Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies that Plaintiff’s claims could be certified as a class action if this case were to proceed in litigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageable. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to certification of the Class defined in Section 2.06, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class would be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge class certification in further proceedings in the Action or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to certification of the Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any proceedings involving Defendant. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the Class, or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Action or any other judicial proceeding.
Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to certification of the Class defined in Section 2.07, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed.
Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and denies that a litigation class properly could be certified on the claims asserted in the Barani Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose, and agrees to, certification of the Class defined in Section 2.08, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the Barani Action or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, the certification of the Class will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will be asserted in an proceedings involving Defendant. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Barani Action or any other judicial proceeding.
Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Solely for purposes of avoiding the expense, risk and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose the certification for settlement purposes only of the Settlement Class. Preliminary certification of the Settlement Class shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the Action or in any other action if the Settlement Agreement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved by the Court without any material alterations for any reason whatsoever, the certification of the Settlement Class will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings in the Action or any other proceeding. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement Agreement may be used by Plaintiffs, any person in the Settlement Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Action or any other judicial proceeding.
Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendants dispute that a class would be ascertainable, manageable or superior or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and deny that a litigation class properly could be certified on the claims asserted in the In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. TCPA Litigation Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendants do not oppose and agree to certification of the Class defined in Section 2.09, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendants be precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. TCPA Litigation Action or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, the certification of the Class will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will be asserted in any proceedings involving Defendants. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendants in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiffs, any person in the Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. TCPA Litigation Action or any other judicial proceeding.
Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and further denies that a litigation class properly could be certified on the claims asserted in this Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose the certification for settlement
Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies that the claims asserted against it have merit. Defendant further disputes that a class would be manageable and further denies that a class properly could be certified on the claims asserted in this Action. Notwithstanding these denials, Defendant has concluded that continuing to litigate the Action would be protracted and expensive and that, in light of its cost, risk, and uncertainty, it is desirable that the Action and any and all Released Claims be fully and finally settled and released as set forth in this Settlement Agreement.
