UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NEWARK VICINAGE

THOMAS C. WILLIAMS, on behalf of 

himself and those similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE CBE GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-3680-PS

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

On the brief:

Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.

Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.

Elliot M. Gardner, Esq.

Philip Stern, Esq.

The Wolf Law Firm, LLC

1520 U.S. Hwy 130 – Suite 101

North Brunswick, NJ 08902

Tel: (732) 545-7900

Fax: (732) 545-1030

Philip D. Stern, Esq.

Philip D. Stern & Associates, LLC

Attorneys at Law

697 Valley Street, Suite 2d

Maplewood, NJ 07040

(973) 379-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 119
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................ 1

B. SUMMARY OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT....................................................... 1

1. Definition of the Proposed Settlement Class....................................................... 1

2. Benefits to the Settlement Class .......................................................................... 2

3. Release of Claims ................................................................................................ 2

4. Settlement Administration ................................................................................... 2

5. Proposed Award to Named Plaintiff.................................................................... 3

6. Attorney's Fees and Costs.................................................................................... 3

C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE .............................................................................................. 4

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT................................................................................................ 4

A. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT ............................................................................................................ 4

1. Standards and Procedures for Preliminary Approval........................................... 5

2. The Settlement is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable.............................................. 5

B. INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS CERTIFICATION IS WARRANTED................................. 7

1. The Elements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied ........................................................... 7

a. Numerosity............................................................................................................................................ 8

b. Commonality......................................................................................................................................... 8

c. Typicality .............................................................................................................................................. 9

d. Adequacy ............................................................................................................................................ 10

2. The Settlement Class Satisfies Rule 23(b)(3).................................................... 11

C. THE PROPOSED FORM OF NOTICE ADEQUATELY INFORMS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

............................................................................................................................... 13

III.CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 14

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 120
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and Defendant having agreed to resolve the claims in this putative class 

action asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Plaintiff

now moves for preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement.

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this action on June 24, 2011. Defendant filed an answer on August 

8, 2011. Defendant subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court 

denied the motion in an order and opinion filed December 22, 2011. The parties 

thereafter began settlement negotiations and reached a settlement as to all issues other 

than attorneys' fees. Subsequently, the parties negotiated and agreed upon an amount for 

attorneys' fees. The final settlement agreement was signed on February 23, 2012. Wolf 

Decl. ¶6.

B. Summary of the Terms of the Settlement 

1. Definition of the Proposed Settlement Class

The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as:

All consumer debtors to whom The CBE Group, Inc. mailed a letter to a New

Jersey address in connection with its attempt to collect on an EXXON MOBIL

account for Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. (USA) which letter (a) was dated on or

after June 24, 2010, (b) was not returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,

and (c) included the sentence ―To prevent further phone calls and receiving future

letters in regards to this matter please bring your account current through one of

the payment options below.‖

Specifically excluded from the Class are any Judge presiding over this Action 

and members of their immediate families.

Settlement Agreement at ¶1 (attached as Exh. A. to Wolf Decl.). 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 121
2

2. Benefits to the Settlement Class

Under the settlement, The Defendant agreed to establish a settlement fund in the 

amount of $63,750.00. The Defendant represents that there are approximately 1,700 

Settlement Class members. Settlement Class members who do not opt-out of the settlement 

will each receive an equal share of the settlement fund, not less than $37.50 each. If it turns 

out that there are more than 1700 Settlement Class members, the settlement fund will be 

increased so that each member receives $37.50. A settlement administrator will mail 

checks to the class members without any claims process. 

In the event that a settlement check is not deliverable to a member of the 

Settlement Class, a check is not cashed prior to its expiration date, or there otherwise is a 

balance left over in the settlement fund, then the remaining balance in the settlement fund 

would be paid to Legal Services of New Jersey as a cy pres award. Settlement 

Agreement at ¶2b.

3. Release of Claims

Upon final approval of the settlement, the class members who do not opt out will 

release claims relating to the factual allegations in Plaintiffs‘ complaint. See Settlement 

Agreement ¶3 for the full release language.

4. Settlement Administration

Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant will pay all costs and expenses

related to the administration of the settlement. The Settlement Administrator will mail 

the Notice, by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of 

each Settlement Class member. The parties are currently in the process of selecting a 

settlement administrator and will inform the Court of the proposed administrator in a 

supplemental submission on or before the return date for this motion.

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 122
3

The Settlement Administrator would update the addresses of those Settlement 

Class members as necessary by means of the National Change of Address Databank 

maintained by the U.S. Postal Service and/or other reasonable methods available to the 

Administrator prior to the initial mailing of the Notice and after receipt of returned 

undeliverable mailed Notices. The Settlement Administrator will also update the 

addresses of those Settlement Class members as necessary after receipt of any returned 

undeliverable mailed relief checks. 

The Settlement Administrator will provide counsel with a report regarding the 

number of checks cashed, the number of checks that remain uncashed and concerning the 

cy pres award. The Settlement Administrator will also provide a certification confirming 

that the Settlement Administrator has complied with its duties under the Settlement

Agreement. 

5. Proposed Award to Named Plaintiff

Defendant has agreed to pay named the named Plaintiff $3,000 as an incentive 

award for his efforts on behalf of the class and to settle his own claims under the FDCPA. 

Settlement Agreement ¶4.

6. Attorney's Fees and Costs

Subject to Court approval, Defendants have agreed to pay Class Counsel $40,000

towards their reasonable attorneys‘ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this 

litigation, including the cost of administering this settlement. Class Counsel will make an 

application to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys‘ fees and expenses incurred

in connection with this litigation. This payment will not reduce the benefits to the 

Settlement Class. Settlement Agreement ¶7 (Exh. A to Wolf Decl.).

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 123
4

C. Proposed Schedule 

The Parties have made an application that the Court retain jurisdiction with 

respect to the implementation and enforcement of the terms of the settlement and the 

parties have agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. for purposes of 

implementing and enforcing the settlement. See Document 26 (consent to magistrate 

jurisdiction). So that the Parties may effectuate the various steps in the settlement 

approval process under the Settlement agreement, Plaintiffs propose the Court adopt the 

schedule set forth below:

 Event Proposed Timing

1 Initial Notice Date No more than twenty (20) days after the entry 

Preliminary Approval Order

2 Deadline for Filing Requests for 

Exclusion 

Five weeks after the Notice Date 

3 Deadline for Filing Objections Five weeks after the Notice Date 

4 Fairness Hearing No earlier than 110 days after entry of the 

Preliminary Approval Order, to allow time 

for the CAFA notice process.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. The Court Should Grant Preliminary Approval of the Settlement 

Agreement

Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. "Compromises of 

disputed claims are favored by the courts." Williams v. First Nat'l Bank, 216 U.S. 582, 

595 (1910); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 148 F.3d 283, 317 (3d 

Cir. 1998) (―Prudential II"). Settlement will spare the Parties the uncertainty, delay and 

expense of a trial, while simultaneously reducing the burden on judicial resources. As 

discussed below, at this stage of preliminary approval, there is clear evidence that the 

Settlement Agreement is well within the range of reasonableness and preliminary 

approval is warranted.

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 124
5

1. Standards and Procedures for Preliminary Approval

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the process for Court 

approval of a class action settlement:

The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be 

settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with 

the court's approval. The following procedures apply to a 

proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise:

(1) The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to 

all class members who would be bound by the proposal.

(2) If the proposal would bind class members, the court 

may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is 

fair, reasonable, and adequate.

(3) The parties seeking approval must file a statement 

identifying any agreement made in connection with the 

proposal.

(4) If the class action was previously certified under Rule 

23(b)(3), the court may refuse to approve a settlement 

unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to 

individual class members who had an earlier opportunity to 

request exclusion but did not do so.

(5) Any class member may object to the proposal if it 

requires court approval under this subdivision (e); the 

objection may be withdrawn only with the court's approval.

Preliminary approval is appropriate when the proposed settlement was the result of the 

parties' good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls 

within the range of reason. In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 176 F.R.D. 99, 

102 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

2. The Settlement is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable

Before sending settlement class members notice, a Court will make a preliminary 

determination that will establish an initial presumption of fairness when the Court finds 

that: (1) the negotiations occurred at arm's length; (2) there was sufficient discovery; (3) 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 125
6

the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation; and (4) only a small

fraction of the class objected. In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank 

Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 785, (3rd Cir. 1995). See also Manual for Complex

Litigation, Third, § 30.42 (West, 1995)("A class settlement may be presumed fair, 

adequate and reasonable if "reached in arm's-length negotiations between experienced, 

capable counsel after meaningful discovery.")

The Settlement Agreement reached in this matter meets this test. The Agreement 

was reached as a result of extensive arm‘s-length negotiations between well-qualified 

counsel experienced in class actions and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The 

parties continued settlement discussions and ultimately drafted a settlement agreement

based on Defendant‘s disclosures as to its net worth and the size of the class. Wolf Decl. 

¶6, Exh. A.

Here, the class claims were for statutory damages under the FDCPA. There was 

no proof of actual damages for any class member. Under the FDCPA, class-wide 

damages are limited to 1% of the defendant‘s net worth. Defendant has represented that 

its net worth is approximately $9 million. The settlement amount thus represents more 

than 70% of the maximum possible recovery for the class — clearly a reasonable 

compromise.

Plaintiff's counsel, who are experienced in class actions and cases involving the 

FDCPA believe that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Wolf Decl. ¶8. The 

professional opinion of counsel involved in the litigation is entitled to "significant 

weight" in considering the fairness of a class action settlement. Fisher Brothers v. Phelps 

Dodge Indus., Inc. 604 F. Supp. 446, 452 (E.D. Pa. 1985). 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 126
7

Continuing litigation instead of settling would take significantly more time and be 

expensive and burdensome, factors to be considered in evaluating a class action 

settlement. Lake First Nat'l Bank, 900 F. Supp. 726, 732 (E.D. Pa 1995). See also Weiss 

v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am. Inc., 899 F. Supp. 1297, 1300-1301 (D.N.J. 1995)(burden 

on crowded court dockets to be considered). In addition, in litigation there is no 

guarantee of success. It is possible that Plaintiff would not have prevailed, as Defendant 

vigorously contested their claims.

B. Initial Settlement Class Certification Is Warranted 

―In certifying a class for settlement purposes, the Court must abide by the 

ordinary Rule 23 requirements....‖ In re the Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 962 F.Supp. 450, 

508 (D.N.J.1997). Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth 

the requirements for the certification of a settlement class. It is within the Court's 

discretion to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 148 F.3d 283, 299 (3d Cir.1998).

1. The Elements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied 

In order for a lawsuit to be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Named Plaintiff must establish each of the four 

threshold requirements of subsection (a) of the Rule, which provides: 

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as 

representative parties on behalf of all only if (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.

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 127
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). See, e.g., Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998); 

Prudential II, 148 F.3d at 308-09. Here, all four elements are easily satisfied. 

a. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be ―so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impracticable.‖ Plaintiff is not required to come before the Court and detail, to the 

person, the exact size of the class or to demonstrate that joinder of all class members is 

impossible. ―Impracticability does not mean impossibility.‖ Liberty Lincoln Mercury, 

Inc. v. Ford Mktg. Corp., 149 F.RD. 65, 73 (D.N.J. 1993) (―precise enumeration of the 

members of a class is not necessary.‖); Zinberg v. Washington Bancorp, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 

397, 405 (D.N.J. 1990) (―It is proper for the court to accept common sense assumptions 

in order to support a finding of numerosity.‖). 

A class of 40 is presumed to be numerous. See, e.g., Stewart v. Abraham, 275 

F.3d 220, 226-27 (3d Cir. 2001) ("generally if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the 

potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40, the first prong of Rule 23(a) has been met"); 

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995) 

(numerosity is presumed at level of forty class members). Courts have found numerosity 

for classes with as few as 18 members. Cypress v. Newport News General and 

Nonsectarian Hospital Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 1967) (class of eighteen 

satisfied numerosity). Here, Defendant disclosed that there are approximately 1,700 class 

members. Settlement Agreement ¶2. Numerosity is thus clearly satisfied.

b. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be "questions of law or fact common to the 

class." The commonality requirement is met if the plaintiffs' grievances share a common 

question of law or of fact. Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir. 1994). Rather than 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 128
9

requiring that all questions of law or fact be common, Rule 23 only requires that ―the 

questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual members.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 

Plaintiffs are not required to show that all Class members' claims are identical to 

each other, as long as there are common questions at the heart of the case; ―factual 

differences among the claims of the putative class members do not defeat certification.‖ 

Baby Neal, 43 F .3d at 56; Prudential II, 148 F.3d 283. Indeed, a single common question 

is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2). See Herbert Newberg & Alba 

Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.10, at 3-50 (3d Ed. 1992); accord Baby Neal, 43 

F.3d at 56.

Certification is appropriate where the class claims arise ―from a  ̳common nucleus 

of operative fact‘ regardless of whether the underlying facts fluctuate over the class 

period and vary as to individual claimants.‖ In re Asbestos Sch. Litig., 104 F.R.D. 422, 

429 (E.D. Pa. 1984). "Common nuclei of fact are typically manifest where...defendants 

have engaged in standardized conduct towards members of the proposed class by mailing 

them allegedly illegal form letters or documents." Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 

(7th Cir. 1998) (A class action involving the FDCPA).

In the present case, the class claims are based on the same form letter sent to 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Settlement Class. Thus, identical questions of fact 

and law apply to the Plaintiffs and each member of the Settlement Class. 

c. Typicality 

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that a representative plaintiff‘s claims be ―typical‖ of those 

of other class members. The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) 

―tend to merge‖ Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n.l3 (1982). 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 129
10

The requirement of this subdivision of the rule, along with the adequacy of representation 

requirement set forth in subsection (a)(4), is designed to assure that the interests of 

unnamed class members will be protected adequately by the named class representative. 

Prudential II, 148 F.3d at 311; Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1977); 

Asbestos Sch. Litig., 104 F.R.D. at 429-30. 

The typicality requirement ―is satisfied when each class member's claim arises 

from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to 

prove the defendant‘s liability.‖ Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.1997). 

―Factual differences will not render a claim atypical if the claim arises from the same 

event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the class members, 

and it is based on the same legal theory.‖ Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 

980 F.2d 912, 923 (3d Cir. 1992). In other words, typicality is demonstrated where a 

plaintiff can ―show that two issues of law or fact he or she shares in common with the 

class occupy the same degree of centrality to his or her claims as to those of unnamed 

class members.‖ Weiss v. York Hosp., 745 F.2d 786, 809-10 (3d Cir. 1984).

The requirement is met here as the claims of Plaintiff and the Settlement Class all 

arise from the same form letter. Neither Plaintiff nor the class are seeking actual 

damages, only statutory damages. Plaintiff‘s claims are thus typical of the class‘s claims.

d. Adequacy 

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is set forth in subsection (a)(4), which 

requires that ―the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the class.‖ The Third Circuit consistently has ruled that the measure of adequate 

representation is dependent upon two factors, that:

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 130
11

(a) the plaintiffs' attorney must be qualified, experienced 

and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation; and 

(b) the plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic to 

those of the class.

Weiss, 745 F.2d at 811, quoting Wetzel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 508 F.2d at 247; see 

also Prudential II, 148 F.3d at 312. These two components are designed to ensure that 

absentee class members‘ interests are fully pursued. The existence of the elements of 

adequate representation is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Asbestos 

Sch. Litig., 104 F.RD. at 430, citing Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir. 1982); Cook 

v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 151 F.RD. 378, 386 (D. Colo. 1993). 

Adequacy is easily met here. Since Plaintiff and the class have identical claims, 

Plaintiff has no interests opposed to those of the class. And Plaintiff‘s attorneys, 

proposed Class Counsel, have significant experience litigating consumer class actions 

and in matters involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Proposed class counsel 

have summarized their experience litigating class actions and matters involving the 

FDCPA. Wolf Decl. ¶¶9-13. 

2. The Settlement Class Satisfies Rule 23(b)(3)

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes 

only. The requirements for certifying a settlement class under (b)(3) are lessened 

compared to a litigation class. Since a settlement class would eliminate the need for a 

trial, the Court "need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present intractable 

management problems". Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)

Rule (b)(3) requires that Court find that 

the questions of law or fact common to class members 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members, and that a class action is superior to other 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 131
12

available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the 

controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings 

include:

(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling 

the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the 

controversy already begun by or against class members;

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the 

litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

The predominance inquiry examines "whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive 

to warrant adjudication by representation". In Re Community Bank of No. Va, 418 F.3d 

277, 307-308 (3d Cir.2005) citing Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623-24, 117 S.Ct. 2231. The 

―presence of individual questions ... does not mean that the common questions of law and 

fact do not predominate.‖ Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 786 (3d Cir.1985).

As discussed in the sections on commonality and typicality, the claims brought by 

Plaintiff are identical to those of the Settlement Class that involve the same form letter. 

As such, common questions of law and fact predominate. Superiority is also satisfied as 

the proposed settlement will provide settlement class members with the ability to obtain 

prompt, predictable and certain relief whereas individual litigation would provide no 

guarantee of relief at all. In addition, the nature of the claim makes it likely that many 

settlement class members are unaware that they have claims against Defendant, unless 

they have consulted with counsel. This settlement therefore likely represents the only 

chance for settlement class members to receive any relief at all for these claims.

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 132
13

C. The Proposed Form of Notice Adequately Informs the Settlement Class

The Notice was drafted by Plaintiff's counsel who utilized the style and format of 

the template notices of proposed class action certification and settlement created by the 

Federal Judicial Center. Wolf Decl. ¶7, Exh. B. The Notice plainly explains its purpose, 

the nature of the settlement, and the rights of the Settlement Class members including the 

rights to opt-out, object, hire counsel, and attend the Fairness Hearing. The Notice also 

clearly indicates the various deadlines, the date and location of the Fairness Hearing, how 

to obtain additional information, and the contact information of Class Counsel. 

The proposed form of Notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) which 

requires that Notice to a (b)(3) class:

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).

Under the proposed settlement, members of the Settlement Class would receive 

notice of their rights via the proposed form of Notice, a copy of which is attached to the 

proposed form of Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit A. The Settlement 

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 133
14

Administrator would send the notice to each Settlement Class member via first class mail 

based on the addresses contained within Defendants' records. 

The Settlement Administrator will update the addresses as necessary by means of 

the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address Databank and/or other reasonable 

methods available to the Administrator prior to the initial mailing of the Notice and after 

receipt of returned undeliverable mailed Notices. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an 

Order (1) conditionally certifying a class for the purposes of settlement pursuant to Rule 

23(b)(3) and appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class 

Counsel; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement; (3) directing notice to 

Settlement Class Members in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement; (4) 

scheduling a final fairness hearing for the purpose of determining final approval of the 

parties' settlement.

Dated: March 1, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Andrew R. Wolf

Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.

Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.

Elliot M. Gardner, Esq.

The Wolf Law Firm, LLC

1520 U.S. Hwy 130 – Suite 101

North Brunswick, NJ 08902

Tel: (732) 545-7900; Fax: (732) 545-1030

Philip D. Stern, Esq.

Philip D. Stern & Associates, LLC

Attorneys at Law

697 Valley Street, Suite 2d

Maplewood, NJ 07040

(973) 379-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class

Case 2:11-cv-03680-PS Document 27-1 Filed 03/01/12 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 134