Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04108
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, Judge Corley ordered a response about possibly repeating class notice and canceled the approval hearing.
Harriet Gatchalian, the settlement class members, and the pending settlement-approval and attorney-fee proceedings were affected. The court required Gatchalian to respond about whether class notice must be repeated and canceled the scheduled hearing.
What happened
In Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Harriet Gatchalian asked the court to approve a settlement in a consumer class action alleging abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. Her motions for final settlement approval and attorney’s fees and costs were pending.
The court found that the settlement website did not contain the final-approval and attorney-fee motions, even though the class notice said those documents would be available there. The court therefore questioned whether class members received the notice required for the attorney-fee motion.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley ordered Gatchalian to explain by March 21, 2024, why the class notice should not be repeated to comply with the federal class-action rules. The court also vacated the March 14, 2024 hearing on final approval and attorney’s fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-04108
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 6, 2024
Background
Harriet Gatchalian brought a consumer class action against Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, and other defendants, alleging abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. The court had previously granted preliminary approval of the parties’ class-action settlement. Gatchalian’s motions for final approval of the settlement and for attorney’s fees and costs were pending.
Notice requirements
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) requires notice of a class counsel’s attorney-fee motion to be given to class members in a reasonable manner. The court explained that this requirement applies whether the fees come from a settlement fund or are paid directly by another party, because class members have an interest in the arrangements for paying class counsel.
During preliminary approval, the court had raised concerns about the class notice. The parties submitted a revised notice that included a website link, information about class members’ ability to object to the attorney-fee motion, and information about when the motions for attorney’s fees and final approval would be filed and how to access them. The court previously found those procedures appeared sufficient under Rules 23(e) and 23(h).
Court’s action
For final approval, Gatchalian submitted a copy of the notice distributed to class members. The notice directed class members to www.gatchaliansettlement.com, stating that they could find the notice, the preliminary approval order, the preliminary- and final-approval motions, and the attorney-fee materials there. After reviewing the website, however, the court found that neither the final-approval motion nor the attorney-fee motion and costs were available. The court stated that it therefore did not appear class members had received the required notice of the attorney-fee motion.
The court ordered Gatchalian to show cause—meaning to explain—why she should not be required to repeat the class notice so that it complies with Rule 23(h)(1). It ordered her to file a written response by March 21, 2024. The court also vacated the March 14, 2024 hearing on the motions for final approval and attorney’s fees and costs. The opinion did not decide whether the settlement or fee motion should ultimately be approved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.