A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. This is not an attempt to collect a debt.
The Defendants operated a business called “Corrective Solutions,” which sent out letters that looked like this, allegedly as part of a “District Attorney Bad Check Restitution Program.” In the letter, check writers were told that to avoid the risk of prosecution, they could participate in a Program, where they would have to pay the check amount and various fees, and attend a Financial Accountability Class. Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants violated state and federal law. Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The parties have now agreed to settle this dispute.
Defendants National Corrective Group Inc., Victim Services, Inc., American Justice Solution, Inc., Birch Grove Holdings, Inc., Mats Jonsson, and Karl Thomas Jonsson have agreed to establish a fund of $1,100,000. Members of the classes can submit a claim for money from the fund. The fund will also be used to pay court‐ordered settlement administration expenses, statutory damages, service awards, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Court‐appointed lawyers for the classes will ask the Court for up to $275,000 in attorneys’ fees and $135,000 in litigation costs.
The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Defendants National Corrective Group Inc., Victim Services, Inc., American Justice Solution, Inc., Birch Grove Holdings, Inc., Mats Jonsson, and Karl Thomas Jonsson violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) or constitutes negligent misrepresentation or fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated federal and California law by collecting and attempting to collect fees that were not permitted by law. The Court has not decided who is right on this claim.
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants violated the FDCPA and the UCL by (1) using district attorney letterhead, and otherwise giving the impression that they were the office of various California district attorneys; (2) using letters that falsely threatened check writers with prosecution if the check writers did not pay fees for the “District Attorney Bad Check Restitution Program; and (3) sending collection letters that did not include disclosures and notices of consumer rights required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Court decided in favor of the Defendants on these allegations.
Defendants deny any wrongdoing and deny all allegations made by Plaintiffs. The two sides disagree on whether Plaintiffs and the Classes would have won at trial.