Hyland v. Navient Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 19, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-09031·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA GARCIA, ELIZABETH TAYLOR, JESSICA SAINT- PAUL, REBECCA SPITLER-LAWSON, No. 18-cv-9031-DLC-BLM MICHELLE MEANS, ELIZABETH KAPLAN, JENNIFER GUTH, MEGAN NOCERINO, and ANTHONY CHURCH individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NAVIENT CORPORATION and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendants.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Kathryn Hyland, Melissa Garcia, Elizabeth Taylor, Jessica Saint- Paul, Rebecca Spitler-Lawson, Michelle Means, Elizabeth Kaplan, Jennifer Guth, Megan Nocerino, and Anthony Church (the “Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives,” and collectively with the other members of the Settlement Class, the “Settlement Class”) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Defendants Navient Solutions, LLC and Navient Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants”), on January 23, 2020 to resolve the claims in the above-captioned class action lawsuit (the “Litigation”); WHEREAS, Plaintiffs entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”)1 with the Defendants on April 24, 2020, which memorializes the terms of their settlement;

1 All terms not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Notice of Settlement (the “Motion”); and WHEREAS, the Court, having read and considered the Settlement Agreement and its

exhibits, the Motion and its accompanying memorandum of law, the pleadings, and all other papers filed in this Litigation, hereby finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. The Settlement Agreement, including the releases contained therein, is preliminarily approved—subject to final Court approval following the Final Approval Hearing— as being fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(e). 2. The Court further approves the Cy Pres Recipient, described in Section V.C of the Settlement Agreement, to launch the PSLF Project, as set forth in the Term Sheet for Cy Pres Recipient and PSLF Project Proposal attached as Exhibit 1-E to the Settlement Agreement.

3. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was entered into at arm’s length by experienced counsel, including after an in-person mediation supervised by the Honorable Barbara C. Moses, United States Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness such that notice of the Settlement Agreement should be given to the Settlement Class Members as provided in this Order. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND APPOINTMENT OF PLAINTIFFS AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL AS CLASS COUNSEL 4. The Settlement Class described herein is conditionally certified—subject to final Court approval following the Final Approval Hearing—pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(e): All individuals who, at any point from October 1, 2007 to the Effective Date (i) have or had Federal Family Education Loans (“FFEL”) or Direct Loans serviced by Navient; (ii) are or were employed full-time by a qualifying public service employer or employers for purposes of PSLF; and (iii) spoke to a Navient customer service representative about subjects relating to eligibility for PSLF. 5. The Class Representatives are appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class. 6. The following attorneys are appointed to act as Class Counsel: Faith Gay Mark Richard Maria Ginzburg PHILLIPS, RICHARD & RIND, P.A. Lena Konanova 9360 SW 72 Street, Suite 283 Margaret Siller Miami, FL 33173 SELENDY & GAY PLLC Telephone: 305-412-8322 1290 Avenue of the Americas E-mail: New York, NY 10104 mrichard@phillipsrichard.com Tel: 212-390-9000 (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: fgay@selendygay.com mginzburg@selendygay.com lkonanova@selendygay.com msiller@selendygay.com

7. Rust Consulting is appointed as Settlement Administrator. 8. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds, for purposes of preliminary approval and for settlement purposes only, that: (a) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous as to make joinder of all the Settlement Class Members impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class Members; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members; and (d) the Class Representatives and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class Members. 9. The Court further finds, for purposes of preliminary approval and for settlement purposes only, that Defendants are alleged to have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply

generally to the Settlement Class, and that Settlement Class certification is accordingly proper under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B), the Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agree- ment is within the range of possible approval to warrant providing notice to the Settlement Class and to hold a Fairness Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the pro- posed Settlement. NOTICE TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS 11. The Court has reviewed and approves the form, substance, and requirements of the (a) Short-Form Notice and (b) Long-Form Notice, as modified and appended to this Order. 12. The Notice Plan set forth in Section VI of the Settlement Agreement is also

preliminarily approved, with the modification that subsections VI.A.1.b and VI.A.2 shall have their references to the “Effective Date” changed to the “date of the Court's Preliminary Approval Order.” 13. The Court finds that the proposed Notice Plan (i) is appropriate and reasonable, and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to receive notice, (ii) fairly and adequately describes the terms and effects of the Settlement Agreement, (iii) fairly and adequately describes the date by which Settlement Class Counsel must file the Motion For Final Approval, and Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, (iv) fairly and adequately describes the method and date by which any member of the Settlement Class may object to or comment upon the Settlement Agreement, (v) sets a date by which Class Counsel may respond to any objections to the Settlement Agreement, (vi) provides notice to the Settlement Class of the time and place of the Final Approval Hearing, and (vii) constitutes appropriate and reasonable notice under the circumstances and otherwise meets all requirements of applicable law. 14. The Court orders the Settlement Administrator to file proof of publication of the

Short-Form Notice, proof of dissemination of the Long-Form Notice, and proof of maintenance of the Class Settlement Website and Toll-Free Number at or before the Final Approval Hearing. MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT 15.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hyland v. Navient Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Hyland v. Navient Corporation (Hyland v. Navient Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.