Harbin v. Emergency Coverage Corporation, 3:16-CV-125. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20171212d73
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH , District Judge . On November 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton filed his report and recommendation (Doc. 47) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that the parties' joint motion for an order conditionally certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class settlement agreement (Doc. 43) be granted. (Doc. 47.) Neither party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and recommendati
Summary: ORDER TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH , District Judge . On November 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton filed his report and recommendation (Doc. 47) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that the parties' joint motion for an order conditionally certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class settlement agreement (Doc. 43) be granted. (Doc. 47.) Neither party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and recommendatio..
More
ORDER
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH, District Judge.
On November 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton filed his report and recommendation (Doc. 47) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that the parties' joint motion for an order conditionally certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class settlement agreement (Doc. 43) be granted. (Doc. 47.)
Neither party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the report and recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Guyton's well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court will ACCEPT and ADOPT Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and recommendation (Doc. 47). It is further ORDERED as follows:
1) The parties' joint motion for an order conditionally certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class settlement agreement (Doc. 43) is GRANTED;
2) This matter is CERTIFIED as a class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the following class:
(a) All persons sued by Defendants; (b) in the General Session Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee; (c) that had garnishments issued against their wages that included amounts of post-judgment interest or fees that exceeded the amount allowed under Tennessee state law; (d) that made payments to Defendants as a result of the wrongful garnishments issued to their employers by garnishments of wages or direct payment to the clerk between March 16, 2013[,] and ending on April 5, 2016.
3) The Court PRELIMINARILY APPROVES the settlement set forth in the settlement agreement (Doc. 43-1, at 1-15), subject to final consideration at the final fairness hearing set before Magistrate Judge Guyton on March 26, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.;
4) The Court hereby APPOINTS Alan C. Lee, Peter A. Holland, and Scott C. Borison as Class Counsel;
5) The Court hereby DESIGNATES Dustin Harbin and Jimmy Pruitt as the representatives of the Class;
6) Within thirty days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall send notice to the class members;
7) Class members shall have forty-five days after the initial mailing of the notice to exclude themselves from, or to object to, the settlement agreement. Any class member desiring to exclude themselves from the action must serve copies of the requests on the Class Administrator by the same date. Any class members who wish to object to the settlement must submit an objection in writing to the Clerk of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee, and serve copies of the objection on the Class Administrator by the same date; and
8) Defendants shall file with the Court proof of compliance with the notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) on or before December 18, 2017.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Magistrate Judge Guyton specifically advised the parties that they had fourteen days in which to object to the report and recommendation and that failure to do so would waive their right to appeal. (Doc. 47, at 6 n.1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Even taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), the period in which the parties could timely file any objections has now expired.
Source: Leagle
