SCHWARM
SCHWARM v. Craighead
Opinion
Opinion
Shubb, J.
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES INCENTIVE AWARD AND MOTION TO APPROVE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Based on defendants Henry Craighead and District Attorney Technical Services, Ltd.’s (“DATS”) collection efforts for checks returned due to insufficient funds, plaintiff Kristy Schwarm initiated this class action on June 29, 2005, alleging claims for (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 -1692p; (2) violations of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , based on alleged procedural due process violations; (3) state constitutional procedural due process violations; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. Currently before the court are plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments and for approval of the planned distribution of funds.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On March 4, 2006, this court certified the case as a class action for “[a]ll persons who wrote checks in California to whom DATS mailed collection demands concerning dishonored checks, since June 29, 2003,” and up until the date of the court’s Class Certification Order.…