Canada et al v. Meracord, LLC et al, No. 3:2012cv05657 - Document 287 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 279 MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT, by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. Judgment against Defendant on behalf of the Judgment Class is granted on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint, except for Count IX. The Court finds that the judgment class is entitled to damages of $484,757,939.30. Pursuant to Section 1964(c) of RICO, this amount will be trebled for a total judgment of $1,454,273,818.90. (GMR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Canada et al v. Meracord, LLC et al Doc. 287 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 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, v. MERACORD, LLC, Defendant. and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND and PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Proposed DefendantIntervenors. No. 12-cv-05657-BHS FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Final Judgment 2 (“Motion”). Upon consideration of the foregoing Motion, the papers submitted in support and 3 opposition thereto, and good cause appearing, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED, and IT IS 4 HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 6 7 8 9 In accordance with Rule 23(a), 23(b)(1)(B) and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class (“Judgment Class” or “Class”) is hereby certified as follows: All persons in a Surety State who established an account with Meracord LLC (formerly NoteWorld) or any subsidiary thereof from which Meracord processed any payments related to debt settlement, including MARS, within the Bond Period of their state of residence. 10 Surety States and respective Bond Periods are defined as set forth in Appendix A. 11 Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its officers and directors, members of their 12 immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in 13 which Defendant has or had a controlling interest. Also excluded are (1) Meracord customers in 14 Washington state whose debt settlement accounts were opened between July 26, 2007, and 15 October 18, 2011 (those within the Class Period covered by the settlement in Wheeler v. 16 NoteWorld, 2:10-cv-00202-LRS (E.D. Wash.)); (2) Meracord customers in Georgia whose debt 17 settlement accounts were opened between July 26, 2007, and July 28, 2011 (those within the 18 Class Period covered by the settlement in Morefield v. NoteWorld, Case No. 1:10-CV-00117 19 (S.D. Ga.)); and (3) Meracord customers who signed agreements with Debt Shield as their Front 20 DRC, and whose accounts were opened between July 26, 2007, and September 25, 21 2013 (those within the Class Period covered by the settlement in Haile v. Debt Shield, Case 22 No. 2:08-CV-04295 (W.D. Mo.)). 23 24 25 26 With respect to the Judgment Class, the Court finds that class-wide application of Washington law is appropriate. With respect to the Judgment Class, the requirements of Rules 23(a) have been met in that: (1) the number of Judgment Class Members, over 130,000, is so numerous that joinder is impracticable and members of the Class are ascertainable through Meracord’s customer FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT - 1 1 database; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the 2 twelve Class representatives are typical of the claims of the Class; and (4) the twelve Class 3 representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 4 Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) because there are limited and insufficient 5 funds available to compensate the Class. All of the available funds will be devoted to 6 compensating Class members, less allowances for costs and attorneys’ fees. Certification is 7 necessary to ensure that all similarly situated Class members are treated equitably. 8 Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A), in light of the Defendant’s limited resources, the Court 9 determines that notice at this juncture would diminish funds that might later be available to the 10 Class. In the event of a recovery on behalf of the Class, the Court will direct appropriate notice. 11 Rule 23(g) is satisfied because Plaintiffs’ counsel will fairly and adequately represent the 12 interests of the Judgment Class. The Court therefore appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 13 LLP and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC as class counsel. 14 15 Judgment against Defendant on behalf of the Judgment Class is granted on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint, except for Count IX. 16 Based on the review of the April 9, 2015 Declaration of Lorraine M. Tafoya, the Court 17 finds that the judgment class is entitled to damages of $484,757,939.30. Pursuant to Section 18 1964(c) of RICO, this amount will be trebled for a total judgment of $1,454,273,818.90. The 19 Court orders that this judgment amount be allocated as described in Appendix A attached hereto. 20 There is no reason for delay in the entry of judgment against Defendant and final judgment 21 22 is appropriately entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Court reserves jurisdiction over this action including all proceedings on behalf of the 23 Class concerning the collection or enforcement of this judgment. In the event that the Class 24 representatives, on behalf of the Class, seek to satisfy this judgment from Meracord’s surety 25 bonds, Class representatives, on behalf of the Class, shall file a complaint against Meracord’s 26 sureties within thirty (30) days of this Order. FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT - 2 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: May 14, 2015 3 A 4 5 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 Presented By: 10 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC Stuart M Paynter (pro hac vice) 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 stuart@smplegal.com 22 Celeste H.G. Boyd (pro hac vice) 1340 Environ Way Chapel Hill, NC 27517 919-636-7563 cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 24 25 26 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT - 3 APPENDIX A 1 2 Surety States Bond Period Damages Trebled Damages 3 ALABAMA July 24, 2009–Present $8,401,551.06 $25,204,653.18 4 ALASKA August 5, 2009–Present $1,898,430.86 $5,695,292.58 ARIZONA November 29, 2008–Present $16,968,239.23 $50,904,717.69 ARKANSAS July 31, 2010–Present $3,741,038.29 $11,223,114.87 CALIFORNIA April 15, 2012–Present $43,310,443.64 $129,931,330.92 COLORADO August 6, 2008–Present $8,363,590.85 $25,090,772.55 CONNECTICUT November 1, 2007–Present $7,496,231.23 $22,488,693.69 DELAWARE September 21, 2009–Present $1,706,170.25 $5,118,510.75 10 WASHINGTON, D.C. October 19, 2009–Present $644,912.56 $1,934,737.68 11 FLORIDA February 1, 2009–Present $46,680,334.98 $140,041,004.94 12 GEORGIA January 12, 2009–Present $188,360.75 $565,082.25 13 HAWAII July 9, 2009–Present $2,885,833.25 $8,657,499.75 14 IDAHO August 3, 2009–Present $3,652,248.65 $10,956,745.95 15 ILLINOIS October 27, 2010–Present $16,376,224.92 $49,128,674.76 16 INDIANA February 5, 2009–Present $13,372,177.89 $40,116,533.67 IOWA March 1, 2009–Present $6,248,808.75 $18,746,426.25 KANSAS July 15, 2009–Present $2,151,401.30 $6,454,203.90 KENTUCKY October 19, 2009–Present $4,086,811.33 $12,260,433.99 LOUISIANA March 20, 2009–Present $8,293,679.83 $24,881,039.49 MAINE July 24, 2009–Present $2,369,514.51 $7,108,543.53 MARYLAND January 1, 2009–Present $15,776,570.67 $47,329,712.01 22 MICHIGAN December 31, 2010–Present $14,222,259.40 $42,666,778.20 23 MINNESOTA February 13, 2009–Present $11,326,539.60 $33,979,618.80 24 MISSISSIPPI May 5, 2009–Present $2,729,093.96 $8,187,281.88 25 MISSOURI October 10, 2010–Present $9,430,734.00 $28,292,202.00 26 NEBRASKA May 29, 2009–Present $3,508,251.64 $10,524,754.92 NEVADA May 5, 2009–Present $8,622,199.63 $25,866,598.89 5 6 7 8 9 17 18 19 20 21 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT - 4 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE November 30, 2008–Present $1,602,750.07 $4,808,250.21 2 NEW JERSEY November 30, 2008–Present $19,610,666.43 $58,831,999.29 3 NEW YORK July 2, 2009–Present $43,671,792.60 $131,015,377.80 NORTH CAROLINA March 5, 2009–Present $9,732,260.47 $29,196,781.41 NORTH DAKOTA September 23, 2009–Present $817,831.82 $2,453,495.46 OHIO April 1, 2009–Present $26,807,867.56 $80,423,602.68 OKLAHOMA March 23, 2009–Present $5,752,789.17 $17,258,367.51 PENNSYLVANIA June 27, 2008–Present $37,269,259.79 $111,807,779.37 RHODE ISLAND June 23, 2009–Present $2,575,094.09 $7,725,282.27 SOUTH DAKOTA August 5, 2009–Present $1,004,159.76 $3,012,479.28 10 TENNESSEE September 22, 2010–Present $6,507,283.81 $19,521,851.43 11 TEXAS October 3, 2007–Present $53,460,876.24 $160,382,628.72 12 VERMONT September 21, 2009–Present $682,327.37 $2,046,982.11 13 VIRGINIA August 27, 2009–Present $141,593.26 $424,779.78 14 WASHINGTON September 29, 2008–Present $49,706.58 $149,119.74 15 WEST VIRGINIA March 20, 2009–Present $2,060,221.61 $6,180,664.83 WISCONSIN June 3, 2009–Present $7,571,680.50 $22,715,041.50 WYOMING October 22, 2009–Present $988,125.14 $2,964,375.42 $484,757,939.30 $1,454,273,817.90 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 17 TOTAL FEES 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT - 5
]]>
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.
