof of notice to all potential class members and (ii) copies of any responses or

objections received from class members. A hearing will be held on February 26, 2010 at

4:00 p.m. to address any objections and to determine whether final approval of the proposed

class settlement is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties’ joint motion for preliminary and final approval of class action

settlement agreement (Dkt. #60) is granted in part and denied in part. The

motion is granted to the extent the parties seek preliminary approval of the

proposed settlement agreement (Dkt. #60-1).

Case 2:08-cv-01511-DGC Document 61 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

2. The proposed class notice (Dkt. #60-3) shall be revised to include a complete

description of the class claims.

3. Defendants shall complete notice to all class members by December 4, 2009.

4. The deadline for class members to opt-out of this action or file objections to

the proposed settlement is February 5, 2010.

5. The parties shall, by February 19, 2010, file with the Court (i) proof of notice

to all potential class members and (ii) copies of any responses or objections

received from class members.

6. A fairness hearing is set for February 26, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01511-DGC Document 61 Filed 10/28/09 Page 3 of 3