O'Connor v. AR Res., Inc.

O'Connor v. AR Res., Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT [Doc. # 23]

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement filed on August 13, 2009. [Doc. # 23]. This matter was initiated by a complaint filed on November 11, 2008 after the named Plaintiff spoke "with Attorney Daniel Blinn of Consumer Law Group, [and] agreed to be a class representative in a lawsuit not only for [her]self, but also on behalf of a class of all other persons who had similar claims against the defendant." [Doc. # 25, P3]. This case involves allegations that AR Resources, Inc. ("AR Resources") engaged in unauthorized  [*2] collection activity by sending collection letters to Connecticut residents absent license in Connecticut to operate as a consumer collection agency in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-801. The Plaintiff alleges that by doing so, AR Resources violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., in that its unlicensed activity constituted a deceptive means of collecting or attempting to collect a debt In violation of FDCPA § 1692e(10), and an unfair means of collecting or attempting to collect a debt In violation of FDCPA § 1692f.

As noted by the Plaintiff in its memorandum in support of its motion for class certification, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the certification of classes and the approval of class action settlements. [Doc. # 23]. The Second Circuit has pronounced that a district court must weigh facts and make findings as to whether Rule 23's prerequisites are satisfied before granting class certification motions. In Re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 226 F.R.D. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

Class Certification

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.