Canada et al v. Meracord, LLC et al, No. 3:2012cv05657 - Document 286 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 257 Motion to Certify Class by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(MGC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-PEREDO, ROBERT HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS, DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD PIERCE, ERMA SUE CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE, WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, and ALEX CASIANO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 v. MERACORD, LLC, Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 1 CASE NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 1 2 3 4 5 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Motion”), filed March 10, 2015. Upon consideration of the foregoing Motion, the papers submitted in support and opposition thereto, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court 6 certifies a Class consisting of all persons in a Surety State who established an account with 7 Meracord, LLC (formerly NoteWorld) or any subsidiary thereof from which Meracord processed 8 any payments related to debt settlement, including MARS, within the Bond Period of their state of 9 residence. 10 11 Surety States and respective Bond Periods are defined as follows: Surety States Bond Periods 12 Alaska August 5, 2009–Present 13 Alabama July 24, 2009–Present 14 Arkansas July 31, 2010–Present Arizona November 29, 2008–Present California April 15, 2012–Present Colorado August 6, 2008–Present 17 Connecticut November 1, 2007–Present 18 Washington D.C. October 19, 2009–Present 19 Delaware September 21, 2009–Present Florida February 1, 2009–Present Georgia January 12, 2009–Present Hawaii July 9, 2009–Present 22 Iowa March 1, 2009–Present 23 Idaho August 3, 2009–Present 24 Illinois October 27, 2010–Present Indiana February 5, 2009–Present Kansas July 15, 2009–Present Kentucky October 19, 2009–Present 15 16 20 21 25 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 2 CASE NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS Louisiana March 20, 2009–Present Maryland January 1, 2009–Present Maine July 24, 2009–Present Michigan December 31, 2010–Present 4 Minnesota February 13, 2009–Present 5 Missouri October 10, 2010–Present 6 Mississippi May 5, 2009–Present North Carolina March 5, 2009–Present North Dakota September 21, 2009–Present Nebraska May 29, 2009–Present New Hampshire November 30, 2008–Present 10 New Jersey November 30, 2008–Present 11 Nevada May 5, 2009–Present New York July 1, 2009–Present Ohio April 1, 2009–Present Oklahoma March 23, 2009–Present 14 Pennsylvania June 27, 2008–Present 15 Rhode Island June 23, 2009–Present 16 South Dakota August 5, 2009–Present Tennessee September 22, 2010–Present Texas October 3, 2007–Present Virginia August 27, 2009–Present 19 Vermont September 21, 2009–Present 20 Washington September 29, 2008–Present 21 Wisconsin June 3, 2009–Present West Virginia March 20, 2009–Present Wyoming October 22, 2009–Present 1 2 3 7 8 9 12 13 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the above have or had a controlling interest. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 3 CASE NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS 1 Also excluded are (1) Meracord customers in Washington state whose debt 2 settlement accounts were opened between July 26, 2007, and October 18, 2011 (those within the 3 Class Period covered by the settlement in Wheeler v. NoteWorld, 2:10-cv-00202-LRS (E.D. 4 Wash.)); (2) Meracord customers in Georgia whose debt settlement accounts were opened 5 between July 26, 2007, and July 28, 2011 (those within the Class Period covered by the settlement 6 in Morefield v. NoteWorld, Case No. 1:10-CV-00117 (S.D. Ga.)); and (3) Meracord customers 7 who signed agreements with Debt Shield as their Front DRC, and whose accounts were opened 8 between July 26, 2007, and September 25, 2013 (those within the Class Period covered by the 9 settlement in Haile v. Debt Shield, Case No. 2:08-CV-04295-SOW (W.D. Mo.)). 10 The Court finds that (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 11 impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact that are common to the Class; (3) the claims of 12 the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Class; and (4) the Class Representatives 13 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 14 The Court finds that Washington law should apply nationwide, and that Plaintiffs have 15 demonstrated that Defendant has sufficient contacts with the state of Washington under Phillips 16 Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 821-822 (1985). 17 The Court appoints Plaintiffs Amrish Rajagopalan, Marie Johnson-Peredo, Robert Hewson, 18 Donte Cheeks, Deborah Horton, Richard Pierce, Erma Sue Clyatt, Robert Joyce, Amy Joyce, 19 Arthur Fuller, Dawn Meade, Wahab Ekunsumi, Karen Hea, and Alex Casiano as Class 20 Representatives. The Court also appoints the law firms of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and 21 The Paynter Law Firm PLLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). 22 The Court finds that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) because there are 23 limited and insufficient funds available to compensate the Class. Specifically, the Court finds that 24 any damages award to the Class will far exceed any remaining assets of Meracord and far exceed 25 available surety bonds issued in favor of Meracord. All the available funds will be devoted to 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 4 CASE NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS 1 compensating Class members, less allowances for costs and attorneys’ fees. Certification will 2 ensure that all similarly situated Class members are treated equitably. 3 Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A), the Court exercises its discretion to direct notice. Given that 4 Defendant has reported that the customer database provided to Plaintiffs contains email addresses 5 for approximately 75% of the customer accounts, and given that Plaintiffs’ counsel also maintain a 6 database of additional customers who have contacted them, the Court finds that the most efficient 7 and cost effective notice under the circumstances is email notice by Class Counsel to all valid 8 email addresses found in the customer databases. That notice shall be substantially in the form of 9 Exhibit A to this Order, and shall be sent out within 30 days of this Order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 14, 2015 12 13 14 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 Presented By: HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 By: /s/ Steve W. Berman By: /s/ Thomas E. Loeser Steve W. Berman, WSBA# 12536 Thomas E. Loeser, WSBA# 38701 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel.: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 steve@hbsslaw.com TomL@hbsslaw.com 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 5 CASE NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS 1 6 THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC Stuart M Paynter (pro hac vice) Jennifer L. Murray (pro hac vice) 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Tel. (202) 626-4486 Fax: (866) 734-0622 stuart@smplegal.com jmurray@paynterlawfirm.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 6 CASE NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS EXHIBIT A SUBJECT: Important Notice from the United States District Court for the District of Washington about a Class Action If you were a customer of MERACORD, LLC (formerly NOTEWORLD, LLC) who signed up for Meracord’s payment processing services as part of a DEBT RELIEF PROGRAM, you may be affected by a recent legal decision. What is this about? Starting in 2011, Meracord was sued by former customers (“Plaintiffs”) who alleged that Meracord, along with a number of debt-relief companies, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to charge excessive and illegal fees. The Plaintiffs alleged that Meracord’s actions violated the Washington Debt Adjusting Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and other laws. For a copy of the most recent Complaint in the lawsuit, click here. The lawsuit was a “class action” on behalf of all customers who signed up for Meracord’s services as part of any debt relief program, including any program designed to settle, reduce, modify, or eliminate debts (whether that debt was in the form of a credit card, charge card, student loan, mortgage, or other form). The Court recently certified a Class in this lawsuit, which means that any legal result of the lawsuit will affect not only the Plaintiffs, but all members of the Class. Who’s included in the Class? You are included in the Class if you are a resident of a “Surety State,” and Meracord processed any payments for you related to a debt relief program, as long as at least one of those payments was withdrawn during the “Bond Period” listed for that state. To see a list of Surety States and their applicable Bond Periods, click here. Will I get money from this lawsuit? Meracord is out of business and has almost no assets. However, Meracord was required to obtain surety bonds in many states when it became licensed as a money transmitter, and those surety bonds could be a possible source of funds to compensate Class members. Plaintiffs are seeking a “default judgment” against Meracord. Assuming that the default judgment is awarded, Plaintiffs intend to recover as much as possible from the surety bonds. There is, however, no guarantee that any Class members will get compensation from the lawsuit, and even the full amount of the bonds will not be enough to fully compensate Meracord’s customers for the fees they paid. How can I get more information? For more information about this lawsuit, you can visit the following website: www.meracordclassaction.com Who is Representing Me in This Lawsuit? The Court has appointed two law firms to represent the Class: The Paynter Law Firm PLLC and Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP. To contact either firm visit www.paynterlawfirm.com or www.hbsslaw.com.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
