Objections to class action lawsuits can serve a legitimate purpose, but they also allow an individual to hold up class-wide settlements. This website seeks to identify attorneys and individuals who repeatedly hold up settlements by objecting and appealing, often in the hopes of receiving confidential payoffs in exchange for dropping their objections. We are not drawing any conclusions with respect to any particular individual, entity, or legal practice. We are simply providing you with facts and links to publicly available records. We leave the conclusions to you.
- 13-cv-61747: Soto v. The Gallup Organization
- 14-cv-00160: Melgar v. Zicam
- 18-cv-00658: Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company
- 11-cv-00226: Rikos v. Proctor & Gamble Company
- 12-md-02330: In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation
- 12-cv-00215: Spann v. J.C. Penny Corporation
- 08-cv-00046: Williams v. Duke Energy International
- 10-cv-03864: Jones v. Pfizer
- 10-cv-01147: Ehlers v. Restoration Hardware
- 14-cv-22069: Schreiber v. Ally Financial
- Serial Objectors Seek Dismissal of Civil RICO Charges
- Bandas Sues Insurance Provider over Civil RICO Defense
- Objector Enterprise Exposed in Depositions
- Bandas Successfully Ducks Sanctions Through Procedural Machinations
- Serial Objectors Testify that Their Objections are Self-Serving
- Notorious Class Action Objectors Hit With Civil RICO Suit
- Center for Class Action Fairness’ Arguments Rejected in Subway Foot-Long Case (UPDATED 8/26/2017)
- Serial Objector Sanctioned by Western District of Washington
- Serial Objectors Appear in NFL Concussion Suit
- Objector Bench Slapped by Northern District of Ohio