Case No. 6:14-cv-314-Orl-37DAB.

JAMES DAVID COOPER, JR., Plaintiff, v. NELNET, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

January 21, 2015.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James David Cooper, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott David Owens , Scott D. Owens, P.A., Katherine M. Bowen , Keogh Law, LTD, Keith J. Keogh , Keogh Law, LTD, Patrick Christopher Crotty , Scott D. Owens, P.A. & Timothy James Sostrin , Keogh Law, LTD.

Nelnet, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel C. Johnson , Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA & Richard Barry Benenson , Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck, LLP.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Bradley Heath Cohen , US Department of Justice.


ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notice Order (Doc. 67), filed December 3, 2014. Upon consideration, the Court finds that it does not have sufficient information to rule on the motion.

A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The Court may preliminarily approve a proposed settlement after making a determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement terms. See Rule 23(e)(2); see also Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., No. 03-61063-CIV, 2007 WL 2330895, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

At this time, the Court is unable to determine if the terms of the proposed settlement are fair, reasonable, or adequate. The parties are therefore ORDERED to submit additional briefing and materials in support of their proposed settlement, including but not limited to: (1) how many of the potential class members they anticipate will receive notice; (2) how many of the proposed class members they anticipate will submit a claim;

(3) the anticipated down side limit to a pro rata share of the class value; (4) an estimate of the anticipated administrative costs; (5) the anticipated net settlement fund after reduction for fees, costs and administrative expenses and (5) Defendant's estimated net worth. See Wojcik v. Buffal Bills, Inc., Case No. 8:12-cv-2414-SDM-TBM, Doc. 77 (M.D. Fla.) (considering these factors before granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement); see also Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-198-JLR, Doc. 32 (W.D. Wash.) (providing an anticipated monetary award range for each claimant even though the parties planned to distribute the funds using the pro rata method, and providing a much larger settlement fund).

The parties have until Friday, February 20, 2015, to provide the supplemental briefing and materials. Failure to do so may result in the Court denying the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notice Order (Doc. 67) without further notice.



1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases