Class Action Settlements Approved for Employees Who Scanned Fingerprints at Illinois Trampoline Parks and Entertainment Centers

Payments of $718 and $598 to begin the week of October 7, 2024. Additional payment of $280 expected in December 2024. A federal court has granted final approval of three class action settlements in a case involving fingerprint scans of employees at several trampoline and entertainment parks in Illinois. Distributions of some settlement payments commence… Continue reading

Payments of $718 and $598 to begin the week of October 7, 2024. Additional payment of $280 expected in December 2024.

A federal court has granted final approval of three class action settlements in a case involving fingerprint scans of employees at several trampoline and entertainment parks in Illinois. Distributions of some settlement payments commence this week, with an additional payment expected in December 2024.

The settlements mark the culmination of extensive litigation that began in 2019. The lawsuit alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Plaintiff, Madisyn Stauffer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleged that fingerprints were collected and stored without proper notice and consent in violation of BIPA by her employer, a Sky Zone trampoline park franchisee (Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC), as well as by the franchisor (Sky Zone Franchise Group, LLC), and by the equipment/software vendor (Pathfinder Software, LLC).

After years of litigation, Plaintiff reached separate settlements with each defendant. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois approved the settlements and appointed attorneys Kevin P. Green, Richard S. Cornfeld, Daniel S. Levy, and Thomas C. Horscroft of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C., as Class Counsel.

Pursuant to the settlements, people in the Innovative Heights Class will receive approximately $718; people in the Sky Zone Class will receive approximately $598; people in the Pathfinder Class will receive approximately $280. Some people are in multiple classes, meaning they could receive money from each settlement, totaling approximately $1,596. Distribution of the Innovative Heights and Sky Zone payments began the week of October 7, 2024. Distribution of the Pathfinder payments is expected to begin in December 2024.

“Class actions are often criticized as being ineffective or frivolous, but this case demonstrates their powerful impact. The class members here will see significant compensation—amounts of over $1,500 for some—which can truly have an impact,” said Kevin Green of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C., one of the attorneys appointed as Class Counsel. “The settlements are a testament to our team’s hard work over the last five years and underscore the vital role of giving people in Illinois control over their biometric data in today’s world of rapidly-changing technology.”

The case is Stauffer v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-MAB (S.D. Ill.).

The attorneys at Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. have extensive experience representing clients in complex class action litigation across the country.  Please contact us today at (800) 782-8492.

Court Grants Preliminary Approval of $1,175,000 BIPA Settlement

On March 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval of a $1,175,000 class action settlement with one of three defendants in the lawsuit called Stauffer v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-MAB (S.D. Ill.).  Attorneys Kevin P. Green, Richard S. Cornfeld, Thomas… Continue reading

On March 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval of a $1,175,000 class action settlement with one of three defendants in the lawsuit called Stauffer v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-MAB (S.D. Ill.).  Attorneys Kevin P. Green, Richard S. Cornfeld, Thomas C. Horscroft, Daniel S. Levy, who have been litigating this case for nearly five years, were appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

If you scanned your fingerprint into a computer system as part of your employment at a trampoline park or other similar entertainment center in Illinois between April 29, 2014 and March 20, 2024, you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement.

The Lawsuit is against multiple defendants asserting violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). One of the defendants is Pathfinder Software, LLC doing business as CenterEdge Software (“CenterEdge”). CenterEdge supplies businesses in Illinois with point-of-sale systems that include a fingerprint scanner that allows the businesses’ employees to do things like clock in or out of work. The lawsuit alleges CenterEdge violated BIPA by collecting and possessing fingerprint data from people who used a fingerprint to access CenterEdge systems in Illinois without providing the required disclosures and obtaining written consent.

CenterEdge has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of $1,175,000 to resolve these claims against CenterEdge. The Court did not decide whether CenterEdge violated the law and CenterEdge denies any violation of the law.

The Settlement Class consists of two groups of people.

__________________________________

GROUP 1

The first group consists of specific individuals who have been identified from information obtained in the Lawsuit as having scanned one or more fingers into a CenterEdge system in Illinois between April 29, 2014 and March 20, 2024. People in the first group do not need to file a claim or take any action to receive their settlement payment.

__________________________________

GROUP 2

The second group consists of all persons who, at any time from April 29, 2014, through March 20, 2024, scanned one or more fingers into a CenterEdge system at any of the following Sky Zone Trampoline Park locations:

  • Sky Zone in Elmhurst, IL;
  • Sky Zone in Aurora, IL; or
  • Sky Zone in Joliet, IL.

People in the second group will need to file a claim to receive their settlement payment. In the claim form, people in this group will provide contact information and verify that, on at least one occasion between April 29, 2014 and March 20, 2024, they scanned their fingerprint at a Sky Zone Trampoline Park located in Elmhurst, Aurora, or Joliet, Illinois.

You can complete a claim form online. To complete and submit a claim form, click HERE. You will need the Claimant ID listed on the Notice you received.

You can also use the link above to print the claim form and return it to the Settlement Administrator.

The claim form must be electronically submitted or postmarked on or before June 24, 2024.

__________________________________

Members of Group 1 and Group 2 can also opt-out or object to the Settlement. The deadline to do so is June 10, 2024.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. Any settlement payments will only be distributed if the Court approves the settlement and after any appeals are resolved. The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for August 21, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

The exact number of people in the settlement class and the amount of money each person participating in the settlement will receive will not be known until a later date. At this time, we estimate that Settlement Class Participants will receive approximately $230 to $330 each.

If you are a member of the settlement class, please carefully review the information in the notice that was sent to you. You can also find information and a claim form, at the settlement website https://www.centeredgesettlement.com/.

 

The attorneys at Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. have extensive experience representing clients in complex class action litigation across the country.  Please contact us today at (800) 782-8492.

Court Grants Final Approval of Rams PSL Settlement

Deadline for PSL Owners to File Claims is August 23, 2019. On June24, 2019, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., granted final approval of the $24 million class action settlement for purchasers of personal seat licenses (PSLs) for the former St. Louis Rams football team. During the hearing, Judge Limbaugh noted that this was… Continue reading

football sitting next to a gavel

Deadline for PSL Owners to File Claims is August 23, 2019.

On June24, 2019, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., granted final approval of the $24 million class action settlement for purchasers of personal seat licenses (PSLs) for the former St. Louis Rams football team.

During the hearing, Judge Limbaugh noted that this was a “hotly contested case” that was “resolved in a satisfactory way.”

“Nearly 50% of class members have already filed claims, and PSL holders still have two more months to file their claims,” said Kevin Green, attorney with Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli.  The deadline to file claims is August 23, 2019.  Claims may be filed online at www.RamsPSLClassActionSettlement.com.

What are PSL holders getting?

Payments to class members are based on 30-percent of the price paid for each PSL, which represents a full-reimbursement equivalent for the nine years remaining on the 30-year PSL contract when the Rams moved to Los Angeles after the 2015 season.

PSL Tier Price
Pay-Out for Each PSL
$250
$75
$500
$150
$1,000
$300
$2,500
$750
$3,000
$900
$4,500
$1,350

Who qualifies for a refund?

PSL contracts were initially sold by an entity called “Fans, Inc.”  In April 1996, the Rams started selling PSLs directly.  The settlement includes purchases made both through Fans, Inc. and the Rams.

 If you purchased a PSL from FANS, Inc., directly from the Rams, or from another PSL holder at any time, and if you never received a written cancellation notice from the Rams before the end of the 2015 season, you are likely a class member eligible to receive a part of the settlement funds.  If you transferred your PSL or received a written cancellation notice from the Rams, you may not be in the class.  The settlement includes a process to verify the claim and the amount owed after a PSL holder files a claim.

What if a PSL holder stopped buying season tickets?

Individuals who bought a PSL but stopped buying season tickets may still be eligible to participate in the settlement.  If you stopped buying season tickets at any time, you may still be in the class if you did not receive a written notice from the Rams cancelling your PSL.

Are there exceptions?

You may receive payment for each PSL you owned at the end of the 2015 season as long as you did not transfer that PSL to someone else or receive a written notice from the Rams terminating that PSL.

When will PSL holders receive their money?

We expect the payment to be made near the end of the year, but the exact date is a bit uncertain because of the court-approval and administrative process involved.  The settlement website has more detailed information about dates and the status of the court-approval process.

Is there a timeline for how events will unfold?

A timeline of key events in the settlement process is located here.

Case Background

In February 2016, Ronald McAllister filed a class action lawsuit asserting that the Rams breached the contract governing the PSLs.  He argued that the contract governing the PSLs sold by FANS, Inc. required the Rams to refund a portion of the PSL purchase price after their move to Los Angeles.  For original PSL holders who bought PSLs when the Rams first came to St. Louis, he sought a 30-percent refund based on the nine unused years remaining on the 30-year term.

In 2018, the court appointed McAllister as a class representative on behalf of all original purchasers of PSLs (known as the FANS Class).  The court appointed as attorneys for the FANS Class Mark Goldenberg, Thomas Rosenfeld and Kevin Green of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C.; Anthony Bruning, Anthony Bruning Jr., Ryan Bruning, and Edward Roth of The Bruning Law Firm, LLC; and Richard Cornfeld of the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld.

Separate lawsuits brought by individuals who purchased PSLs through the Rams beginning in April 1996 were filed by Richard Arnold, R. McNeeley Cochran, and Brad Pearlman.  They argued that the contracts governing the PSLs sold by the Rams did not terminate with the Rams’ move to Los Angeles, and that the Rams breached the contract by failing to use their “best efforts” to ensure PSL holders the right to purchase tickets wherever the Rams played their home games.  These PSL holders were also grouped together in a class (known as the Rams Class), which also includes PSL holders who upgraded to a higher tier seat or who received their PSL by transfer from another PSL holder.

Both the FANS Class and the Rams Class are part of the settlement.

The attorneys at Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. have extensive experience representing clients in complex class action litigation across the country.  Please contact us today at (800) 782-8492.

Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Rams PSL Settlement

Nine Important Facts PSL Holders Need to Know On January 24, 2019, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., granted preliminary approval of the $24 million class action settlement for purchasers of personal seat licenses (PSLs) for the former St. Louis Rams football team.  The court’s order establishes a settlement website for PSL holders to… Continue reading

image of stadium seats

Nine Important Facts PSL Holders Need to Know

On January 24, 2019, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., granted preliminary approval of the $24 million class action settlement for purchasers of personal seat licenses (PSLs) for the former St. Louis Rams football team.  The court’s order establishes a settlement website for PSL holders to file claims, procedures for notice of the settlement to be sent to class members, and a deadline for making claims to participate in the settlement.

“This settlement provides a reimbursement to PSL holders that is consistent with the relief we sought in the lawsuit, but many people still have questions about the claims process,” said Kevin Green, attorney with Goldenberg Heller.

Questions regarding the settlement, the qualifications to receive a refund, opting-out of the settlement, the $24 million settlement cap, the timing of payments to PSL holders, and a timeline of important dates are addressed below.

What are PSL holders getting?

Payments to class members are based on 30-percent of the price paid for each PSL, which represents a full-reimbursement equivalent for the nine years remaining on the 30-year PSL contract when the Rams moved to Los Angeles after the 2015 season.

PSL Tier Price
Pay-Out for Each PSL
$250
$75
$500
$150
$1,000
$300
$2,500
$750
$3,000
$900
$4,500
$1,350

How and when should claims be made?

Class members must file a claim by mail or online at www.RamsPSLClassActionSettlement.com [the website goes live February 16, 2019]. Claims must be filed no later than August 23, 2019.

Who qualifies for a refund?

PSL contracts were initially sold by an entity called “Fans, Inc.”  In April 1996, the Rams started selling PSLs directly.  The settlement includes purchases made both through Fans, Inc. and the Rams.

If you purchased a PSL from FANS, Inc., directly from the Rams, or from another PSL holder at any time, and if you never received a written cancellation notice from the Rams before the end of the 2015 season, you are likely a class member eligible to receive a part of the settlement funds.  If you transferred your PSL or received a written cancellation notice from the Rams, you may not be in the class.  The settlement includes a process to verify the claim and the amount owed after a PSL holder files a claim.

What if a PSL holder stopped buying season tickets?

Individuals who bought a PSL but stopped buying season tickets may still be eligible to participate in the settlement.  If you stopped buying season tickets at any time, you may still be in the class if you did not receive a written notice from the Rams cancelling your PSL.

Are there exceptions?

You may receive payment for each PSL you owned at the end of the 2015 season as long as you did not transfer that PSL to someone else or receive a written notice from the Rams terminating that PSL.

Can PSL holders opt-out of the settlement?

PSL owners may opt-out of the settlement.  The settlement website has detailed information about how to opt-out and the deadline to opt-out.

What if the number of claims exceeds the $24-million dollar settlement?

The $24 million settlement is divided evenly between the FANS Class and the Rams Class, and the total payment to each class is capped at $12 million.  While it is highly unlikely, if the number of claims for either class exceeds the $12 million cap, the payment for each qualifying PSL in that class will be reduced proportionately for the class members.

When will PSL holders receive their money?

The date of payment to the class members is a bit uncertain because there is a court-approval process involved, which could take many months.  The timing for when payment is made could also be extended if there are appeals after the court issues a final approval order.  The settlement website has more detailed information about dates and the status of the court-approval process.

Is there a timeline for how events will unfold?

A timeline of key events in the settlement process is located here.

Case Background

In February 2016, Ronald McAllister filed a class action lawsuit asserting that the Rams breached the contract governing the PSLs.  He argued that the contract governing the PSLs sold by FANS, Inc. required the Rams to refund a portion of the PSL purchase price after their move to Los Angeles.  For original PSL holders who bought PSLs when the Rams first came to St. Louis, he sought a 30-percent refund based on the nine unused years remaining on the 30-year term.

In 2018, the court appointed McAllister as a class representative on behalf of all original purchasers of PSLs (known as the FANS Class).  The court appointed as attorneys for the FANS Class Mark Goldenberg, Thomas Rosenfeld and Kevin Green of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C.; Anthony Bruning, Anthony Bruning Jr., Ryan Bruning, and Edward Roth of The Bruning Law Firm, LLC; and Richard Cornfeld of the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld.

Separate lawsuits brought by individuals who purchased PSLs through the Rams beginning in April 1996 were filed by Richard Arnold, R. McNeeley Cochran, and Brad Pearlman.  They argued that the contracts governing the PSLs sold by the Rams did not terminate with the Rams’ move to Los Angeles, and that the Rams breached the contract by failing to use their “best efforts” to ensure PSL holders the right to purchase tickets wherever the Rams played their home games.  These PSL holders were also grouped together in a class (known as the Rams Class), which also includes PSL holders who upgraded to a higher tier seat or who received their PSL by transfer from another PSL holder.

Both the FANS Class and the Rams Class are part of the settlement.

St. Louis Rams and PSL Owners Reach $24 Million Settlement

Rams to fully refund to PSL owners the unused portion (nine years) remaining on 30-year PSL contracts following Rams’ departure to Los Angeles Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli is pleased to announce a settlement of its class action against the former St. Louis Rams that will fully compensate tens of thousands of individuals who purchased 30-year… Continue reading

black and white image of football refs huddled together

Rams to fully refund to PSL owners the unused portion (nine years) remaining on 30-year PSL contracts following Rams’ departure to Los Angeles

Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli is pleased to announce a settlement of its class action against the former St. Louis Rams that will fully compensate tens of thousands of individuals who purchased 30-year personal seat licenses (PSLs), which were cut short when the Rams relocated to Los Angeles in 2016. 

The settlement, which remains subject to formal review and approval by the United States District Court, provides for a refund to each PSL owner of 30% of the PSL price, equal to the unused 9 years remaining on the PSLs when the Rams moved to Los Angeles following the 2015 season.

“This settlement provides a substantial benefit that matches the relief we sought in the lawsuit,” said Kevin Green, attorney with Goldenberg Heller.  “After nearly three years of litigation, and with the help of a skilled mediator, the Honorable William Ray Price, we were able to work with the Rams and their attorneys to resolve the case in a way that fully reimburses the unused portion of the PSL fee to these loyal fans.”

The Court appointed Mark Goldenberg, Thomas Rosenfeld and Kevin Green of Goldenberg Heller, along with attorneys from The Bruning Law Firm, LLC, and the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld as Class Counsel for the FANS Class, comprised of the original PSL purchasers.

On behalf of McAllister, Goldenberg Heller took the lead in:

  • developing the legal theory on which the case was ultimately settled;
  • obtaining federal jurisdiction, making the McAllister case the lead case in 3 consolidated class actions;
  • propounding written discovery to the Rams and third parties and reviewing, with co-counsel, tens of thousands of documents and data produced by the Rams and third parties;
  • defending the Rams’ deposition of McAllister’s expert witness; and
  • conducting the depositions of Rams’ executives, including two depositions of the Rams’ Chief Operating Officer, Kevin Demoff.

Following the Court’s grant of class certification, Goldenberg Heller participated in mediation with Rams counsel, reaching agreement on key terms, and took the lead over the next four months in negotiating and drafting the 35-page settlement agreement with the Rams counsel, a copy of which was filed with the Court on December 5, 2018 and is now subject to approval by the Court. 

“It gives our entire legal team tremendous satisfaction that we were able to bring full compensation to PSL owners through this class action,” said attorney Tom Rosenfeld of Goldenberg Heller.

Background

Original PSL contracts entitled owners to purchase season tickets through 2024.  PSL contracts were sold by an entity called “FANS, Inc.” until April 1996, when the Rams started selling them directly.  The PSLs were sold for $250, $500, $1,000, $2,500, $3,000, and $4,500 each, depending on the location of the seat.  In 2016, when the Rams left for Los Angeles, they did not provide PSL owners a refund for the unused 9 years remaining on the PSLs or the right to use the PSLs in Los Angeles.

The case began in February 2016, when Ronald McAllister filed a class action lawsuit asserting that the Rams breached the contract governing the PSLs.  He argued that the contract governing the PSLs sold by FANS, Inc. required the Rams to refund a portion of the PSL purchase price after their move to Los Angeles.  For original PSL owners who bought PSLs when the Rams first came to St. Louis, he sought a 30-percent refund based on the nine unused years remaining on the 30-year term.

In 2018, the court appointed McAllister as a class representative on behalf of all original purchasers of PSLs – those who purchased their PSL before April 1996, and who had not transferred or upgraded the PSL or received a cancellation notice from the Rams by the end of the 2015 season (known as the FANS Class).

Separate lawsuits were brought by individuals who purchased PSLs through the Rams beginning in April 1996. They argued that the contracts governing the PSLs sold by the Rams did not terminate with the Rams’ move to Los Angeles, and that the Rams breached the contract by failing to use their “best efforts” to ensure PSL holders the right to purchase tickets wherever the Rams played their home games. These PSL owners (known as the Rams Class) are also part of the settlement.

The Settlement Benefits

The amount available for each PSL is indicated in the following chart:

PSL Tier Price
Pay-Out for Each PSL
$250
$75
$500
$150
$1,000
$300
$2,500
$750
$3,000
$900
$4,500
$1,350

If the Rams’ payout for the total number of qualifying claims exceeds $24,000,000 (divided evenly among the FANS Class and Rams Class), the amount paid may be reduced on a pro rata basis.

Next Steps

Goldenberg Heller and the other Class Counsel for the PSL holders have filed a motion asking the court to preliminarily approve the settlement. If the court does so, it will require a third-party claims administrator to send notice to all class members about the terms of the settlement, as well as create a settlement website with information about how to file a claim. Class members will be able to file a claim by mail or online at the settlement website and the court will set a deadline for filing claims. In addition, the settlement agreement will provide a process to verify the claim and the amount owed.

The settlement website will be www.RamsPSLClassActionSettlement.com.  Please note, the website will not be live until after the Court preliminarily approves the settlement.  A timeline of key events in the settlement process is located here.

For more information, see the articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the LA Times. If you are a PSL owner, please watch for updates as the settlement moves through the court-approval process.

The attorneys at Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. have extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex class action litigation across the country.  Please contact us today at (800) 782-8492.

A Class Certification Lesson from the Seventh Circuit

Before a plaintiff can proceed as a representative of absent class members who have been similarly injured, the court must certify one or more classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The first of two main hurdles the plaintiff must clear is found in Rule 23(a), which sets forth four universal… Continue reading

drawing of group of people

Before a plaintiff can proceed as a representative of absent class members who have been similarly injured, the court must certify one or more classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The first of two main hurdles the plaintiff must clear is found in Rule 23(a), which sets forth four universal requirements for class actions: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.  Second, if the plaintiff seeks damages, she must demonstrate that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met—that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual inquiries, and that class treatment is the superior method for resolving the controversy.

On October 31, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s certification of a class of consumers in Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software.  The Court’s opinion in Beaton provides a straightforward guide on several of these factors for litigants seeking class certification.

The Facts

In 2012, the plaintiff in the case, Archie Beaton, began looking online for an at-home fix to solve his laptop’s performance problems.  He discovered a free trial for SpeedyPC’s software, which offered to scan his computer and identify problems that affected the device’s performance.  Beaton ran the initial scan, which reported that his computer was in bad shape and encouraged him to purchase a licensed version of the software to correct the problems.  Beaton made the purchase, but when he clicked the “Fix All” button after running the scan, nothing happened.  Feeling scammed, Beaton sued SpeedyPC in 2013 for breach of warranties and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act on behalf of himself and a class of consumers who had similarly downloaded a free trial and thereafter purchased the full version of the software.

The district court certified the classes proposed by Beaton, and on appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the certification.  The Seventh Circuit found all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) satisfied.

Commonality

To satisfy the commonality factor, there must be “one or more common questions of law or fact that are capable of class-wide resolution and are central to the claims’ validity.”  This means that the court should look to see if the proposed class members have similar issues, which, if addressed, could help to resolve the litigation for the entire group.  In this case, the court found commonality easily satisfied because of the numerous common questions amenable to class-wide resolution, including: whether the customers availed themselves of any implied warranties, what functions the marketing materials indicated that the software would perform, and whether the software did, in fact, perform those functions, whether SpeedyPC typically deals in goods related to this software, and whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the advertisements’ representations.

Typicality

The typicality factor asks whether the lead plaintiff’s claims “arise from the same events or course of conduct that gives rise to the putative class members’ claims.”  For this requirement, the court noted that claims from individuals within the class may have slight factual variations, but typicality is still satisfied if the claims each “have the same essential characteristics.”  The Seventh Circuit explained that Beaton and the other users of the software were exposed to the same messages and promises from SpeedyPC and the software operated in the same way on each computer.  Thus, typicality was satisfied.

Adequacy

Adequate representation requires the named plaintiff to “be a member of the putative class and have the same interest and injury as other members.”  According to the Seventh Circuit, SpeedyPC launched a “scattershot” attack on Beaton’s adequacy as a class representative, disputing his reason for purchasing the software, accusing him of deleting evidence, and even launching an attack on his credibility.  However, with no evidence to support SpeedyPC’s claims, the Seventh Circuit found Beaton and his attorneys to meet the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a).

Predominance

Rule 23(b)(3) requires a putative class representative seeking damages to demonstrate that common questions of law or fact predominate over differences within the class.  The Seventh Circuit clarified this requirement, explaining that the predominance factor requires the court to assess the questions that are common to the class, and weigh their relative importance to the case.  While not every issue must be capable of being resolved the same way for each member of the class, the court must look to see if the proposed class members’ claims “arise from a common nucleus of operative facts and issues.”

The Seventh Circuit concluded that, although some individualized inquiries might be needed, the individual issues were not significant enough to defeat a finding of predominance, especially since any outstanding questions could be resolved through streamlined mechanisms that would not harm the defendant’s due process rights.  Given that the material facts in the claims against SpeedyPC arose from a common nucleus of operative fact, the Seventh Circuit found that the predominance requirement satisfied.

Of note, the Court found predominance even in plaintiff’s consumer fraud claims by following recent precedent and explaining that class actions need not resolve every element of liability in a single stroke to be certified.  See Slip. Op. at 18-19 (citing Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (requiring resolution in “one stroke” of a “common contention” central to the common claim); Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997) (certain consumer fraud cases readily establish predominance); Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750, 759-60 (7th Cir. 2014) (the fact that “[e]very consumer fraud case involves individual elements” does not preclude class actions); Pella Corp. v. Saltzman, 606 F.3d 391, 394 (7th Cir. 2010)).

Furthermore, the Court explained that, to the extent individual issues may be relevant, such issues could be established with affidavits, subject to the defendant’s right to challenge them.  The Court further offered that SpeedyPC could challenge class members’ credibility by “obtain[ing] the testimony of a representative sample of the class members and, if necessary, present[ing] evidence contradicting statements found in particular affidavits.”

Superiority

Finally, the Seventh Circuit determined that a class action was the superior way to resolve the dispute pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).  Because common questions of law and fact predominated for the class, addressing the claims collectively would provide a more efficient use of the court’s resources.  Moreover, the amount of damages to which each plaintiff would be entitled was so small (less than $100) that it would be unlikely for an individual to bring this case, since the $400 filing fee to initiate the case exceeded the damages.  Finally, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that class action cases like this act as deterrents against “the proliferation of bogus products whose sticker price is dwarfed even by a court filing fee.”


While the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software is useful for its discussion of the requirements for class certification, the court’s analysis concludes by reminding the litigants that class certification is “largely independent of the merits” and that a certified class can still “go down in flames” in subsequent proceedings.  This reminder is key, as class certification is only one part of a class action.  Due to the complexities of litigating class action cases, it is important to hire an experienced team of class action attorneys.

The attorneys at Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. have extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex class action litigation across the country.  Feel free to contact us today at (800) 782-8492.

Timeline of Key Events in Settlement between St. Louis Rams and PSL Owners

The $24 million class action settlement between the St. Louis Rams and the individuals who purchased personal seat licenses (PSLs), is currently undergoing formal review and approval by the United States District Court.  For more information on the settlement, click here. To help you understand the legal process and important dates and deadlines in the… Continue reading

image of clocks

The $24 million class action settlement between the St. Louis Rams and the individuals who purchased personal seat licenses (PSLs), is currently undergoing formal review and approval by the United States District Court.  For more information on the settlement, click here.

To help you understand the legal process and important dates and deadlines in the settlement process, Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli has created the following timeline, which we will update as the dates become known:

Action

 

Date

 

The Motion for Preliminary Approval is filed

December 5, 2018
The Court issues its Preliminary Approval Order

January 24, 2019
The Settlement Website goes live at www.ramspslclassactionsettlement.com

February 16, 2019
The first of 3 consecutive weekly Publication Notices is printed in the Sunday edition of the St. Louis Post Dispatch

February 17, 2019
E-mail and Postcard Notice of the Settlement is sent out to Class members

February 19, 2019
Deadline for Class members to opt-out of the Settlement or object to its terms

April 9, 2019
The Court conducts a Final Approval Hearing to rule on objections to the settlement and determine whether the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable

June 24, 2019
Deadline to file a claim

August 23, 2019
The Court issues its Final Approval Order

June 24, 2019
The “Effective Date” of the Settlement Agreement
July 24, 2019

Claims Administrator provides counsel a list of all claims qualifying for payment

On or before December 1, 2019
Payment of Qualifying Claims
On or before December 31, 2019

For more information, or to file a claim, please visit the settlement website www.RamsPSLClassActionSettlement.com.

The attorneys at Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. have extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex class action litigation across the country.  Please contact us today at (800) 782-8492.