Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00735/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00735-21/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SANDRA LEE JACOBSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PERSOLVE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND 

RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 128, 135

Plaintiff, Sandra Lee Jacobson (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, Persolve, LLC, and Stride 

Card, LLC (“Defendants”) filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement on September 28, 2015. ECF No. 128. The Court held a hearing on the Joint Motion on 

January 28, 2016. ECF No. 133. The parties filed an Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary 

Approval of Class Action Settlement on February 11, 2016. ECF No. 135. On February 12, 2016, 

the Court held a hearing on the Amended Joint Motion and denied the Joint Motion and Amended 

Joint Motion without prejudice. ECF Nos. 139, 140. The parties filed a Renewed Joint Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on March 9, 2016. ECF No. 142. On March 23, 

2016, the Court denied the Renewed Joint Motion without prejudice. ECF No. 147.

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The parties filed the instant Second Renewed Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of 

Class Action Settlement on April 14, 2016. ECF No. 148. This is the parties’ fourth request for 

preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court has read and considered the joint 

motions, the settlement agreement and its amendments thereto (“Agreement”), the record in this 

case, and the parties’ arguments. The Court hereby VACATES the hearing set for June 9, 2016 

and GRANTS the Second Renewed Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement. 

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Lawsuit, 

and this Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff, Defendants and all the Class Members.

2. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT: The Court 

preliminarily finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit (“Settlement”), on the terms and conditions 

set forth in the Fourth Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and the 

Exhibits thereto, ECF No. 148-3, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate and in 

the best interests of the Class Members, taking into consideration the benefits to Class Members; 

the strength and weaknesses of Plaintiff’s case and Defendants’ defenses; the complexity, expense 

and probable duration of further litigation; and the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals. The 

Court additionally notes that Defendants contend that Persolve has a negative net worth and that 

Stride Card has a net worth of less than $35,000. These contentions, if true, would limit Plaintiff’s 

potential recovery at trial. Thus, the Court finds that Notice of Settlement should be given to 

persons in the Class and a full hearing should be held on final approval of the Settlement.

3. CAFA NOTICE: As set forth in the Agreement, Defendants, through the settlement 

administrator will notify the appropriate state and federal officials in compliance with the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 and prepare a certificate of 

compliance with same.

4. THE CLASS: On June 4, 2015, the Court certified the following class pursuant to 

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

(i) all persons with addresses in California (ii) to whom PERSOLVE 

sent, or caused to be sent, a notice in the form of Exhibit “1” on 

behalf of STRIDE CARD (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged 

debt originally owed to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (iv) which was 

incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (v) 

which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office 

(vi) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action 

through the date of class certification. 

Based on Defendants’ records as of September 28, 2015, there are 469 persons in the Class.

5. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, CLASS COUNSEL AND SETTLEMENT 

ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTMENT: On June 4, 2015, the Court held that Plaintiff, Sandra Lee 

Jacobson, adequately represents the interests of the Class and appointed her as the Class 

Representative. The Court also held that Fred W. Schwinn and Raeon Roulston of Consumer Law 

Center, Inc., and O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz, & Associates, Ltd., were adequate to 

act as counsel for the Class and appointed them as Class Counsel. For purposes of preliminary

approval, the Court approves ILYM Group Inc. (“ILYM”), to act as the Settlement Administrator 

and carry out the responsibilities assigned to it under the Agreement.

6. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: Subject to the Court’s revisions to the Class Notice

and subject to the parties’ inclusion of phone numbers for Raeon Roulston and ILYM, the Court 

approves the form and method of notice set forth in the Agreement and finds that the form and 

method of notice set forth in the Agreement satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constitutes the best practicable procedure under the 

circumstances. The Court’s revisions to the Class Notice and a redline showing the changes are

attached to this Order. Defendants shall provide a class list, containing each Class Member’s last 

known address as reflected in Defendants’ records, to ILYM, and to Class Counsel. Before 

sending the notice, ILYM shall run the address of each person in the class list through the National 

Change of Address (NCOA) database/registry. Within forty-five (45) days following entry of this 

order, ILYM shall send via first class U.S. mail the Notice of Settlement to each person in the 

class list, at their most recent known address, and will forward any notice that is returned with a 

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

forwarding address within fourteen (14) days of receiving the returned mail and will update the 

Class Member address list with all forwarding addresses. At least ten (10) days before the Final 

Approval Hearing, the ILYM shall file a declaration of compliance with the notice procedures set 

forth in the Agreement.

7. FEE AND EXPENSE APPLICATION: Class Counsel shall file a Noticed Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs together with all supporting documentation, to be heard at the Final 

Approval Hearing. Said Motion shall be filed by no later than thirty (30) days from entry of this 

Order, sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the objection period that any Class Member will 

have sufficient information to decide whether to object and, if applicable, to make an informed 

objection.

8. SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS PROCESS: The Court preliminarily approves the 

consideration of $10.66 to each member of the Class (provided there are no opt-outs; if there are 

opt-outs, this amount will be recalculated for a pro rata distribution) as fair, reasonable, and 

adequate.

9. EXCLUSIONS: Any Class Member who desires to be excluded from the Class 

must send a written request for exclusion to ILYM, with a postmark date no later than one-hundred 

five (105) days after the entry of this Order. ILYM’s address shall be provided in the Notice of 

Settlement mailed to the Class Members. The Claims Administrator shall provide a list of those 

persons requesting exclusion to Class Counsel and to Defendants’ counsel after the deadline for 

exclusions passes, but no later than one-hundred and twenty (120) days after the entry of this 

Order. A copy of that list will be filed with the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action 

Settlement.

To be valid, a request for exclusion must be personally signed by the member of the Class 

requesting exclusion and must include: (i) name, address and telephone number; and (ii) the 

following statement: “I request to be excluded from the class settlement in Jacobson v. Persolve, 

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

LLC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:14-CV00735,” or words to that effect.

10. Any Class Member who submits a valid and timely request for exclusion shall not 

be a member of the Class, and shall not be bound by the Settlement. All Class Members who do 

not request exclusion from the Class will be bound by all determinations and judgments in this 

case concerning the Settlement, including, but not limited to the validity, binding nature and 

effectiveness of the release set forth in paragraph 19 of the Agreement.

11. OBJECTIONS: Any Class Member who intends to object to the fairness of the 

Settlement must file a written objection with the Clerk of the United States District Court, for the 

Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, 95113 no later than 

one hundred five (105) days after the entry of this order. A Class Member who has timely filed an 

objection may, but need not, appear at the Settlement Hearing.

12. To be considered, the written objection must be signed by the Class Member and 

state: (1) the name and number of this case (Sandra Lee Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, et al., Case 

No. 5:14-cv-00735-LHK-HRL), (2) a notice of intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing 

(if the objector intends to appear); (3) the objector’s name, address and telephone number, and 

counsel’s name, address and telephone number (if the objector intends to appear through counsel); 

(4) a statement of the basis for each objection asserted; (5) any legal authority the objector wishes 

the Court to consider; (6) the names and addresses of any witnesses the objector may call to testify

(if the objector intends to call any witnesses), and a summary of each such witness’s expected 

testimony, and a list of any documents and things the objector wishes the Court to consider.1

13. Any Class Member who does not file a valid and timely objection to the Settlement 

shall be barred from seeking review of the Settlement by appeal or otherwise.

 

1 Ordinarily, the Court would not permit objectors to call witnesses to testify at a Final Approval 

Hearing. In general, only objectors themselves and their attorneys make statements at a Final 

Approval Hearing. However, because this is the parties’ fourth motion for preliminary approval of 

class action settlement, the Court concludes that this is not sufficiently significant to reject the 

settlement.

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

14. The costs of notice and settlement administration will be paid by Defendants. 

15. FINAL APPROVAL HEARING: The Court shall conduct a hearing (hereinafter the 

“Final Approval Hearing”) on Thursday, December 1, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 280 South First 

Street, San Jose, California, 95113.

At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider the following issues:

a. Whether the proposed Settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the 

best interest of the Class Members and should be approved by the Court;

b. Whether the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, as provided under 

the Agreement, should be entered, dismissing the Lawsuit with prejudice;

c. Whether and the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs that should be awarded to Class 

Counsel;

d. Whether and the amount of statutory damages and incentive award that should be 

awarded to the Class Representative;

e. Such other issues as the Court deems appropriate.

16. Attendance at the Final Approval Hearing is not necessary. Class Members need 

not appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval of the proposed 

Settlement. However, Class Members wishing to be heard are required to indicate in their written 

objection whether they intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing.

17. If the Agreement is not finally approved for any reason, then this Order shall be 

vacated, the Agreement shall have no force and effect, and the Parties’ rights and defenses shall be 

restored, without prejudice, to their respective positions as if the Agreement had never been 

executed and this Order never entered. 

18. The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the action to consider 

all further matters arising out of or connected with the Settlement, including the administration 

and enforcement of the Agreement. 

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

19. All other proceedings in the Litigation are stayed except as may be necessary to 

implement this Order or comply with the terms of the Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00735-LHK Document 150 Filed 06/07/16 Page 7 of 7