Natasha Hiller v. Money Source Incorporated

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 25, 2026·No. 2:23-cv-00235·Unknown

Opinion

WO

Natasha Hiller, No. CV-23-00235-PHX-JJT

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Money Source Incorporated,

Defendant. At issue is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 104). After reviewing the Motion and attached documents, the Court makes the following findings: 1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and has personal jurisdiction over the Parties and the Settlement Class Members. 2. Upon a preliminary fairness evaluation, the proposed Settlement Agreement (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, (2) has no obvious deficiency, (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and (4) falls within the range of possible approval. Horton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 266 F.R.D. 360, 363 (D. Ariz. 2009). 3. Upon a preliminary review, the proposed class is numerous, shares at least one common question of law or fact, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, pursuant to Rule 23(a). 4. Upon a preliminary review, the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over questions affecting individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy pursuant to Rule 23(b). 5. The proposed Settlement Agreement relief provided—a $1.5 million non- reversionary settlement fund—is fair, reasonable, and adequate taking into account, inter alia, the costs, risk, and delay of further litigation, trial and appeal, the alleged harm to Settlement Class Members, the proposed method of distributing payments to the Settlement Class, and the absence of any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3). 6. The Court will likely be able to approve the Settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) and to finally certify the Settlement Class for purposes of judgment on the Settlement. 7. The content of the Notice and proposed Notice Plan attached to the Settlement Agreement at docket entry 104-1 (“Agreement”), meets the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution and Rule 23, and such Notice Plan—which includes (i) direct letter notice, (ii) direct email notice, (iii) setting up a toll-free telephone number; and (iv) establishing a Settlement Website at the web address of www.moneysourceTCPAclassaction.com, where Settlement Class Members can view the full Agreement, the detailed long-form notice, and other key case documents. 8. The content of the Notice and proposed Notice Plan is adequate and will give the Settlement Class Members sufficient information to enable them to make informed decisions as to the Agreement, including whether to object and whether to opt out. 9. The content of the Notice clearly and concisely states in plain, easily understood language, inter alia: (a) the nature of the case; (b) the definition of the Settlement Class; (c) the class claims and issues; (d) that a Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (e) that the Court will exclude from the Settlement Class any member who timely and validly requests exclusion; (f) the time and manner for objecting to the Agreement or requesting exclusion; and (g) the binding effect of a class judgment on Settlement Class Members under Rule 23(c)(3). IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 104) and additionally ordering as follows: 10. The Court preliminarily approves the Agreement and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). Unless defined herein, all defined terms in this Order shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement attached to Plaintiff’s Motion at docket entry 104-1. 11. In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Defendant shall promptly provide written notice of the Agreement to the appropriate authorities if it has not already done so. 12. The Court amends, pursuant to Rule 23, the definition of the certified class for the purpose of settlement as follows (“the Settlement Class”):

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

Natasha Hiller v. Money Source Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2026).

Natasha Hiller v. Money Source Incorporated (Natasha Hiller v. Money Source Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horton v. Usaa Casualty Insurance
266 F.R.D. 360 (D. Arizona, 2009)