Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02727/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02727-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

Nancy J. Baker and Diane Baldwin, on

their own behalf and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Lender Services Direct, Inc., a California

corporation; and Alliance Title

Company, a California corporation, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2727-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs asserted consumer class action claims against Lender Services Direct, Inc.

(“LSD”). Dkt. #64. On December 17, 2007, the Court issued an order preliminarily

approving a settlement of the claims against LSD. Dkt. #93. The order and settlement

agreement required LSD to pay a total of $106,250, by making monthly installments of

$10,000 beginning on February 1, 2008 until paid in full. Id. at 4, ¶ 8; Dkt. #86-3. On

October 22, 2008, the Court issued an order finally approving settlement of the class claims

(Dkt. #110), and judgment was entered accordingly (Dkt. #111).

LSD made monthly $10,000 payments through September 1, 2008, totaling $80,000,

but has failed to pay the remaining amount of $26,250. Plaintiffs filed a motion to set an

order to show cause hearing (Dkt. #112) to determine whether LSD should be held in

contempt of Court for disobeying the December 17, 2007 order requiring LSD to pay

Plaintiffs and the class $106,250 (Dkt. #93). A contempt hearing was held on March 25,

Case 2:06-cv-02727-DGC Document 130 Filed 06/17/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

2009. Dkt. #119. LSD asserted that it does not have the money to pay the remaining

$26,250. The Court permitted Plaintiffs to conduct discovery into the financial condition of

LSD and continued the contempt hearing. Dkt. #120.

The parties have filed supplemental memoranda and evidence. Dkt. ##123-26. A

second contempt hearing was held on June 12, 2009. On the basis of the briefs and evidence,

and for reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court finds (1) that LSD should be

held in contempt of Court for failing to comply fully with the Court’s December 17, 2007

order (Dkt. #93), (2) that Joseph Gekko, LSD’s sole shareholder, is not subject to the

contempt finding against LSD, (3) that a separate judgment in the amount of $26,250, plus

interest, should be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against LSD, and (4) Plaintiffs are

entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. LSD is found to be in contempt of Court for failing to comply with the Court’s

December 17, 2007 order requiring LSD to pay Plaintiffs and the class at total

of $106,250 (Dkt. #93 at 4, ¶ 8).

2. The Court will enter a separate judgment in the amount of $26,250.00, plus

interest, in favor of Plaintiffs and against LSD. That judgment shall supersede

the judgment entered on October 22, 2008 (Dkt. #111).

3. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. Plaintiffs shall

file a stipulation or motion for attorney fees by June 26, 2009. LSD shall file

a response to any motion by July 8, 2009.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02727-DGC Document 130 Filed 06/17/09 Page 2 of 2