Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DeJolie v. T & R Market, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

December 10, 2018

WILLIAM DEJOLIE and SAMMIA DEJOLIE, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
v.
T&R MARKET, INC., TANCORDE FINANCE, INC., T&R PAWN, LLC, and T&R TAX SERVICE, INC., Defendants.

          Nicholas Mattison Richard N. Feferman Feferman, Warren & Mattison, attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Thomas Lynn Isaacson Mason & Isaacson, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Tancorde Finance, Inc.

          Charles J. Vigil Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Counsel for Defendant T&R Tax Service, Inc.

          James J. Widland Miller Stratvert P.A. Counsel for Defendants T&R Market, Inc. and T&R Pawn, LLC

          ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

          Honorable Kirtan Khalsa United States Magistrate Judge

         THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement. [Doc. 67] Defendants do not oppose the Motion. The Court held a hearing on December 10, 2018, at which the parties were in attendance. The Court has reviewed the record and considered the briefing submitted by Plaintiffs, and HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

         1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter herein.

         2. This lawsuit was filed in 2017, asserting, inter alia, violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”). Plaintiffs' claims concern Defendants' issuance of tax refund anticipation loans. Plaintiffs allege that between November 1, 2014 and July 13, 2017, the date this lawsuit was filed, all of Defendants' holiday loans and instant cash loans understated the true finance charge and annual percentage rate (“APR”). This made the loans appear less expensive than they really were, and gave Defendants an unfair competitive advantage against other lenders.

         3. Defendants deny that they violated the law and raised legal and factual defenses to Plaintiffs' claims.

         4. The parties conducted discovery and extensive investigation of Plaintiffs' claims.

         5. The parties engaged in a settlement conference with the Honorable Kirtan Khalsa on May 11, 2018, at which they reached an agreement to settle this case.

         6. The parties submitted a written settlement agreement for preliminary Court approval on July 30, 2018. [Doc. 55]

         7. The Court granted preliminary approval to Plaintiffs' settlement agreement and directed that Court-approved notice be sent to class members, advising them of the proposed settlement, the rights to opt out or object, and the final fairness hearing. [Doc. 62]

         8. Plaintiffs sent notice to class members as ordered. The great majority of the nearly 15, 000 class members were located, following extensive procedures by Plaintiffs to assure the broadest possible notice. The Court finds that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.