Heartland $2.5M Class Action Settlement Gets Judge's Approval
A federal judge in Trenton has granted preliminary approval to a $2.5 million settlement in a class action claiming that Princeton-based Heartland…
October 05, 2017 at 05:46 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Trenton has granted preliminary approval to a $2.5 million settlement in a class action claiming that Princeton-based Heartland Payment Systems charged its customers unauthorized fees to process American Express transactions.
The suit was prompted by a $255 fee that Heartland charged in 2014 to the owners of Jacala Mexican Restaurant in San Antonio, the lead plaintiff, that was termed an “American Express Fee Adjustment.” Approximately 80,000 merchants were charged similar fee adjustments by Heartland, and total revenue from the disputed fee increase was more than $7 million, discovery in the case revealed.
The extra fee was imposed after Heartland sent Jacala and other merchants a letter promoting a reduced rate for processing American Express transactions.
According to the suit, Heartland billed Jacala and other customers for what it characterized as a miscalculation of fees, but plaintiffs claimed it was, in fact, a rate increase that violated the defendant's contract with its customers.
U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson gave the settlement preliminary approval and granted certification of the class on Wednesday. The class consists of merchants who processed credit cards with Heartland and “were subject to an American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014 account statements, retroactively implementing an increased American Express Discount Fee between the period of July 1, 2014 and October 31, 2014 and setting new American Express pricing going forward.”
A final approval hearing is set for Jan. 16, 2018. Heartland agreed not to oppose a fee award of $833,333 to plaintiff attorneys or a service award of $15,000 to Jacala, but those payments are still subject to approval by Thompson.
In June 2014, Heartland began a promotion in which it promised merchants that they could process American Express transactions at the same rates it charged for processing Visa and MasterCard transactions, the suit claimed. The fee that was imposed several months later meant that Heartland charged customers a higher rate for processing American Express transactions than for processing MasterCard and Visa, contrary to its prior assertions, the suit claimed.
The suit said Heartland's characterization of the fee increase as a “miscalculation” is a misrepresentation. And even if the purported miscalculation was a proper fee increase, it violated a provision of Heartland's contract with members requiring 15 days' notice before a fee change is implemented, the plaintiffs claimed.
The suit brought claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment.
After Heartland moved to dismiss, Thompson dismissed the Consumer Fraud Act claim in August 2016 but declined to dismiss the remainder of the counts. Thompson ruled after finding that Jacala signed up with Heartland to accept American Express before the defendant sent out its letter promoting lower fees.
The parties reached their agreement after two sessions of mediation with former U.S. District Judge William Bassler, now with FedArb in Red Bank.
Thompson appointed Bassler as mediator in May. After an unsuccessful mediation, plaintiffs counsel made a motion to certify the class in June, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Before the motions were decided, the parties notified Thompson on Aug. 7 that they had reached an agreement after a second round of mediation before Bassler, according to the decision.
Seth Lapidow of Backes & Hill in Lawrenceville, who represented Heartland, and Stephen Fearon of Squitieri & Fearon in New York, who represented the plaintiff and the class, did not return calls about the case.
Contact the reporter at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Point Us to the Plain Language': NJ Supreme Court Grills Defense Statutory Requirements for Affidavit of Merit
5 minute readAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Appellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250