Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Casey v. Citibank, N.A., Citimortgage, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. New York

May 9, 2014

GORDON CASEY and DUANE SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A., CITIMORTGAGE, INC., MIDFIRST BANK, N.A. d/b/a MIDLAND MORTGAGE, and FIRSTINSURE, INC., Defendants.

ORDER: (1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) APPROVING PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF NOTICE VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL; (3) CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; (4) APPOINTING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AS COUNSEL FOR THE SETTLEMENT CLASS; (5) DESIGNATING PLAINTIFF AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE; AND (6) SETTING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

DAVID N. HURD, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff Gordon Casey's unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendants MidFirst Bank ("MidFirst"), including its Midland Mortgage Division ("Midland"), and Firstinsure, Inc. ("Firstinsure") (collectively, "the MidFirst Defendants" or "Defendants"). The Court has considered the Motion, the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement" or "Settlement"), the Notice of Class Action Settlement ("Class Notice"), the other papers submitted in connection with the Motion, and all files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned action (the "Action"). Finding good cause to approve the Motion, the Court now finds and ORDERS as follows:

1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement executed by the Parties and filed with the Court.

2. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the terms set forth therein, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing after members of the Settlement Class have had an opportunity to opt-out of the Settlement or object to the Settlement.

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies, solely for purpose of effectuating this Settlement the following Settlement Class:

All persons with a mortgage loan owned or serviced by Midland who were sent a flood insurance cycle letter by Midland or who were charged for lender-placed flood insurance by Midland on or after May 17, 2006 and before May 9, 2014 (the "Class Period").

4. The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets the criteria for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The number of class members is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. There are questions of law and fact common to the class with respect to both the challenged "commission" practice and Midland's flood insurance coverage requirements. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class. Finally, Plaintiff and his counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class, and will do so in connection with the Settlement Agreement.

5. The Court further finds that the Settlement Class meets the criteria for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The aforementioned common issues predominate over any individualized issues, and resolution of this action as a class action is superior to alternative methods of adjudicating the claims of the members of the Settlement Class.

6. The Court hereby appoints Plaintiff's counsel, Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Berger & Montague, P.C., as co-lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, and appoints Taus Cebulash & Landau, LLP as additional Class Counsel.

7. The Court also appoints Plaintiff Gordon Casey as Class Representative for the Settlement Class.

8. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the terms of the Settlement Agreement (including the monetary relief, prospective relief, and release of claims) are fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of arms-length negotiations conducted after Class Counsel had adequately investigated the claims in the Action and became familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of those claims. The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the Court's conclusion that the Settlement was fairly negotiated at arm's length. The Court therefore grants preliminary approval of the Settlement.

9. The Court finds and concludes that the Class Notice and the procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement for providing notice to the Settlement Class will provide the best notice practicable, satisfies the notice requirements of Rules 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e), adequately advises Settlement Class members of their rights under the Settlement, and meets the requirements of due process. The Class Notice fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably provides Settlement Class members with all required information, including (among other things): (1) a summary of the lawsuit and the claims asserted; (2) a clear definition of the Settlement Class; (3) a description of the material terms of the Settlement; (4) information regarding the claim criteria and instructions as to how Settlement Class members may make a claim; (5) a disclosure of the release of claims should they choose to remain in the class; (6) an explanation of Settlement Class members' opt-out rights, a date by which Settlement Class members must opt out, and information regarding how to do so; (7) instructions as to how to object to the Settlement and a date by which Settlement Class members must object; (8) the date, time, and location of the final approval hearing; (9) the internet address for the settlement website and the toll-free number from which Settlement Class members may obtain additional information about the Settlement; and (10) the names of the law firms representing the Settlement Class, and contact information for the lead firms. The proposed plan for mailing the Class Notice by first class mail to the last known addresses of the members of the Settlement Class is an appropriate method, reasonably designed to reach all individuals who would be bound by the Settlement. This form of mailed notice is also supplemented through the settlement website, which the Court finds to be a reasonable form of supplemental notice. Accordingly, the Court approves the Class Notice, and the manner of distributing the Class Notice to Settlement Class members.

10. The Court further finds that the Claim Form set forth in the Settlement Agreement is not unduly burdensome for Settlement Class members to complete, and that the claims process established by the Settlement is reasonable and appropriate. Eligible members of the Settlement Class who wish to receive monetary compensation under the Settlement must submit a valid and timely Claim Form to the designated Claims Administrator, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, postmarked no later ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.