Saliba v. KS Statebank Corporation

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ricci Saliba, No. CV-20-00503-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 KS Statebank Corporation,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Renewed Joint Motion to Approve Cy Pres 16 Recipient. (Doc. 68). 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 The Court approved a Final Class Action Settlement on October 6, 2021. (Doc. 63). 19 The settlement agreement, in part, provided the following: If any amounts remain 180 days from issuance of this second distribution, the 20 Parties shall seek Court approval of a cy pres award to a nonprofit charitable 21 organization. The Parties shall jointly select a cy pres recipient prior to moving for the Court’s approval. 22 (Doc. 55-1 p. 22-23; Doc. 66-1 p. 22-23). The parties followed the distribution procedures 23 and $5,577.38 remains. (Doc. 66 p. 2). The parties filed the first joint motion and proposed 24 People Acting Now Discover Answers (“PANDA”) as the cy pres recipient. (Doc. 66 p. 25 2). The Court denied that motion without prejudice because the Court could not find the 26 requisite nexus between PANDA and the lawsuit. (Doc. 67). The parties then filed the 27 pending Renewed Joint Motion, proposing the National Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”) 28 as the cy pres recipient. (Doc. 68 p. 1). The NCLC’s mission is “to stop exploitative 1 practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic 2 fairness.” Mission, NCLC, https://www.nclc.org/about-us/mission/ 3 [https://perma.cc/P7FB-ZJ7C]. The NCLC specifically “works to stop unwanted or 4 fraudulent robocalls and texts, to protect consumers, and to make it harder for scammers 5 to disappear with a consumer’s money.” Key Issues, NCLC, https://www.nclc.org/our- 6 work/ [https://perma.cc/JJT4-6LTL]. 7 II. ANALYSIS 8 “Cy pres distributions must account for the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the 9 objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including 10 their geographic diversity.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) 11 (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307-08 (9th Cir. 12 1990)). There must be “a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres 13 beneficiaries.” Id. at 1038. 14 Here, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit related to unsolicited telemarketing in the form of 15 automated text messages directed towards prospective customers. (Doc. 10 p. 2). The 16 underlying statute was the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. (Id.). Plaintiffs alleged a 17 national class. (Id.). The NCLC is a national organization that does specific work to combat 18 such unsolicited telemarketing. The Renewed Joint Motion cites numerous Ninth Circuit 19 cases in which courts approved the NCLC as a cy pres recipient where the underlying 20 statute was the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. (Doc. 68 p. 3). For the foregoing 21 reasons, the Court approves the selection of the NCLC as the cy pres recipient. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Joint Motion to Approve Cy Pres Recipient 25 (Doc. 68) is granted. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Settlement Administrator shall distribute all 2|| remaining funds in the Settlement Account to NCLC as the designated cy pres beneficiary. 3 Dated this 4th day of October, 2024. 4 5 ' ° 7 James A. C rg Senior United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-