Fauley et al v. Metropolitan Life, Storick
Case # | 14 CH 1518 |
---|---|
Case Name | Fauley et al v. Metropolitan Life, Storick |
Jurisdiction | Circuit Court of Lake Co., IL |
Summary | 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. |
Final Approval Date | 03/06/2015 |
Result |
|
Dismissal of Last Appeal | 09/28/2016 |
Attachments | First Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf Preliminary Approval Order.pdf Final Approval Order.pdf Appellate Court Decision.pdf |
Added to Index | |
Last Updated |
Objection of Judd Clayton Jr.
Objectors | Judd Clayton Jr. |
---|---|
Signers | Peter F. Higgins |
Attorneys | C. Jeffrey Thut Peter F. Higgins Christopher A. Bandas Theodore H. Frank |
Summary |
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. |
Attachments | Objection of Judd Clayton Jr..pdf Deposition of Judd Clayton Jr. (with Exhibits).pdf Amended Appeal of Clayton Objector.pdf Thut Retainer Agreement.pdf |
Added to Index | |
Last Updated |
Objection of A7 Realty LP d/b/a Austin Distributing Company
Objectors | A7 Realty LP d/b/a Austin Distributing Company |
---|---|
Signers | Kirk A. Kennedy |
Attorneys | Kirk A. Kennedy Robert Long J. Timothy Eaton |
Summary |
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." |
Attachments | Objection of A7 Realty.pdf Deposition of James Cramer - A7 Realty.pdf Deposition Exhibits - James Cramer.pdf Motion to Strike Objections of A7 Realty.docx Appeal of A7 Realty.pdf A7 Realty Request for Extension of Time to File Appeal.pdf Retainer Agreement.PDF A7 Realty Supreme Court Petition.pdf Response to A7 Realty Supreme Court Petition.pdf Denial of A7 Realty Supreme Court Petition.pdf |
Added to Index | |
Last Updated |