SCHWARM

SCHWARM v. Craighead

Good Law
814 F. Supp. 2d 1025·2011 WL 4505267·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110065
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 2011CIV. 05-01304 WBS GGHCalifornia3,264 words

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.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.