Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc et al

Case # 13-cv-60749
Case Name Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc et al
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. FL

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 10/23/2014
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Jabrani Objectors (through Attorney Bandas) appealed the Final Approval.
  3. Class Counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $15,000
  4. The appeal was dismissed by the parties, which lead Class Counsel to withdraw their motion for appeal bond.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/23/2015
Attachments Third Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Amirali Jabrani, Janet Jabrani

Objectors Amirali Jabrani
Janet Jabrani
Signers Santiago A. Cueto
Attorneys Santiago A. Cueto
Christopher A. Bandas
  1. Settlement parties have not sufficiently proven the fairness of the settlement.
  2. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE ON ATTORNEYS: In the Deposition of Amirali Jabrani (which was taken in Fladell v. Wells Fargo Bank but which also discussed this case), the objector stated that he did not write his objection for this case or the one filed on his behalf in Fladell, but rather, it was drafted by Christopher Bandas, Santiago Cueto, and Ted Frank (See Dep. Transcript, pages 30-32). This is in contradiction to the email from Santiago Cueto to class counsel, stating that Mr. Bandas is not a party to the objection.  On November 4, 2014, Christopher Bandas filed his appearance in the Appellate Court.  On June 29, 2015, Mr. Frank said that he never made an appearance in this case nor is he working on this case now.

NOTE: According to the retainer agreement, the Jabranis were promised an incentive award not to exceed $5,000 for their objection.

NOTE: The Declaration of the Claims Administrator stated that the cost of continuing the administration process during the appeal was approximately $7,000 per month. This cost would be borne by the class and would be a direct result of the continuing merit-less appeal of these objectors.

Attachments Objection of Amirali and Janet Jabrani.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objection.pdf
Email from Santiago Cueto Regarding Jabrani's Representation.pdf
Bandas Retainer Agreement.pdf
Deposition of Amirali Jabrani.pdf
Deposition of Janet Jabrani.pdf
Appeal of Jabrani Objectors.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Jabrani Objector-Appellants.pdf
Motion to Require Appeal Bond.pdf
Response to Motion to Require Appeal Bond.pdf
Declaration of Claims Administrator Regarding Appeal.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Appeal.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal.pdf
Jabrani Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated