Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank

Case # 14-cv-02349
Case Name Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo systematically made calls to cellular telephones using an automatic dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. These calls were regarding the collection of alleged debt for Wells Fargo credit card accounts. They did this without the consent of the recipient, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Final Approval Date 01/29/2016
Result
  1. The Card and Schuh objections were voluntarily withdrawn prior to the Final Approval hearing.
  2. Final Approval granted.
  3. The remaining Thut objection was overruled.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Ann L. Card

Objectors Ann L. Card
Signers Matthew Kurilich
Attorneys Matthew Kurilich
Summary
  1. Relief available to class members is inadequate.
  2. Notice and administration costs are excessive.
  3. The release is overbroad.
  4. Requirement to mail objections to five addresses is excessively burdensome.
  5. Specific cy pres recipient has not been named.
  6. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  7. Class representative awards are excessive.

NOTE:  This objection was voluntarily withdrawn.

Attachments Objection of Anne L. Card.pdf
Withdrawal of Card Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of C. Jeffrey Thut

Objectors C. Jeffrey Thut
Signers Timothy R. Hanigan
Attorneys Timothy R. Hanigan
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

NOTE: Christopher Bandas is identified in the objection as representing Objector Thut, but does not intend on making an appearance.

Attachments Objection of C. Jeffrey Thut.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Charmain T. Schuh

Objectors Charmain T. Schuh
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
John C. Kress
Jonathan E. Fortman
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive, especially in relation to the recovery of individual class members.
    • Administrative costs should not be included in the settlement valuation.
    • "Clear sailing" provisions are improper.
  2. Cy pres provisions may improperly direct funds away from class members, if they do not cash their checks in a timely fashion.

NOTE:  This objection was voluntarily withdrawn.

Attachments Objection of Charmain T. Schuh.pdf
Withdrawal of Schuh Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sterling Jan

Objectors Sterling Jan
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary

This objection appears in the Docket Report but is not available.

Attachments Attorney Appearance for Objector Sterling Jan.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated