Published
July 16, 2024
Updated
August 1, 2026
The $5.5 million Southern Wine late-fee settlement used company records for automatic payments and required no claim form. Its official site still stops at the October 2024 final approval hearing, so this page does not assume approval or payment without a posted order.
Current Status
The deadline to opt out or object passed on July 25, 2024, and the final approval hearing was scheduled for October 15, 2024. The court-authorized website, which was checked for this update, still displays only the pre-hearing status and does not post a final approval order, judgment, payment date, or distribution report. Because a hearing date alone does not prove approval, this page identifies the public status as stale. The settlement did not require class members to file claims; any payment depended on court approval and Southern's records.StatusHearing Passed; No Public Final Order Posted
Claim FormNone Required
Gross Settlement$5.5 Million
Scheduled Final HearingOctober 15, 2024
What Was the Lawsuit About?
The lawsuit alleged that Southern Wine and Spirits of America, now known as Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, charged California customers an additional one-percent monthly “carrying charge” on late invoices. Plaintiffs contended that California law already prescribed a one-percent late-payment charge for alcoholic beverage transactions and did not permit Southern to add the separate carrying charge. Southern disputed the claims. The proposed settlement was a compromise and did not constitute an admission that Southern violated the law.Who Was Included?
The class generally included California customers of Southern during the period from June 13, 2010, through June 30, 2023. The settlement addressed customers who paid the challenged carrying charges, customers with assessed but unpaid charges, and future account terms. The formal agreement and notice controlled exclusions. Businesses that submitted valid opt-out requests did not share in the proposed benefits and retained the legal rights described in the notice.What Monetary Relief Was Proposed?
Southern agreed to pay a $5.5 million gross settlement amount. After any court-approved attorneys' fees, expenses, administration costs, and service payment, the administrator would distribute the net fund to participating class members who had paid carrying charges. Each account's share would be based on its proportion of total paid carrying charges, with a proposed minimum check of $10. That “at least $10” provision was not a guarantee that checks were mailed; distribution depended on final approval and the effective date.What Other Relief Was Included?
The agreement also called for Southern to write off more than $44.1 million in assessed but unpaid carrying charges and release claims to collect them. Southern agreed to revise its accounting system and future agreements so that it would charge only the late fee allowed by the cited California statute unless the law changed. The notice described the $5.5 million cash fund plus the write-off as approximately $49.6 million in combined monetary value.Was a Claim Form Required?
No. The administrator was to use Southern's account records to identify participating class members, calculate paid carrying charges, and mail checks automatically after approval. Class members did not submit a claim to establish the amount. The action deadlines concerned exclusion and objections, not a cash claim form. A business that changed locations was instructed during administration to update its payment address, but this page does not publish administrator contact details.Why the Status Is Not Marked Finally Approved
The official website says the court would decide final approval at the October 15, 2024 hearing. It does not say what the judge decided and does not post a signed final order or judgment. The passage of that date cannot be converted into final approval by assumption. Until an authoritative order or updated administrator notice is available, the careful description is “hearing passed; no public final result posted.”How Would Payments Be Calculated?
If the settlement became effective, the administrator would first calculate the net fund after approved deductions. It would then compare each participating account's paid carrying charges with the total for all participating accounts. That percentage would determine the account's individual payment, subject to the minimum-check adjustment. Uncashed checks would eventually become void under the settlement terms and remaining money could be directed to the court-approved residual recipient.Where to Monitor the Matter
The court-authorized Southern Wine settlement website remains the appropriate public source even though its update is stale. Readers should look there for a signed final approval order or distribution announcement and should not confuse this private late-fee case with later government litigation involving Southern Glazer's pricing practices.Official Information
Review the latest information on the court-authorized Southern Wine settlement website.
Case
Wiseman Park, LLC v. Southern Wine and Spirits of America, Inc.
Case Number
BC548599
Court
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Gross Settlement
$5.5 million
Class Period
June 13, 2010–June 30, 2023
Claim Form
Not required
Public Status
Official site has not posted the post-hearing result
Official Website
court-authorized Southern Wine settlement
For more class actions, recalls, and refunds, keep scrolling below.
