Opinion ID: 1768444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Class Representative Brandon Young

Text: As with Ms. Spencer, Payday Advance contends that Mr. Young cannot represent the class because he is involved in other check cashing cases and does not have adequate knowledge. Payday Advance also claims that Mr. Young is untruthful. In his deposition, Mr. Young explained that he used the check cashing services of Payday Advance and that I believe that the interest rates or fees as you call it are too high as for the money that we're paying, or getting loans from.... He speaks with the attorneys about once per week. He understands his responsibilities as a representative to be willing to go to court. I would also not look out for just myself, but as the whole class, as a group, and be willing to testify for the group. As to Mr. Young's veracity, in his affidavit, he stated that [w]hen I returned to the Payday Advance office on June 26, 2000, I was told I could pay off the check or pay an additional Thirty Three Dollars and Thirty Three Cents ($33.33) cash to renew the loan. He admits that his description was not completely accurate. In actuality, he had to give Payday Advance $233.33 in cash; then, he could give them another check for $233.33; they would give him another $200 and defer presentment of the new check for two weeks. This confusion does not prevent him from adequately representing the class. The trial court did not err in ruling that the named representatives meet the minimal bar set by the third requirement derived from Rule 23(a)(4), as noted in BPS, Inc., supra , and in USA Check Cashers of Little Rock, Inc. v. Island, 349 Ark. 71, 76 S.W.3d 243 (2002). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision that the named class members adequately and fairly represent the class.