A class action against credit agencies, which issued negative credit reports after debts were discharged, settled, and the district court approved the class action settlement. The Ninth Circuit reversed, explaining: “The settlement agreement, like others we have approved in the past, granted incentive awards to the class representatives for their service to the class. But unlike the incentive awards that we have approved before, these awards were conditioned on the class representatives’ support for the settlement . . . Because these circumstances created a patent divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class, we conclude that the class representatives and class counsel did not adequately represent the absent class members, and for this reason the district court should not have approved the class action settlement.” Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Ninth Cir.; April 22, 2013) (Case No.’s 11-56376, 11-56387, 11-56389, 11-56397, 11-56400, 11-56440, 11-56482).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.