Hall v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Case # 12-cv-22700
Case Name Hall v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. FL
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to artificially inflate insurance premiums. They did so by improperly "force-placing" new policies for hazard or flood insurance coverage on properties.

Final Approval Date 12/17/2014
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Court addressed all objections at length in the Final Approval Order, finding them to be without merit.
  3. Objectors Hall (through Attorney Bandas), Mayo (through Attorney Dolan), Sanderson and Johnson (through Attorney Fearon), and Trapasso (through Attorney Woods) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed by the parties.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 06/23/2015
Attachments Second Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Hearing Transcript.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Carl Rosen

Objectors Carl Rosen
Signers Carl Rosen
David D. Dishman
Peter A. Flanagan
Attorneys Carl Rosen
David D. Dishman
Peter A. Flanagan
Summary
  1. There is no justification for a "claims-made" settlement.
  2. Attorneys' fees should not be calculated until claims rate is known.
  3. Claim form is confusing and intimidating.
Attachments Objection of Carl Rosen.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Dick Mayo

Objectors Dick Mayo
Signers Dick Mayo
Attorneys Daniel D. Dolan
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees should be tied to actual recovery of the class.
  2. Release is not available to class members.
  3. Release is overbroad.
  4. Notice is insufficient, since email was not used.
  5. Claim form is confusing and intimidating.
  6. Requirement to mail opt out requests is overly burdensome.
  7. Reversion to the Defendant is improper.
Attachments Objection of Dick Mayo.pdf
Attorney Appearance for Dick Mayo.pdf
Appeal of Objector Mayo.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Mayo Objector.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Daniel Hall, Lanette Hall

Objectors Daniel Hall
Lanette Hall
Signers Santiago A. Cueto
Attorneys Santiago A. Cueto
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  2. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  3. "Clear sailing" provisions are improper.

NOTE: Christopher Bandas filed his appearance in the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Daniel and Lanette Hall.pdf
Appeal of Hall Objectors.pdf
Attorney Appearance for Hall Objector-Appellants.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Hall Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeffrey Sanderson, Rayar Johnson

Objectors Jeffrey Sanderson
Rayar Johnson
Signers Stephen J. Fearon, Jr
Attorneys Stephen J. Fearon, Jr
Gregory F. Coleman
Summary
  1. Class members do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
  2. "Claims-made" nature of the settlement is improper.
  3. Claim form is unnecessarily burdensome and intrusive.
  4. Defendant should have access to the necessary information.
  5. Claims process is designed to suppress claims numbers.
  6. Deadlines to object and opt out are unduly short.
  7. Settlement seeks Final Approval before the claims deadline.
  8. Release is overbroad.
  9. Class members who have undergone bankruptcy are improperly excluded from the settlement.
  10. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  11. Attorneys' fees should only be calculated once the actual relief is known.
  12. Class representatives do not adequately represent Tennessee class members.
Attachments Objection of Jeffrrey Sanderson and Rayar Johnson.pdf
Appeal of Sanderson and Johnson Objectors.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Sanderson and Johnson Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Michael Trapasso, Jill Trapasso, Gordon K. James, Alacia L. James

Objectors Michael Trapasso
Jill Trapasso
Gordon K. James
Alacia L. James
Signers Gregory N. Woods
Attorneys Gregory N. Woods
Summary
  1. Class relief may be illusory, since no common fund is established.
  2. "Claims made" nature of the suit is unnecessarily burdensome for class members.
  3. Prospective relief provides no benefit to the class.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

NOTE: The James Objectors withdrew their objection, due to their lack of standing.

Attachments Objection of Trapasso et al.pdf
Withdrawal of Objection by James Objectors.pdf
Motion to Intervene by Trapasso et al Objectors.pdf
Order Granting Motion to Intervene by Trapasso et al Objectors.pdf
Appeal of Trapasso Objectors.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Trapasso Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated