Judge Modifies It’s Just Lunch Matchmaking Class Action Settlement

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal judge modified the Classes in a It’s Just Lunch class action settlement, refining eligible Class Members to those who reside in certain states.

The It’s Just Lunch matchmaking class action lawsuit alleged that the company deceptively advertised its services and left consumers with bad dating stories instead of love connections.

The matchmaking company (IJL) offered to pay for $60 million in vouchers for dates and change the wording on its website to settle the It’s Just Lunch class action lawsuit.

After agreeing to the It’s Just Lunch class action settlement, the company asked the court to drop two proposed Classes – the national and New York Classes. IJL argued that there was no way to reliably calculate the damages for the proposed Classes.

While U.S. District Court Judge Sidney H. Stein noted that the matchmaking company’s arguments were “compelling,” he declined to drop the Classes entirely.

Judge Stein opted to narrow the nationwide Class instead.

According to the order in the It’s Just Lunch matchmaking class action lawsuit settlement, the root of the problem is the open-ended nature of the proposed Class. The order notes that a 16-year class period makes damages to Class Members difficult to calculate because of the different policies and procedures followed over the years at IJL at various locations.

“In this case, closing the class period at the original certification date avoids the thorny questions of geographical and temporal variation among class members raised by defendants in their motion to decertify, because the Court has already decided – on the basis of ‘the evidence to date’ as of May 14, 2014- that defendants’ conduct from 2001 to 2014, across all franchise locations, was sufficiently cohesive to support class certification,” points out the order.

Another problem, noted the order in the It’s Just Lunch class action lawsuit settlement, are the variable state laws that apply to Class Members. Some state laws, according to the order, do not allow for recovery of damages based on out-of-pocket losses due to fraud.

Judge Stein determined that instead of dropping the nationwide Class, Class Members could be limited to those states with laws that do allow for damages based on out-of-pocket expenses.

According to the It’s Just Lunch matchmaking class action lawsuit settlement order, “the certification of the National Class is amended to consist of all individuals who signed a membership contract with IJL in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, or Wyoming, and purchased IJL’ s services on or after October 15, 2001, up through and including May 14, 2014.”

The matchmaking company also argued to decertify the New York Class in the It’s Just Lunch matchmaking class action lawsuit settlement. However, Judge Stein declined to decertify the Class, finding IJL’s arguments “without merit.”

The plaintiffs are represented by John Balestriere of Balestriere Fariello.

The It’s Just Lunch Matchmaking Class Action Lawsuit Settlement is Rodriguez, et al. v. It’s Just Lunch International, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-099227, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

UPDATE: November 2019, a revised It’s Just Lunch matchmaking class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim.