In re Anthem, Inc Data Breach Litigation

Case # 15-md-02617
Case Name In re Anthem, Inc Data Breach Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to take adequate precautions in protecting customers' personal information.  As a result of this negligence, affected individuals have been victims of identity theft and fraud.  Plaintiffs allege that more robust security would have prevented the exploitation of this personal data and the ensuing harm.

Final Approval Date ongoing
Result
  1. Case is ongoing.
  2. Final Approval hearing was held on February 1, 2018.
  3. The Court, agreeing with Objector Schulman, appointed a Special Master to oversee attorneys' fee calculations and allocations.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Order Granting Motion to Appoint Special Master.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kelly Kress

Objectors Kelly Kress
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
John C. Kress
Jonathan E. Fortman
Summary
  1. Credit protection services should be considered coupons and attorneys' fees tied to their redemption.
  2. Portions of the attorneys' fee request are redacted and it is thus impossible to evaluate the fairness of the request and the value of the settlement.
  3. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Kelly Kress.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Dannette Coddington, Andrew Coddington

Objectors Dannette Coddington
Andrew Coddington
Signers John J. Pentz
Attorneys John J. Pentz
C. Benjamin Nutley
Summary
  1. Settlement over-values "in-kind" relief (credit monitoring) and undervalues cash relief.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Dannette and Andrew Coddington.pdf
Pentz Appearance for Coddington Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Adam E. Schulman

Objectors Adam E. Schulman
Signers Theodore H. Frank
Adam E. Schulman
Attorneys Theodore H. Frank
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Expenses should be included in the fee calculation.
    • Notice and administration costs should be excluded from the fee calculation.
  2. Lodestar has been overstated by at least $13 million.
    • A special master should be appointed to oversee fee awards.
  3. Settlement funds are improperly directed to cy pres recipients.

Objector Schulman separately motioned for the appointment of a Special Master, to oversee fee justification and allocation.

Attachments Objection of Adam Schulman.pdf
Schulman Declaration in Support of Objection.pdf
Frank Declaration in Support of Schulman Objection.pdf
Schulman Motion for Appointment of Special Master.pdf
Plaintiff's Opposition to Schulman Motion for Appointment of Special Master.pdf
Reply in Support of Schulman Motion for Appointment of Special Master.pdf
Supplemental Schulman Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated