Opinion ID: 356128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 On July 16, 1973, plaintiff entered into a retail installment contract with Kimbrell's, Inc. for the purchase of various items of household furniture totalling $592.70. Because she already owed Kimbrell's $65.00 from a previous credit purchase, the July 16th agreement consolidated both the old and new balance and required repayment of the combined debt in twelve equal monthly installments. The written contract reflecting this agreement purported to disclose credit information as to both the new and combined transactions. 1 4 On May 3, 1974, plaintiff filed this action, alleging that Kimbrell's, Inc. had violated § 121 of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1631, 2 and praying statutory damages as provided for in § 130(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). 3 On October 29, 1974, Barber amended her complaint so as to maintain the suit as a class action pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). 4 Five months later, after substantial discovery had been conducted, plaintiff, with leave of court, amended her complaint a second time to add Kimbrell's parent, Furniture Distributors, Inc., as a party defendant. 5 On June 11, 1975, the court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those persons who entered into add-on credit transactions 6 at Kimbrell's downtown Charlotte store between July 16, 1973 and May 3, 1974. At the time of judgment, this class numbered approximately 740 members. 7 5 The case was heard on June 7, 1976, on cross-motions for summary judgment. Concluding that the defendants, as a matter of law, had violated certain of the disclosure requirements set forth in Regulation Z, 424 F.Supp. at 47-50, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to defendants' liability. After carefully canvassing the factors specified by Congress as relevant to the determination of statutory damages in the class-action context, 424 F.Supp. at 51-2, the district court awarded the class $100,000, the maximum award then allowable under § 1640(a)(2)(B). 8 Although plaintiffs' counsel sought combined attorneys' fees of $19,955, the district court, pursuant to § 1640(a)(3), awarded them $25,000 as a reasonable sum under the circumstances. 424 F.Supp. at 52.