In re Life Time Fitness, Inc TCPA Litigation

Case # 14-md-02564
Case Name In re Life Time Fitness, Inc TCPA Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for MN

Life Time Fitness made a practice of sending unsolicited text message advertisements, promoting their services. These text messages were sent automatically, without prior express consent, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Final Approval Date 12/01/2015
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Court found that Objector Thut's objection was "not well founded" and overruled it in its entirety.
  3. Objector Thut appealed the Final Approval per se.
    • Her attorneys, Christopher Bandas and Howard Bashman, filed their appearances on the appeal.
  4. Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $26,065 ($890 in direct costs and $25,175 in increased administration costs.)
  5. The District Court granted an appeal bond of $890, which was posted by the Bandas Law Firm on 02/16/2016.
  6. The Eighth Circuit overruled the appeal of Objector Thut in its entirety and affirmed the decision of the District Court.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 02/02/2017
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Final Approval and Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting in Part Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Appellate Decision.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Lindsey Thut

Objectors Lindsey Thut
Signers Lindsey Thut
Attorneys C. Jeffrey Thut
Christopher A. Bandas
Howard J. Bashman
  1. Claim procedures are unnecessarily burdensome and are designed to drive down claims.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

In her deposition, Lindsey Thut repeatedly said she was unaware of the terms of the settlements, the reasons for her objections, and the benefits she hoped to produce by objecting (see pg. 34-36, 63-64).  Indeed, she stated that she was not filing the objection for anyone's benefit but her own (see Deposition of Lindsey Thut, pg. 92 at 17-19).

Attorneys Bandas and Bashman filed their appearances on the appeal, following instruction from the Eighth Circuit to justify Objector Thut continuing as a pro se appellant.  Attorney Thut does not have an appearance on file on the case but Objector is his daughter and Attorney Thut listed his email address and phone number as the contact information for Objector Thut on her claim form.

Attachments Objection of Lindsey Thut.pdf
Deposition of Lindsey Thut.pdf
Appeal of Objector Thut.pdf
Thut Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Letter to Appellate Court Regarding Objector Thut's Pro Se Status.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Thut.pdf
Bashman Appearance for Objector-Appellant Thut.pdf
Thut Retainer Agreement.pdf
Thut Appellant Brief.pdf
Appellee Brief.pdf
Thut Appellant Reply Brief.pdf
Thut Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated