Date: 06-02-2023

Case Style:

Jo Anne Silva v. Connected Investors, Inc.

Case Number: 7:21-CV-74

Judge: James C. Dever, III

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Wake County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Christopher G. Smith, Joel D. Siegel, John E. Harris

Description: Raleigh, North Carolina consumer law lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a telephone consumer protection act violation theory under 48 U.S.C. 227.

Plaintiff Jo Anna Silva (“Plaintiff') and Connected Investors, LLC (“Connected Investors” or “Defendant”) (Plaintiff and Defendant collectively referred to as, the “Parties”) have agreed to settle this Action pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement”). The Parties reached the Settlement through extensive negotiations. Under the Settlement, subject to the terms and conditions therein and subject to Court approval, Plaintiff and the proposed Settlement Class will fully, finally, and forever resolve, discharge, and release their claims.

The Settlement has been filed with the Court, and Plaintiff and Class Counsel have filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (“Motion”). [ECF No.] Upon considering the Motion, the Settlement and all exhibits thereto, the record in these proceedings, the representations and recommendations of counsel, and the requirements of law, the Court finds that: (1) this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties to this Action; (2) the proposed Settlement Class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and should be certified for settlement purposes only; (3) the persons and entities, identified below should be appointed Class Representative and Class Counsel; (4) the Settlement is the result of informed, good-faith, negotiations between the Parties and their capable and experienced counsel, and is not the result of collusion; (5) the Settlement is within the range of reasonableness and should be preliminarily approved; (6) the proposed Notice program and proposed forms of Notice satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and constitutional due process requirements, and are reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action, class certification, the terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses (“Fee Application”) and request for a Service Award for Plaintiff, and their rights to opt-out of the Settlement Class or object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee Application, and/or the request for a Service Award for Plaintiff; (7) good cause exists to schedule and conduct a Final Approval Hearing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), to assist the Court in determining whether to grant Final Approval of the Settlement and enter the Final Approval Order, and whether to grant Class Counsel's Fee Application and request for a Service Award for Plaintiff; and (8) the other related matters pertinent to the Preliminary Approval of the Settlement should also be approved.

Outcome:
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, together with all exhibits thereto, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court finds that the Settlement was reached in the absence of collusion, is the product of informed, good-faith, arm's-length negotiations between the Parties and their capable and experienced counsel. The Court further finds that the Settlement, including the exhibits thereto, is within the range of reasonableness and possible judicial approval, such that: (a) a presumption of fairness is appropriate for the purposes of preliminary settlement approval; and (b) it is appropriate to effectuate notice to the Settlement Class, as set forth below and in the Settlement, and schedule a Final Approval Hearing to assist the Court in determining whether to grant Final Approval to the Settlement and enter a Final Approval Order.
Silva v. Connected Inv'rs (E.D. N.C. 2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: