Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : ANA MARIA HARO : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 2003-3558 : HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, et al. :

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On or about November 15, 2000, Plaintiff Ana Maria Haro secured two real estate and loans from Defendants Finance Household

International,

Inc.,

Household

(hereinafter

collectively "Household").

On November 14, 2003, Plaintiff

filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, alleging unfair or deceptive trade practices, false advertising, intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, fraud, and constructive fraud by Defendants in connection with the loans. 2003, Defendants removed to Paper no. 2. this court On December 11, federal

asserting

jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Paper no. 1.

Meanwhile, class action litigation against Defendants for similar complaints submitted by plaintiffs all across the

country was proceeding apace in a consolidated action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California.

In re Household Lending Litig. , No. C 02-1240 CW

(N.D.Cal. 2004).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a member of On December 12, 2003, a Preliminary

that settlement class.

Approval Order was signed by Judge Claudia Wilken, inter alia, preliminarily certifying the settlement class and approving a class settlement, and providing for notice to class members in the form of first class mail and publication in the national newspaper USA Today. In December 2003 and January 2004, notice

was mailed to hundreds of thousands of potential members of the plaintiff class, and in February notice was published in USA Today. That notice provided that members of the class could opt

out of the class by mailing a request for exclusion, postmarked no later than April 9, 2004. Here, the parties' stories seem to diverge. Defendants

never explicitly claim or offer evidence that notice was mailed to Plaintiff, instead observing more broadly that "[n]otice was mailed . . . to the more than 900,000 potential members of the . . . class," and that Plaintiff is a member of the class. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has been notified for all purposes because the Northern District court found, in its Final Approval Order, that "the notice provided to Settlement Class Members, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, was the best notice practicable . . . and said notice was given to all persons entitled to notice and fully satisfied the requirements 2

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Due Process." Approval Order at

Download Haro v. Household International, et al..pdf

Maryland Law