Class Action - which options I have? This is regarding to my question: Is this apparent Class Action settlement a spam message? From answers I understood that it isn't a spam. But what options I have? They offer only two: file a claim You will only receive a benefit if you file a Claim Form online by June 24, 2019, or if mailed, postmarked no later than June 24, 2019. exclude yourself If you don’t want to receive a cash payment or other settlement benefits and don’t want to be bound by the Settlement and any judgment in this case, you must send a written request to exclude yourself. But if I do nothing, just ignore this message, what happens? From text: If you don’t exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement or to the request for fees and costs by Class Counsel. So I get nothing, but should pay fee? Looks strange.
A person who is nominally in the class and does nothing remains in the class. Such a person can file formal objections to the terms of the settlement, including the amounts to be paid to the lawyers who ran the class action and negotiated the settlement on behalf of the class. Any such objections will be considered when the judge decides whether to approve the terms of settlement. As a practical matter, there needs to be a good reason stated for any objection if it is to have any effect on the terms. A member of the class does not pay any fees, directly. However, the total fees paid come out of the money provided by the settlement, and may reduce the benefits available to class members, which is why members may file objections to th fee structure. A member of the class can get some of the settlement money only if that person files a claim on the proper form, and the claim is approved. A person who is nominally in the class may send in a written request to be excluded from the class. Such a person ceases to be a member of the class, cannot object to the terms of settlement, and cannot file a claim. However, such a person is not bound by the settlement, and can file a separate, individual lawsuit over the same issue, if such a person chooses to do so. This would mean paying a different set of lawyers.
When is a summons considered served in England if it was sent by second class post? Three business days after the date of posting. See the 1999 Amendments to Rule 99 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 which makes no mention of the class of postage, only the relevant timeframe: (1) [...] a summons requiring a person to appear before a magistrates’ court may be served by— [...] (b) posting it to the person at an address where it is reasonably believed that the person will receive it... [...] (4) A summons served in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been received by the person— [...] (d) [...] three business days after it was posted [...] in accordance with paragraph (1)(b)... [non-relevant details omitted] Note that by picking a random council from Google, Oxford's Council Tax Debt Recovery Procedure which says: The summons will normally be served by second class post. It is entirely likely that this is the national norm, but all other local councils may be found via the dot.gov website, in case one would like to check specific policies for their own locality.
It isn't worth litigating a $60 fine for a non-moving violation that isn't likely to recur. You have a less than 50-50 chance of prevailing (something that is almost always true when you are appealing the decision of a judicial officer in a context like this one), you have no real long term harms as you would in the case of "points" for a moving violation, and you are even less likely to get costs of litigation or attorneys' fees if you prevail, so not having to pay a $60 fine would be a pyrrhic victory from an economic perspective. Even if it is free (and it probably isn't) it would easily take many hours to litigate that isn't worth you time. Any lawyer who would take the case would be cheating you because they would only leave you worse off than you are to start with due to their fees.
I don’t understand why you think this is a “3rd party communication” - as I read it it says it’s an email from you. You are most definitely not a third party. Notwithstanding, communication between 3rd parties is not prima facie excluded. For example, correspondence between your company and your accountant (who are both third parties) is likely to be extremely relevant to a family law case. Assuming that it is relevant (which is hard to say without context) and that it doesn’t fall foul of one of the evidentiary rules (hearsay, opinion, privilege etc.) there is no reason why it wouldn’t be admissible.
On what grounds would you sue? Contract Well, I think that you would struggle to find the necessary elements (see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?) In particular, you would struggle to prove that there was intention to create legal relations on their part and possibly on yours. Are you able to identify in your "back &amp; forth" a clear, unequivocal offer and acceptance? Without knowing the details of the "back &amp; forth": I was hoping that someone at $organization might be willing to write an article explaining what you do, the history of the organization and how it works appears on the face of it to be a request for a gift; not an offer to treat. Promissory Estoppel If you don't have a contract then it is possible (IMO unlikely) that they induced you by your actions to commit resources (your time in writing) in anticipation of a reward (them publishing what you wrote). To be estopped they would have to have known that you were writing the article in the expectation that it would have your organisation's name in it, that they did not intend for that to happen and that they allowed you to invest those resources notwithstanding. If you can prove all of that then you can require them to do what they promised. The big difficulty I see in this is did you tell them that a) you were writing the article, b) it would have your name in it and c) you expected it to be published in that form. Copyright If they publish the work or a derivative work without your permission you can sue for breach of copyright. As it stands, they probably have an implied licence to publish and you would need to explicitly revoke that. Options There are two reasons to go to court: Money Principle If you are going to court for money then this is at best a risky investment and at worst a gamble: balance your risk and reward carefully. If you are going to court for a principle then I simultaneously admire your principles and think you're an idiot. Make a deal Explain that the reason that you wrote the article was a) to support their fine publication and the fantastic work it does (even if you don't) and b) to garner good publicity for your organisation. You understand and admire their strong editorial stance (especially if you don't) but the article involved a considerable amount of work and could they see their way clear to give you a significant discount (~80%) on a full page ad facing the article.
Although it's difficult to find exact numbers on class action settlements, there are some studies that suggest that the settlements are often of little value to plaintiffs. A Mayer-Brown paper was only able to obtain data on six settlements - in these cases, claims rates were 0.000006%, 0.33%, 1.5%, 9.66% and 12%. The same paper found that in one case of an $8 million settlement fund made available to 13,500 members, counsel received $5.5 million. Appendices A and B of this paper provide further examples where class action settlements are either a negligible amount, or benefited a negligible number of class members. Although the scope of this paper is somewhat narrow, its findings suggest that it is representative of many class actions.
Class action suits can be very costly for defendants, particularly pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, some such companies have been willing to make significant settlements, even when proof of damage and liability were far from clear. Such settlements can result in significant income for the law firms involved. Thus, some firms are willing to spend significant money to find and sign up potential plaintiffs, either in hope of a settlement, or in hope of an eventual winning case. Either is a gamble, but the potential payoff is large, so such firms (so-called &quot;Mass Tort&quot; firms) may find it worth putting up the money to seek potential plaintiffs. There is no rule requiring any degree of proof or assurance to run such a campaign. If only 1 in 20 such campaigns results in a good settlement, the sponsoring firm may do quite well.
In the small claims court cases I've been involved in the judge has dismissed all aspects of the claim related to time wasted, transportation costs, and attending court in the judgement amount itself. However the court costs one incurs should be a part of the amount that is judged in one's favour. Also the costs of enforcing any judgement (court bailiff fees) are usually considered recoverable. My thoughts are that if one is keen to ensure that the other party pays the full costs of time, collation of evidence, photocopying, phone calls, and anything else one believes they are responsible for, one will have much more luck if one is not self-representing. The predominant reason for self-representing is to keep costs, and thus one's financial risk from pursuing the case, minimal. disclaimer: this is only opinion, and not legal advice