“A defendant has a right to communicate settlement offers directly to putative class members. However, a defendant may not abuse that right. Cases in which courts have conditioned the transmission of settlement offers involve class members in an inherently coercive dependent relationship with the defendant and/or settlement offers for less than that sought in the lawsuit. Here, the relationship between Jeld-Wen and its customers, as well as the attending circumstances, appear to create a potentially coercive relationship or situation…. The Court recognizes that Jeld-Wen has been communicating with its customers for years regarding its repair and replacement program and that those communications began well before the class action lawsuit was filed. Hence, the Court does not find any nefarious motive for issuing the letter in question. And, in the context of the ancestry of this case, the undersigned understands that Jeld-Wen must make business decisions as a result of the litigation. However, as noted previously, Jeld-Wen’s intent does not drive the Court’s determination of whether the situation requires intervention. Instead, it is the overall potential effect that the letter has on the integrity of the class action lawsuit. The Court finds that the communication threatens the proper functioning of the litigation, as it has a tendency to suggest to the reader that needed repairs will be made only if the customer opts out of the class action. Any such suggestion, regardless of Jeld-Wen’s intent in writing the letter, has the potential to have a misleading and coercive effect on putative class members.” See Jones v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 554 (S.D.Fla. 2008).