Nwabueze v. AT&T

Case # 09-cv-01529
Case Name Nwabueze v. AT&T
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T actively practiced the "intentional charging of consumers for products and services they have not requested or authorized" (see Complaint, page 2). This billing was performed by third parties, with the tacit acceptance of AT&T. This problem was repeatedly brought to AT&T's attention through customer complaints, as well as notice from regulatory bodies.

Final Approval Date 11/27/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were found to be without merit and were overruled.
  3. Objector Morgan (through Attorney Bandas) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Appeal was voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 03/19/2014
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Order Granting Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gordon Morgan

Objectors Gordon Morgan
Signers Gordon Morgan
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  2. Notice does not contain sufficient information to evaluate the attorneys' fee request.
  3. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
  4. Settlement notice does not adequately define class membership.
  5. Release is overbroad.

In her Final Approval, Judge Illston noted Objector Morgans objections "are largely conclusory and fail to provide legal support or evidence" (see Final Approval Order, page 15).

Attachments Objection of Gordon Morgan.pdf
Appeal of Objector Morgan.pdf
Amended Appeal of Objector Morgan.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Morgan.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Objector-Appellant Morgan.pdf
Morgan Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Rosa Amelia Zurek

Objectors Rosa Amelia Zurek
Signers Rosa Amelia Zurek
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Relief is insufficient compared to the release.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE: Objector's husband, Michael Zurek, filed a cover letter to the objection with Class Counsel. That letter stipulated that they would be willing to drop their objection in exchange for a payment of $30,000.

Attachments Objection of Rosa Amelia Zurek.pdf
Zurek Objection Cover Letter.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Charles M. Thompson

Objectors Charles M. Thompson
Signers Charles M. Thompson
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Claims process is overly complex.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE: Charles M. Thompson was found to lack standing, since he did not incur any third party charges during the class period.

Attachments Objection of Charles M. Thompson.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated