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.

Lawsuit to Protect Citizens’ Private Information Resolved

The Auditor’s Lawsuit and Settlement Protects Private and Confidential Information of County Citizens from Unlawful Disclosure In March 2019, the Madison County Board passed a resolution granting the County Chairman, his unnamed “designee,” the County Administrator, and the County Treasurer the power to access the Madison County Auditor’s software. The resolution would have forced the… Continue reading →

computer screen with code

The Auditor’s Lawsuit and Settlement Protects Private and Confidential Information of County Citizens from Unlawful Disclosure

In March 2019, the Madison County Board passed a resolution granting the County Chairman, his unnamed “designee,” the County Administrator, and the County Treasurer the power to access the Madison County Auditor’s software. The resolution would have forced the elected Auditor, Rick Faccin, to unlawfully disclose the confidential information of county citizens, such as the identities of grand jurors and other non-financial information contained in the Auditor’s files. State and federal law prohibits the disclosure of this confidential information.

In fact, before the Board passed the resolution, the County’s State’s Attorney advised the Board during its meeting that the resolution “would create a massive violation of privacy rights for the citizens whose records are contained in it” and stated: “My legal opinion is that this Board does not have the authority to enforce the resolution.” Despite this advice, the Board passed the resolution on a party-line vote of 13-12.

To prevent the unlawful disclosure of private information required by the resolution, the Auditor sought relief from the court. Because the State’s Attorney already represented the Board, the Chief Judge of Madison County appointed Goldenberg Heller attorneys Tom Rosenfeld and Kevin Green as a Special State’s Attorney to represent the Auditor. The Auditor filed a lawsuit and quickly obtained a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the Board from enforcing the resolution.

At the insistence of the Chairman and Administrator, the case was expedited, causing the parties to quickly engage in discovery and motion practice, culminating in the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment two months after the case was filed (most cases take several years to get to that point). While these motions were pending, the Auditor proposed a settlement that would allow Board members and other officials access to a portion of the auditor’s software where they could view financial data that they already received in daily, monthly, and quarterly reports—but without the unlawful disclosure of confidential information that the resolution would have required.

“We wish it had not taken a lawsuit to protect the confidential information of citizens, but we had no other choice once the Board approved the resolution that would have required our office to unlawfully disclose the private information,” said Faccin. “Our office has always been transparent and thorough in providing all the financial information to County officials and citizens, both periodically, and upon request. The settlement gives the Board the same financial information they have always received, but without the disclosure of the non-financial, private data that their resolution would have required.”

Background

In Illinois a county auditor is a separate constitutional officer elected by the people. Illinois law vests the elected Auditor of a county with several powers and duties, including: (1) acting both as the accountant and auditor of the county’s other elected officers, departments, and agents; (2) maintaining a continuous internal audit of the elected officers, agents, and divisions; and (3) having access to all records, documents, and resources necessary to discharge these responsibilities, including confidential information contained in the records of county officers and departments, which is prohibited from disclosure under federal and state law. 55 ILCS 5/3-1005, 1006. To perform these functions, the Auditor is vested with statutory authority to control the internal operations of his office, subject only to the board’s budgetary limitations. 55 ILCS 5/3-1004. Further, “[n]o county board may alter the duties, powers and functions of county officers that are specifically imposed by law.” 55 ILCS 5/5-1087.

To perform his statutory auditing duties, including auditing the claims of the county, auditing the receipts of the elected officers and county departments, and maintaining a continuous internal audit of the operations and financial records of the officers, agents, and divisions of the county, the Auditor utilizes certain computer software in his office. The Auditor utilizes this software to prepare and provide public financial reports and data, though the software contains more than simply financial data. For example, some of the information received by the Auditor and placed in the auditing software includes information of citizens and county employees that is protected from disclosure under the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure and other state and federal laws including:

  • names, addresses, and dates of payment for citizens who have served on grand juries in the county;
  • references to names and medical procedures for inmates paid by the Sheriff’s Office; and
  • names, addresses, and case number related to individuals, including minors, who have served as witnesses for the State’s Attorney.

Since the Auditor began using the auditing software in 2001, no prior county administration, chairman, board member, or treasurer has had, or requested access to, the software.

The Resolution

On March 20, 2019, the Madison County Board adopted a resolution that purported to give the County Chairman, his unnamed “designee,” the County Administrator, and the County Treasurer access to the auditing software. The resolution also required the installation of the software on these individuals’ computers outside of the Auditor’s office. Although the Board contended that the purpose of the resolution was only to see financial information, because the auditing software contained more than financial information, the resolution would have resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information of county citizens and employees in violation of Illinois law. During the Board’s debate on the resolution, the State’s Attorney advised the Board that the resolution “would create a massive violation of privacy rights for the citizens whose records are contained in it” and gave his legal opinion “that this Board does not have the authority to enforce the resolution.”  Nonetheless, the Board passed the resolution on a party-line vote.

The Lawsuit and Injunction

To prevent the unlawful disclosure of private information, the Auditor requested the appointment of a special state’s attorney to represent his office because the State’s Attorney was already representing the Board. The Court appointed attorneys Thomas Rosenfeld and Kevin Green as Special State’s Attorney to represent the Auditor.

On March 29, 2019, the Auditor filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare the resolution invalid and enjoin its enforcement. The Auditor maintained that the Board, Chairman, and Administrator were improperly equating the right to obtain financial information (which the Auditor already provided), with the right to access all of the data—including confidential non-financial data—contained in the Auditor’s software.   For example, to audit the Chief Judge’s grand jury service payments, data about grand jurors is uploaded into the software directly from a file provided to the Auditor by the Chief Judge’s Jury Commission. This information is not provided to the Board or anyone else outside the Jury Commission because the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the disclosure of information that reveals grand juror identities. See 725 ILCS 5/112-6(b); Better Gov’t Ass’n v. Office of the Special Prosecutor, 2019 IL 122949, ¶ 36 (quoting Lopez v. Department of Justice, 393 F.3d 1345, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). See also Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 737-38 (1st Dist. 2009) (finding confidentiality and privileges are preserved when disclosure of such information are made to auditors). See also 5 ILCS 140/7(m) (prohibiting disclosure of “materials prepared or compiled with respect to internal audits of public bodies”).

On April 1, 2019, after an extensive hearing, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order that prohibited the Board, Chairman, Administrator, Treasurer, and their agents from implementing the resolution or otherwise accessing the Auditor’s software. The Court found that there was a likelihood that the Auditor would succeed on the merits and that the Auditor would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, namely, the invasion of his constitutional office and the unauthorized disclosure of the private and protected information contained the auditing software, “which could expose the Auditor and the County to significant liability under federal and state law.”

The Counterclaim

On April 22, 2019, the County Chairman and County Administrator, who had also requested the appointment of a Special State’s Attorney to represent them, filed a Counterclaim against the Auditor. They argued they had the unfettered right to access the Auditor’s software and view all the data contained therein.

As the case progressed, the defendants’ arguments supporting their need for the information and the resolution changed.

Argument 1: Access to Financial Data

The defendants initially argued that they needed access to the auditing software because the Auditor was purportedly keeping the financial books of the County a secret. After the lawsuit was filed, the parties proceeded with discovery, seeking documents and taking depositions to test this assertion. On May 28, 2019, the Auditor filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by deposition transcripts, affidavits, and 580 pages of exhibits showing that the Auditor routinely provided any and all financial information of the County to the Board, Chairman, Administrator, Treasurer, (both periodically and upon request), and to anyone else who requested it.

For example, the Auditor provided, among other things, daily financial reports to the Treasurer, monthly budget variance reports and budget expenditure reports to the Board’s Finance Committee, monthly comparative financial statements showing revenues and expenditures to the County Administrator, quarterly financial statements to the Board showing actual and projected revenues, expenditures, and conditions of all funds and appropriations, numerous other reports, documents and information upon request, and a Microsoft Excel file containing requested portions of the general ledger that could easily be searched, filtered, or otherwise manipulated using the countless accounting functions provided by Excel. In fact, the former Republican Chair of the Board’s Finance Committee for the current administration stated under oath that the Auditor’s office is “extremely cooperative” in providing information and documents requested, and never withheld from the Chair or Finance Committee financial information necessary to: (a) track the financial performance of the various Offices and Departments; and (b) establish their budgets.

Consistent with Ms. Ciampoli’s testimony, the Board’s sworn discovery responses showed that the Board could not identify a single document “evidencing a denial by the Auditor within the past 24 months for information or records requested by” the Board, Chairman, Administrator, or Treasurer.

None of these facts were disputed by the Board, Chairman, Administrator, or Treasurer. In fact, the Board explained to the Court that the information it purportedly needed from the Auditor “has already been provided.” These facts supported the Auditor’s view that the resolution was not about accessing financial information—it was about access to the auditing software and the confidential, non-financial information it contained.

Argument 2: Board Entitled to Any Private Information Held by Any County Official

Acknowledging that the Board already had the financial data, the Board next argued that it had a right to access all confidential information held by any county office, and, therefore, a county officer could not restrict information to other county government units.

This argument presented a slippery slope. Following this argument to its logical conclusion meant that any Board Member or County Administrator (or any government official?) could, with or without a resolution, obtain access to the software of other constitutional officers, such as the State’s Attorney, Sheriff’s Department, Circuit Court, or Chief Judge’s offices, and view private information that was prohibited from disclosure. Per the Board’s argument, if the Board Members or other county officials came across confidential information in these software programs, they “would be under the same obligation to protect the CI and PII as the [officer].” Essentially, no harm, no foul.

The Board’s position ignored the protections afforded to the privacy rights of county citizens. For instance, if the Board wants information about criminal investigations or proceedings, it has to ask for it from the State’s Attorney or Sherriff, and it may not be entitled to get what it wants. The Board cannot simply grant itself the power to access their software systems. This is because, like the Auditor’s system, there is certain information protected from disclosure within the software used by these separate constitutional officers. The Board acknowledged this reality, explaining: “[T]here is some information within those Departments that is so important and/or confidential” that is not “subject to invasion and scrutiny” and that is protected “from ever being disseminated.”

The Board’s own reasoning for why it could not freely access the software of the State’s Attorney and Sheriff’s Department, however, applied equally to the Auditor and the confidential non-financial information contained in the Auditor’s software. Just as state law prohibits the disclosure of certain information held by the State’s Attorney and Sheriff’s Department, so too does it prohibit the disclosure of certain information contained in the auditing software, including the identities of grand jurors and materials prepared or compiled during internal audits. See 725 ILCS 5/112-6(b); 5 ILCS 140/7(m).

Argument 3: Format of Financial Data

As the case progressed, the Board and other defendants shifted to a third argument. Although the defendants now acknowledged the Auditor was providing all the financial information requested and needed, they began arguing that the format of the information was unworkable. Again, the Auditor was providing daily, weekly, and monthly reports, along with Excel spreadsheets of the financial data that could be searched, filtered, or manipulated.

The Settlement

With the complaint about the format in mind, the Auditor began working toward a solution that would allow the defendants to see all the same financial information the Auditor had been providing, but within the auditing software. To resolve the lawsuit, the Auditor offered to work with the software vendor to create a program that would allow for financial information in the software to be exported to a separate database within the software, with the confidential non-financial information redacted. The Auditor offered to provide a separate computer terminal in his office at which the Board members, Chairman, Administrator, and other designated county officials could view the redacted general ledger within the auditing software. The Auditor also offered to post Excel sheets from the redacted general ledger (similar to what it had previously been providing) on its website on a monthly basis.

After back-and-forth with the defendants, the Auditor, Chairman, and Administrator reached a tentative agreement. But the Board still needed to approve the deal. In the Auditor’s view, this solution gave the defendants what they said they wanted—access to the financial data within the specific software, but without the overbroad scope of the resolution that would have compromised the privacy rights of county citizens and employees and exposed the county to significant liability.

At the first Board meeting to vote on the proposed settlement, the Board postpone the vote, which meant the lawsuit continued for another month. At the Board meeting the following month, the Board resolution to approve the settlement passed by a narrow 2-vote margin. Pursuant to the Settlement, the court dismissed the lawsuit and counterclaims on September 27, 2019.

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.

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.