As was previously posted here, there is a Final Fairness Hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning, June 11, 2015 at 10:00 A.M., on the preliminarily approved class action settlement in Lee v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 0:14-cv-60649-JG (S.D. Fla.). See CLAIM PRECLUSION OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON JUNE 11, 2015, posted here on March 17, 2015.
Certain reasons that the settlement may be unfair are presented in the previously posted article, including that “[t]he claims of the Lee plaintiffs are not typical, and neither the plaintiffs nor their settlement class attorneys can possibly represent the claims of the other members of the class under the laws of the 40+ States which they cannot invoke.” Id.
In addition, the stipulated settlement agreement in Lee, here: Download Lee v Ocwen Loan Servicing. Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Dkt 111-1 filed 12.18.14 (SD Fla Case No 0.14.cv.60649)., has the recurring potential unfairness defects in such cases that:
1. People who are far from the Florida litigation will be barred from raising issues and claims that are included in the stipulated settlement in Florida, see the stipulation’s stated definition of “Settlement Class,” in Section (actually, Paragraph) 3.1, p. 16; and ¶¶s 10.1 and 10.1.1, pp. 39-40.
2. The same people whose issues or claims or both may be precluded against the same defendants will be purportedly enjoined from raising those issues and claims in any other litigation, with the injunction if any to be entered by the Court in Florida if the stipulation receives final approval. ¶ 10.7, p. 43.
At least some of the defendants in the Florida case already have requested a Court in another jurisdiction in another case, to stay the other case because at the time the defendants had reached a settlement agreement in principle in the Florida case. The other case is Valdez v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03595-CAS-MAN (C.D. Cal.) Although the Judge in the Central District of California case denied the motion to stay, the Court made clear that the fairness of the settlement in Florida was an issue strictly reserved to the Court in Florida, and that the Judge was not adjudicating fairness issues in denying the motion to stay based on the stipulated settlement in Florida:
The fairness of the Lee settlement is not a proper subject for this Court’s consideration, and if plaintiffs’ counsel believes that the interests of the putative California class are harmed by that settlement, this issue should be presented to the Lee court by way of a timely objection.
Footnote 1 of Download Valdez v Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. Order Denying Certain Defendants Motion to Stay Proceedings Against Them. Dkt No. 132. Filed 01.06.15 (CD Cal No. 2.14.cv.03595.CAS.MAN). Parenthetically, the Court in California denied the motion to stay because the California litigation likely would remain pending regardless of whether the Lee Court ultimately gives its final approval to the settlement “—and because the only hardship proffered by moving defendants is the inconvenience of litigating two potentially duplicative actions”. Page 5 of Download Valdez v Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. Order Denying Certain Defendants Motion to Stay Proceedings Against Them. Dkt No. 132. Filed 01.06.15 (CD Cal No. 2.14.cv.03595.CAS.MAN).
Recently, the Magistrate Judge who is presiding over Lee by consent of the parties entered an Order directing the parties to address some 9 numbered paragraphs of concerns and issues related to any order of final approval at the Fairness Hearing scheduled for tomorrow, June 11, 2015 at 10:00 A.M.: Download Lee v Ocwen Loan Servicing. Order on Objections to Requested Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Dkt No 149. 051315 (SD Fla No 0.14.cv.60649). These concerns will undoubtedly be raised by the Magistrate tomorrow. It is hoped that these and all other fairness concerns will be addressed then also.
Readers of this article may share their concerns and any objections they have to the ultimate fairness or unfairness of the Lee stipulated settlement by contacting the lawyers, who are in the position of raising such concerns with the Magistrate Judge at the Fairness Hearing. At least some of the lawyers may appreciate your extension of help. Here is the Clerk’s list of Attorneys in the Lee case if you wish to contact any of the attorneys: Download Lee v Ocwen Servicing.Clerks List of Attorneys.(SD Fla No 0.14.cv.60649).061015. EMail addresses are provided therein through the courtesy of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, www.lenderforceplacedinsurance.com, author of “Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices” (American Bar Association 2015). All Rights Reserved. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works.