Fauley et al v. Metropolitan Life, Storick

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Scott Storick, was sending unsolicited fax advertisements ("junk faxes") in his capacity as a Metropolitan Life insurance agent.  These faxes were sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

1. Final Approval granted.
2. Objectors Clayton (through Attorney Thut) and A7 Realty (through Attorney Kennedy) appealed the Final Approval.
3. The appellate court rejected all of the arguments made by the objectors and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
4. On the final day to appeal the Appellate Court decision, A7 Realty filed a Request for Extension of Time to File, seeking an additional 35 days to file an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court (attached below).
5. On the last day of the extension, 06/01/2016, A7 Realty appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
6. On 09/28/2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied A7 Realty's petition to appeal.

1. The class notice is inadequate,
2. Procedures to object violate due process,
3. The proponents of the settlement have failed to discharge their burden of proof on the fairness of this settlement,
4. Proposed attorneys' fees and expenses are excessive

On April 24,2015, C. Jeffrey Thut explicitly said that Ted Frank was "writing the Brief of Objector/Appellant Clayton." To date, Mr. Frank has not denied Mr. Thut's assertion.

On June 29, 2015, Mr. Frank said that he never made an appearance in this case nor is he working on this case now.

Attorney Thut's retainer agreement came to light as a result of separate litigation.  Attorney Thut was paid $5,000 for appearing at the Illinois Circuit Court, $5,000 for appearing at the Illinois Appellate Court, and 15% of any separate recovery made by Objector Clayton.

1. Settlement amount may not be adequate and should be increased.
2. Cy Pres relief breaches class counsel's duty to the class.
3. The proposed attorneys' fees are excessive.

As disclosed during his deposition, James Cramer entered an agreement with his attorney to split any recovery 50/50, despite objecting that class counsel's portion of the recovery of 33.3% was excessive.

Mr. Cramer also stated that he believed professional objectors who do not confer benefit on the class should be punished (Dep. Transcript, page 53).  He stated that an objector should not receive any payment if they do not confer any benefit on the class (Dep. Transcript, page 69).  Mr. Cramer also did not file an claim form in the case (Dep. Transcript, page 90-91).

Dep. Transcript, page 102:

"A: I would like to see the class members paid as soon as possible.

Q: And would you delay them getting paid for as long as possible in order to get money for yourself?

A: No, I wouldn't."