Opinion ID: 2198038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tennessee class action

Text: A year before plaintiff brought his New Jersey action, Tennessee homeowners filed a class action against Dryvit in the Tennessee Circuit Court, asserting the same basic claims that appear in plaintiff's complaint. On April 8, 2002  almost seven months after plaintiff filed his New Jersey complaint  the class action, which until then had been limited to Tennessee homeowners, was converted into a nationwide homeowners' class action. [4] That same day, representatives of the now nationwide class action and Dryvit entered into a settlement agreement that was preliminarily approved by the Tennessee Circuit Court. Under the settlement agreement, Dryvit would provide class members with property inspections, three-year limited warranties, and reimbursement of repair costs as determined by a formula. In June 2002, the claims administrator of the settlement sent all identifiable class members a first-class mailing containing settlement information, a claim form, and an opt-out form. [5] Homeowners who opted out of the class would not be bound by the settlement and would be free to pursue individual suits against Dryvit. On the other hand, those who did not timely complete and return the opt-out form would remain class members and have to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. [6] In accordance with that agreement, completed opt-out forms had to be received by the claims administrator no later than September 3, 2002. According to the claims administrator's records, on June 24, 2002, the notification letter was mailed to plaintiff's home in Woolwich. The letter forwarded to plaintiff was not among those returned by the postal service as undeliverable, and plaintiff was not among those who filed a request to opt out of the settlement. [7] Plaintiff was not one of the ten objectors to the class action challenging the fairness and adequacy of the notice procedures and the proposed settlement at the October 1, 2002 hearing before the Tennessee Circuit Court. On January 14, 2003, the Circuit Court granted approval of the class settlement. The court found that the notification to class members constituted the best practicable notice and was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise class members of the pendency of [the] class action, [and of] their right to exclude themselves from the Class and the proposed settlement. The court also found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the class action and personal jurisdiction over the class members, and ordered that class members who had not returned the opt-out form to the claims administrator were permanently barred and enjoined from obtaining any benefits or other relief in a lawsuit filed in another jurisdiction related to claims asserted in the class action. The Tennessee Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the settlement through January 2005 to allow homebuilders to intervene for a determination of their rights under the settlement. In April 2005, the Tennessee Circuit Court dismissed the homebuilders' objections, confirmed the fairness of both the notification procedures and the settlement terms, and entered final judgment.