Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00563/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00563-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0563-WS-C

 )

PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary 

Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class (doc. 83). The 

Motion has been briefed and is now ripe for disposition.

I. Background.

Plaintiff, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, brought this putative class action against 

defendants, Perfumania Holdings, Inc., Perfumania, Inc., Quality King Fragrance, Inc., and 

Quality Fragrance Group, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,

47 U.S.C. § 227, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the “TCPA”). In 

particular, Family Medicine maintained that it had received unsolicited “junk faxes” advertising 

defendants’ products on a pair of occasions in June 2015 and September 2015, in violation of the 

TCPA’s prohibition on transmission of unsolicited advertisements by facsimile machine, 

computer, or other device. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). By its terms, the TCPA provides for a 

private right of action, and authorizes recovery of the greater of actual damages or statutory 

damages of $500, or up to treble that amount for willful or knowing violations. See 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3).

This action was litigated vigorously for nearly a year, with substantial motion practice 

and discovery. On October 5, 2016, however, the parties participated in a mediation that yielded 

settlement of this dispute in its entirety. The agreement is memorialized in a 42-page Settlement 

Agreement and Release executed by the parties and their counsel on November 30, 2016. (See

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 17
-2-

doc. 84, Exh. 1.) In summary, the settlement terms consist of the following: (i) defendants pay 

the sum of $463,349.50 in cash, to be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members making 

claims, such distributions not to exceed $333.33 per compensable fax transmission; (ii) each 

class member submitting a valid claim receives a $10.00 gift card valid for purchase of 

designated fragrances or perfume brands at Perfumania, Inc. retail stores; (iii) defendants pay the 

first $10,000 of notice and claims administration costs, with the remainder (forecast to be 

roughly $15,000) to be deducted from the settlement proceeds; and (iv) plaintiff’s attorney’s fees 

and litigation costs of up to one-third of the total settlement amount will be paid from the 

settlement proceeds. Plaintiff, with the acquiescence of defendants, now petitions the Court for 

preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and conditional certification of a settlement 

class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Class.

Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a settlement class (the “Settlement Class”) 

whose parameters would be defined as follows:

“All Persons with fax numbers who, between January 1, 2011 through and 

including the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, received any 

successful transmission of an unsolicited fax from Defendants advertising 

Defendants’ products and/or services.”

(Doc. 84, Exh. 1, § 8.3.) Based on defendants’ records of fax transmissions during the relevant 

time period, the parties estimate that approximately 6,500 persons and entities will fall within the 

definitional boundaries of this Settlement Class definition.

“A class action may be maintained only when it satisfies all the requirements of 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b).” Rutstein v. 

Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Here, 

Family Medicine seeks certification of a settlement class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Before 

reaching the Rule 23 criteria, the Court must determine whether the proposed class is 

“adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.” Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302, 

1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).1 “In order to establish ascertainability, the plaintiff 

 1 Actually, the very first question to examine in the class certification context is 

whether “at least one named class representative has Article III standing to raise each class 

subclaim.” Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 810 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). It is a 

“well-settled rule” that “any analysis of class certification must begin with the issue of standing.” 

(Continued)

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 17
-3-

must propose an administratively feasible method by which class members can be identified.” 

Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 621 Fed.Appx. 945, 947 (11th Cir. June 9, 2015). 

“Administrative feasibility means that identifying class members is a manageable process that 

does not require much, if any, individual inquiry.” Bussey v. Macon County Greyhound Park, 

Inc., 562 Fed.Appx. 782, 787 (11th Cir. Apr. 2, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Family Medicine has met this requirement by proposing a manageable, logistically 

straightforward means of identifying class members. In particular, Family Medicine explains 

that defendants sent the subject faxes via computer; that defendants have maintained 

computerized records identifying the recipients by name and fax number; that defendants have 

also maintained marketing spreadsheets containing additional information concerning class 

members; and that plaintiff and the settlement administrator thus have access to a list (the 

“Notice List”) containing the names, addresses, fax numbers, and frequency and dates of faxes 

transmitted for each potential class number. As such, the Notice List provides a readily 

available, administratively feasible means of identifying and locating all class members via a 

manageable process that will require little, if any, individual inquiry. The ascertainability 

prerequisite for class certification is thus satisfied here.

Having determined that Family Medicine’s proposed settlement class is adequately 

defined and clearly ascertainable, the Court moves on to consider the specifications of Rule 

 

Id. (citation omitted). “To establish Article III standing, an injury must be concrete, 

particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable 

by a favorable ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1147, 185 

L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, it cannot seriously be 

questioned that Family Medicine, as the recipient of two unsolicited junk faxes from defendants, 

possesses the requisite Article III standing to raise claims under the TCPA. See Palm Beach 

Golf Center-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A., 781 F.3d 1245, 1251 (11th Cir. 2015) (in 

TCPA junk fax case, “[w]e find that Palm Beach Golf has Article III standing sufficient to 

satisfy the injury requirement because it has suffered a concrete and personalized injury in the 

form of the occupation of its fax machine for the period of time required for the electronic 

transmission of the data (which, in this case was one minute).”). In Palm Beach Golf, the 

Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff had satisfied the “injury” requirement for Article III 

standing because “it is indisputable that Palm Beach Golf’s fax machine was occupied during 

B2B’s successful transmission of the unsolicited fax advertisement.” Id. at 1253. The same is 

true with respect to Family Medicine’s receipt of Perfumania / Quality Fragrance faxes. Thus, 

Family Medicine has Article III standing to pursue the class claims.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 17
-4-

23(a). See Little, 691 F.3d at 1304 (“If the plaintiff’s proposed class is adequately defined and 

clearly ascertainable, the plaintiff must then establish the four requirements listed in Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23(a).”). The Rule 23(a) requirements for certification of any class action are 

that “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are 

questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative 

parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule 23(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see also 

Calderone v. Scott, 838 F.3d 1101, 1104 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Rule 23(a) requires every putative 

class to satisfy the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of 

representation.”). 

With respect to the Rule 23(a)(1) “numerosity” requirement, the parties have identified 

approximately 6,500 class members within the scope of the proposed class definition. That 

volume of class members is plainly “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,” 

so as to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).

For purposes of the “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), “even a single common 

question will do.” Carriuolo v. General Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977, 984 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation 

omitted). “That common contention ... must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide 

resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is 

central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. (citations omitted). Family 

Medicine identifies as common issues of fact or law the following, among others: whether 

defendants are subject to the TCPA, whether defendants’ facsimile transmissions violated the 

TCPA, and whether class members are entitled to statutory damages. Under the circumstances, 

the Court agrees with plaintiff that Rule 23(a)(2) commonality has been adequately established.

The Rule 23(a)(3) “typicality” requirement turns on whether “the claims or defenses of 

the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are 

based on the same legal theory.” Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1357 (11th

Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, Family Medicine and all proposed class members are alleged 

to have been harmed in the same manner (i.e., receipt of unsolicited junk faxes occupying their 

fax machines for a brief period of time) by the same course of conduct by the same defendants in 

the same time period, with the same legal remedy (i.e., statutory damages for violation of the 

TCPA). Family Medicine’s claims appear unremarkable and facially indistinguishable from 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 17
-5-

those of other putative class members; therefore, the “typicality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is 

satisfied.

The last of the Rule 23(a) factors is found at Rule 23(a)(4), which imposes an “adequacy 

of representation” requirement. “This adequacy of representation analysis encompasses two 

separate inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the 

representatives and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the 

action.” Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The record reveals no perceptible conflicts of 

interest between Family Medicine and class members; to the contrary, their economic interests

and litigation objectives appear fully aligned. Moreover, plaintiff has shown that Family 

Medicine will adequately prosecute this action. Indeed, Family Medicine has established a 

proven track record in this case of prosecuting its claims vigorously and zealously, and there is 

no reason to believe it will not continue to do so on behalf of the class following conditional 

certification. The same holds true for Family Medicine’s counsel of record, who are well 

qualified to represent classwide interests here. See id. (observing that named representatives 

must “vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel” in order to satisfy 

Rule 23(a)(4)). On this showing, the Court readily concludes that Family Medicine will fairly 

and adequately protect the interests of the class, as required by Rule 23(a)(4). Thus, plaintiff has 

met its burden of establishing all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites. For class certification to be 

appropriate, however, Family Medicine must also satisfy one prong of Rule 23(b). Plaintiff has 

designated this case as fitting within the parameters of Rule 23(b)(3), so the analysis shifts to that 

subsection.

In order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must show (in addition to the Rule 23(a) 

factors discussed previously) “(1) that common questions of law or fact predominate over 

questions affecting only individual class members (‘predominance’); and (2) that a class action is 

superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy (‘superiority’).” Calderone,

838 F.3d at 1105 (citations omitted); see also Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265 

(11th Cir. 2009) (same). As to the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement, the test is whether 

common issues “have a direct impact on every class member’s effort to establish liability and on 

every class member’s entitlement to injunctive and monetary relief.” Carriuolo, 823 F.3d at 985 

(citation omitted). The predominance requirement is not met if, “as a practical matter, the 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 5 of 17
-6-

resolution of an overarching common issue breaks down into an unmanageable variety of 

individual legal and factual issues.” Id. Here, the Court finds that common issues of law and 

fact predominate. Common fact questions include whether defendants sent the subject faxes and 

whether those faxes were unsolicited. Common legal questions include whether defendants are 

subject to the TCPA and whether the fax transmissions in question violate the TCPA (which 

subsumes such questions as whether they include the requisite opt-out notice). Resolution of 

those common questions will directly impact every class member’s effort to establish liability 

and a right to relief. Thus, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is properly found here.2 Moreover, class 

treatment is superior to other available means of adjudicating the controversy given the sheer 

volume of potential class members, the identity or near-identity of factual and legal issues 

implicated by their claims, and the administrative simplicity of identifying and notifying 

potential class members using defendants’ computerized records and marketing spreadsheets. 

Plaintiff has thus met its burden of showing that conditional certification is appropriate pursuant 

to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3)

For all of the foregoing reasons, and for purposes of settlement only, the Court

preliminarily grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of Settlement Class. The TCPA claims 

presented in Counts I, II and III of the Amended Class Action Complaint are conditionally 

 2 That said, the Court recognizes that there are scenarios in which resolution of the 

common questions could break down into a fragmentary, plaintiff-specific morass. For example, 

if defendants were pursuing the statutory exemption set forth at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)(i)-(iii), 

which relates to consent by the recipient, it requires no leap of logic to envision the litigation 

bogging down in individual-specific queries such as whether defendants had “an established 

business relationship with the recipient” and whether the recipient engaged in “voluntary 

communication” to supply defendants with its fax number, all on a class-member-by-classmember basis. Those types of concerns could render the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis 

problematic, at best. Here, however, the parties represent that, as part of their proposed 

settlement, “Defendants are agreeing to take class members at their word when they submit their 

claims that they did not provide consent. This removes consent as a contested issue ....” (Doc. 

84, at 21.) The point is that, while the Court finds the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements to be satisfied 

in the specific procedural posture of this litigation – with its proposed settlement agreement, the 

request for conditional certification to implement and effectuate the settlement, and the absence 

of any consent defense – the undersigned expresses no opinion as to the viability of Rule 

23(b)(3) certification in a case like this in the absence of a settlement removing the individualspecific consent issue from the field of play.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 6 of 17
-7-

certified as a class action that Family Medicine (as class representative) may pursue on behalf of 

the following settlement class:

“All Persons with fax numbers who, between January 1, 2011 through and 

including the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, received any 

successful transmission of an unsolicited fax from Defendants advertising 

Defendants’ products and/or services.”

Named plaintiff, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, is preliminarily appointed as the 

representative of the settlement class.

A remaining aspect of the conditional certification portion of plaintiff’s Motion is 

plaintiff’s request for appointment of class counsel. See Rule 23(c)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. (“An 

order that certifies a class action must define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses, 

and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g).”). Based on its determinations that they are 

qualified, capable and willing to provide competent, zealous, and conflict-free representation to

the class, the Court provisionally appoints Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann and James H. 

McFerrin as class counsel to represent the settlement class, pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1)-(2), 

Fed.R.Civ.P.

3

III. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

In its Motion, Family Medicine also seeks preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed 

classwide settlement. Of course, any such settlement requires judicial approval. See Rule 23(e), 

Fed.R.Civ.P. (“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily 

dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.”). “Preliminary approval of a 

proposed class action settlement does not involve a determination of the merits of the proposed 

settlement or affect the substantive rights of any class member.” Figueroa v. Sharper Image 

Corp., 517 F. Supp.2d 1292, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2007). During the preliminary approval process, 

“the court simply determines whether the proposed settlement falls within the range of possible 

approval.” Id. at 1298 (citations omitted); see also In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 

275 F.R.D. 654, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed 

settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies 

 3 Counsel have made an adequate showing on the record of their qualifications and 

experience in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(g)(1). See Zimmermann Decl. 

(doc. 84, Exh. 6), ¶¶ 12-16; McFerrin Decl. (doc. 84, Exh. 7), ¶¶ 12-14 & n.1.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 7 of 17
-8-

and the settlement falls within the range of reason.”) (citation omitted). If so, then the approving 

judge proceeds “to communicate the proposed settlement to the class, review and approve the 

proposed form of notice to the class, and to authorize the manner and form of dissemination of 

the notice.” Figueroa, 517 F. Supp.2d at 1299.

A. Terms of Settlement.

As noted, the settlement contemplates that class members will receive cash and gift cards, 

with defendants also contributing limited additional funds for notice and claims administration. 

The cash component of the settlement would entail defendants making a payment of $463,349.50 

to be distributed on a pro rata basis to those class members who submit timely claims, with such

pro rata share not to exceed $333.33 per compensable fax. Before distribution, this gross 

settlement fund will be reduced by the following amounts: (i) a deduction for notice and claims 

administration costs in excess of $10,000; (ii) a deduction for class counsel’s attorney’s fees and 

litigation expenses, up to a maximum of one-third of the gross settlement fund less 

administration costs; and (iii) a deduction for an incentive award to the class representative, 

Family Medicine, of up to $10,000. The gift card component of the settlement would involve

defendants providing each class member submitting a claim (irrespective of the number of 

compensable faxes) with a single $10.00 gift card valid toward the purchase of certain fragrances 

or perfume brands at any Perfumania, Inc. retail store. And finally, defendants would make a

separate $10,000 payment toward notice and claims administration costs, with the remaining 

such costs (estimated at $15,000) to be deducted from the gross settlement fund.

Because of uncertainty over the number of claims, it is impossible to ascertain with 

precision what the pro rata payout per fax will be. Although calculations may be made to reach 

a ballpark estimate, the results vary widely depending on assumptions concerning class 

participation rate and the total number of compensable faxes for which valid claims are 

submitted.4 What is clear, however, is that within any reasonable range of assumptions, the pro 

 4 As a hypothetical exercise, suppose that 30% of the conditionally certified class 

of approximately 6,500 persons or entities files a claim. Suppose further that participating class 

members received, on average, two compensable faxes (just as class representative Family 

Medicine did). Suppose further that attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and deductions for 

claims administration costs consume one-third of the total settlement fund. In that event, the pro 

rata share per compensable fax would be equal to $79.21 (or ($463,349.50 x 2/3) divided by 

(6,500 x .3 x 2)). The higher the participation rate by the settlement class and the larger the 

(Continued)

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 8 of 17
-9-

rata share will be far below both the $500 - $1,500 per violative fax that the TCPA provides as 

statutory damages, and the $333.33 cap to which the parties agreed. That is not necessarily a 

fatal defect. After all, it is far from certain that class members would have recovered anything 

had the claims proceeded to judgment, particularly in light of defendants’ consent defense. 

Furthermore, if class members had prevailed on the merits and received judgment for the full 

amount of statutory damages, the resulting multimillion dollar award may have been 

unrecoverable, in light of plaintiff’s information concerning defendants’ profitability and 

financial condition. It also bears consideration that the proposed settlement brings an end to the 

litigation now, without a delay of years (and the accompanying expense of litigation) to obtain a 

judgment. And the information before the Court is that the parties (represented by experienced 

counsel) negotiated this settlement at arm’s length over a period of months, with the assistance of 

a qualified mediator. All of these factors counsel in favor of a conclusion that the settlement 

terms fall within the range of reason. See, e.g., Nelson v. Mead Johnson & Johnson Co., 484 

Fed.Appx. 429, 434 (11th Cir. July 20, 2012) (“In determining whether the class action settlement 

is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the district court considers these factors: (1) the likelihood of 

success at trial; (2) the range of possible recovery; (3) the point on or below the range of possible 

recovery at which a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; (4) the complexity, expense and 

duration of litigation; (5) the substance and amount of opposition to the settlement; and (6) the 

stage of proceedings at which the settlement was achieved.”).

The Court makes no final determination at this time as to the fairness, reasonableness and 

adequacy of the settlement. Indeed, it would be premature and inappropriate to do so without 

having first given notice and an opportunity to object to all members of the settlement class. 

Nothing herein forecloses or pretermits any class member’s ability to object to the settlement as 

unfair, unreasonable or inadequate; to the contrary, any such objections will be scrutinized 

closely before any ruling on the issue of final approval is made. What the Court does conclude 

 

average number of compensable faxes per participating class member, the greater the 

denominator will be and, hence, the smaller the pro rata share. Thus, if 50% of the class 

submitted claims and the average number of compensable faxes was four, then the pro rata share 

would drop to $23.76 (or ($463,349.50 x 2/3) divided by (6,500 x .5 x 4)).

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 9 of 17
-10-

at this time is that the terms of the proposed settlement fall within the range of possible approval, 

thereby warranting preliminary approval.

B. Notice.

Prior to final approval of a class action settlement, “[t]he court must direct notice in a 

reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Rule 23(e)(1), 

Fed.R.Civ.P. Because the settlement class has been conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 

23(b)(3), the rules also require that “the court must direct to class members the best notice that is 

practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be 

identified through reasonable effort.” Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. The notice requirement, 

which is derived from Rule 23 and the Due Process Clause, applies to both the content of the 

notice and the manner of its distribution. See Adams v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 493 

F.3d 1276, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that class actions “are subject to the 

requirements of due process” and that, in determining whether class notice satisfies such 

requirements, one must look to both “the language of the notices and the manner of their 

distribution”) (citation omitted); In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.2d 1088, 

1103 (5th Cir. 1977) (to comport with due process, “it is not only necessary that the notice reach 

the parties affected but that it convey the required information”) (citations omitted).

In terms of content, Rule 23 dictates that the notice transmitted to class members “must 

clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) 

the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class 

member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court 

will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for 

requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 

23(c)(3).” Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. Additionally, due process requires that the notice 

adequately describe class members’ substantive claims and “must also contain information 

reasonably necessary to make a decision to remain a class member and be bound by the final 

judgment.” Adams, 493 F.3d at 1286 (citation omitted).

Plaintiff has submitted a proposed form of notice as Exhibit 4 to its Memorandum Brief 

(doc. 84) in support of the motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The proposed notice 

includes the following critical disclosures, all in plain, easy-to-understand language: (i) the 

recipient is receiving notice because records show that it may have received an unsolicited fax 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 10 of 17
-11-

advertisement from defendants; (ii) the lawsuit involves claims under the TCPA for unsolicited 

fax advertisements promoting defendants’ products without prior consent or an established 

relationship; (iii) the precise class definition; (iv) the names and contact information of class 

counsel; (v) the terms of settlement; (vi) an explanation that the recipient’s share of settlement 

proceeds depends on the number of claims, along with a low-end hypothetical calculation under 

which class members would receive approximately $15.00 per fax; (vii) a detailed description of 

each class member’s options, including the right to submit a claim form to receive settlement 

funds, the right to exclude oneself from the settlement by submitting a notice of exclusion, the 

right to object in a specified manner, and the option of doing nothing and remaining bound by 

the settlement without receiving compensation; (viii) a clear statement that if the recipient 

remained in the class, and the settlement were approved, then he or she would release all TCPArelated claims against defendants; and (ix) the date, time and location of the final approval 

hearing, and the right of each class member and/or his/her attorneys to attend and be heard. 

(Doc. 84, Exh. 4.) After careful examination of the proposed form of notice, the Court is 

satisfied that its content comports with both Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process requirements.5

 5 Nonetheless, several corrections to the proposed form of notice are necessary. On 

page 2, the notice indicates as follows: “If you do not wish to participate in the Settlement, you 

may exclude yourself from the Settlement by sending (via US Mail) a letter of notice of your 

intent to be excluded from the settlement to the Settlement Class Administrator, RG2 Claims 

Administration LLC.” (Doc. 84, Exh. 4, § V(2).) Nowhere in that paragraph – or anywhere else 

in the proposed notice, for that matter – is a mailing address for RG2 Claims Administration 

listed. Needless to say, it would be difficult for class members desiring to opt out to send a 

notice of exclusion “via US Mail” to a claims administrator for which no mailing address is 

provided. (To be sure, the claims administrator’s address is set forth on the claim form; 

however, it is unreasonable to expect class members who do not intend to file a claim to 

scrutinize a claim form to locate an address to which they must transmit notice of exclusion.) 

This defect must be corrected. Furthermore, in four different places, the proposed form of notice 

identifies the courthouse where pleadings are on file, where objections should be submitted, and 

where the final hearing will be held as the Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse in 

Birmingham, Alabama. (See doc. 84, Exh. 4, §§ V(3), VI, VII, VIII.) This is incorrect. This 

action is not pending in the Northern District of Alabama, and the Hugo L. Black United States 

Courthouse has no nexus to this action. Revisions must be made to identify the correct 

courthouse (name, address, and city) where this action is actually pending. Finally, the Court 

observes that the proposed claims administrator has represented in court filings that “RG/2 

Claims will also maintain a toll-free phone number for class members to call with any questions 

they may have concerning the settlement.” (Wickersham Decl. (doc. 84, Exh. 3), ¶ 6(e).) As 

things stand, however, such a gesture will not benefit class members because no reference to 

(Continued)

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 11 of 17
-12-

As for the method of notice, again, “the court must direct to class members the best 

notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members 

who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff 

explains that proposed claims administrator RG/2 Claims Administration LLC will transmit class 

notice and claim forms to the last known fax number of each potential class member. 

(Wickersham Decl. (doc. 84, Exh. E), ¶ 6(a).) If RG/2 Claims’ facsimile transmissions to a 

given class member fail on two occasions, then RG/2 Claims will mail the documents to that 

class member at the last known address provided by defendants, after running each such address 

through the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address database. (Id., ¶ 6(b).) For any 

mailed notices that may be returned as undeliverable, RG/2 Claims will follow up by performing 

additional research using a commercially available address locator service, and will re-send the 

notice and claim forms to that class member at the best available address obtained through those 

efforts. (Id., ¶ 6(b) (second subparagraph (b).) As to class members who do not respond to the 

class notice within 21 days, RG/2 Claims will retransmit the class notice and claim form via 

facsimile. (Id., ¶ 6(c).) RG/2 Claims will also create and maintain a toll-free telephone line to 

which class members may direct questions, and a website that will allow class members to search 

and review relevant settlement documents, provide access to a database showing how many 

facsimiles defendants sent to each fax number during the class period, and allow for electronic 

claims submission. (Id., ¶ 6(d).) RG/2 Claims proposes to provide all these notice and claims 

administration services in this case at a cost of just under $25,000. (Id., ¶ 7.)6

The Court is preliminarily satisfied that the proposed notice constitutes the best notice 

practicable under the circumstances and that it comports with Rule 23 and due process. Notice 

by facsimile transmission, which other federal courts have approved in TCPA class action 

settlements, appears particularly appropriate here, given that (i) all class members, by definition, 

 

such a toll-free hotline is found in the proposed notice. Section VIII of the proposed form of 

notice must be supplemented with that important information.

6 In its memorandum of law, plaintiff alludes to providing “electronic mail notice” 

to class members. (Doc. 84, at 26.) This appears to be a typographical error. Review of 

plaintiff’s filings reveals that notice is contemplated to be achieved by facsimile and U.S. Mail 

alone, not by electronic mail transmission.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 12 of 17
-13-

received facsimile transmissions from defendants during the relevant period; (ii) defendants have 

maintained records showing the facsimile numbers to which such transmissions were sent; and 

(iii) it can be reasonably expected that businesses and individuals change their facsimile numbers 

infrequently. Thus, the vast majority of class members should be readily reachable via those 

same fax numbers to which the offending faxes giving rise to their claims were sent. 

Presumably, as to most class members for whom their fax numbers have changed in the interim, 

the settlement administrator’s efforts to send faxed notice will result in failed transmissions, thus 

prompting the administrator to locate valid mailing addresses for them. The Court perceives no 

obvious flaws in this notice plan; therefore, the Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted as 

to both the manner and content of notice.7

IV. Conclusion and Establishment of Deadlines.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class (doc. 83) is granted, as set out 

below;

2. The following class is conditionally certified solely for the purpose of settlement 

pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

All Persons with fax numbers who, between January 1, 2011 through and 

including the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, received 

any successful transmission of an unsolicited fax from Defendants 

advertising Defendants’ products and/or services.

3. The Court preliminarily appoints plaintiff, Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC, as 

class representative of the settlement class;

 7 That said, final approval of the manner of notice must await receipt of information 

regarding the results of class counsel’s notification efforts. And, of course, nothing herein 

forecloses or prevents any class member from objecting at the fairness hearing that notice was 

inadequate as to either content or manner. Such objections will be addressed on a case-by-case 

basis at the hearing. Similarly, the Court makes no determination as to whether due process 

requirements are satisfied with respect to any class member who may not receive fax 

transmissions and for whom the claims administrator is unable to determine a current mailing 

address. See, e.g., Juris v. Inamed Corp., 685 F.3d 1294, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Where certain 

class members’ names and addresses cannot be determined with reasonable efforts, notice by 

publication is generally considered adequate.”). The parties here have not provided for notice by 

publication.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 13 of 17
-14-

4. The Court preliminarily appoints as settlement class counsel James H. 

McFerrin, Esq. of McFerrin Law Firm LLC in Birmingham, Alabama, and 

Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. of Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse in 

Birmingham, Alabama;

5. RG/2 Claims Administration LLC is appointed as settlement administrator. In 

this capacity, RG/2 is ordered to establish an escrow account in the name of 

Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC v. Perfumania Holdings, Inc., et al., Settlement 

Account at Huntingdon Bank, which account shall be held in custodia legis and 

remain subject to this Court’s jurisdiction;

6. Defendants are ordered to deposit into said escrow account the sum of $24,691 

(estimated notice and claims administration costs) not later than December 28, 

2016, which funds (less $10,000) shall be deemed to have been paid toward the 

settlement amount;

7. On or before December 28, 2016, defendants’ counsel shall provide the 

settlement administrator with a list (the “Notice List”) of persons and entities who 

were potential recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements transmitted by 

defendants during the class period, as indicated by defendants’ fax software 

records. The Notice List shall include, where available, the number and dates of 

such fax transmissions believed to have been received by each such person or 

entity during the class period, as recorded by defendants’ software;

8. The settlement administrator shall give notice to class members in the form found 

at Exhibit B annexed to the Settlement Agreement, subject to the specific 

modifications directed by this Court in footnote 5 of this Order. The Court 

preliminarily determines that class counsel’s proposed plan for class notice is the 

best notice practicable under the circumstances, and that it satisfies both Rule 23 

and due process requirements;

9. By no later than January 25, 2017, the settlement administrator shall transmit the 

notice described in paragraph 8, supra, and a claim form substantially in the form 

found at Exhibit A annexed to the settlement agreement to all settlement class 

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 14 of 17
-15-

members.

8

 Transmission shall be via facsimile and/or U.S. mail, as set forth in 

this Order and the Settlement Agreement;

10. Within 21 days after notice is first sent by facsimile, the settlement administrator 

shall send the class notice and claim form by facsimile to each class member who 

has not yet submitted a claim form or otherwise responded to the class notice by 

that date. Should the initial transmission fail, the settlement administrator shall 

make at least two attempts to transmit such supplemental notice. The settlement 

administrator shall also create and maintain a website that will (i) allow for 

electronic submission of claim forms, and (ii) contain copies of the class notice, 

the claim form, this Order, the Settlement Agreement (excluding exhibits), the 

petition for attorney’s fees, IRS form W-9, and the searchable database allowing 

class members to locate their fax number and ascertain the number and dates of 

faxes sent by defendants to them, according to defendants’ records. The 

settlement administrator must also maintain a toll-free telephone number for class 

members to call with any questions they may have concerning the settlement, and 

must conspicuously display that number and the availability of that hotline service 

to class members on the website, in the class notice, and on the claim form;

11. Plaintiff’s counsel will cause to be published at www.zarzour.com copies of the 

class notice, the claim form, this Order, the Settlement Agreement (excluding 

exhibits), the petition for attorney’s fees and IRS form W-9;

12. The Court preliminarily finds that the notice program complies with the 

requirements of due process and Rule 23(c)(2)(B);

 8 One substantive modification to the claim form is necessary. In bold print in the 

final paragraph, the claim form directs class members as follows: “You should go to the 

settlement administrator’s web-site [sic], search the list of fax numbers for your fax number, and 

review the number and date of faxes sent to you, if any.” (Doc. 84, Exh. 1, at Exh. A.) Nowhere 

in that paragraph is the specific URL of the “settlement administrator’s website” identified, and 

the only website address recited on that entire page is not identified as that of the settlement 

administrator. Accordingly, in the interests of clarity, Exhibit A must be revised to recite the 

specific website address for the “settlement administrator’s web-site” in the last full paragraph of 

the claim form.

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 15 of 17
-16-

13. To effectuate the settlement, the Court establishes the following deadlines for the 

events set forth in the Settlement Agreement and directs the parties to incorporate 

such deadlines into the class notice and claim form:

(a) Claim forms shall be returned by settlement class members to the 

settlement administrator online, by fax, by electronic mail, or by 

mail with a postmark on or before March 31, 2017. Claims not 

submitted by this deadline shall be barred;

(b) Objections of settlement class members or any appearance of an 

attorney on behalf of a settlement class member shall be filed with 

the Clerk of Court and served by mail on plaintiff’s counsel and 

defendants’ counsel on or before March 31, 2017, or shall be 

barred;

(c) All memoranda filed by any settlement class member in 

connection with objections must be filed with the Clerk of Court 

and served by mail on plaintiff’s counsel and defendants’ counsel 

on or before March 31, 2017, or shall be barred;

(d) Requests by any settlement class member for exclusion from the 

class and to opt out of the settlement must be mailed to plaintiff’s 

counsel and the settlement administrator on or before March 31, 

2017, or shall be barred. A notice of intent to opt out of the 

settlement must include the following information, at a minimum: 

(a) the settlement class member’s name, address, and the fax 

number at which it received one or more advertisements from 

defendants; and (b) a statement to the effect that the class member 

does not wish to participate in the settlement;

14. The settlement administrator shall file an affidavit attesting to the fact that 

notice was issued in accordance with the Settlement Agreement by 

February 24, 2017;

15. By no later than April 14, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel or the settlement 

administrator shall file with the Clerk of Court and serve on defendants’ 

counsel the opt-out list;

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 16 of 17
-17-

16. Defendants’ counsel shall file proof of compliance with the notice 

requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 

1715(b), by no later than April 21, 2017;

17. On or before April 21, 2017, the settlement administrator shall file with 

the Clerk of Court a declaration detailing the number of claims, 

exclusions, and objections received, and the particulars thereof;

18. All papers in support of the settlement agreement shall be filed no later 

than April 28, 2017. Any responses to objections shall be filed with the 

Clerk of Court on or before April 28, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file 

an attorney’s fee petition no later than April 28, 2017. Any objection to 

requests for approval/award of attorney’s fees, class representative 

incentive payments or reimbursement of expenses may be made in writing 

filed no later than May 12, 2017, or orally at the final approval hearing;

19. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 

will hold a Final Approval Hearing in Courtroom 2A, United States 

Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama, on May 30, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.;

20. Pending the Final Judgment and Order, neither plaintiff nor any class 

member shall either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, 

commence or prosecute any action or proceeding in any court or tribunal 

asserting any released claims against any released party unless such person 

or entity has opted out of the settlement class in this action in accordance 

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement or this Order; and

21. The Court may, for good cause, extend any deadlines set forth herein or 

continue the Final Approval Hearing without further direct notice to 

members of the settlement class who do not file timely objections to the 

proposed settlement.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00563-WS-C Document 86 Filed 12/14/16 Page 17 of 17