In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

Case # 14-md-02522
Case Name In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for MN
Summary

Lawsuit was filed in response to the 2013 customer data breach, wherein personal and financial information from up to 110 million Target customers was compromised. Plaintiffs allege that Target did not take adequate precautions to protect customer data. 

Final Approval Date 11/17/2015
Result
  1. Final Approval granted on November 17, 2015.
  2. All objections were overruled.
    • The Court noted that unsubstantiated claims found in Objector Olson's objection "rais[ed] the Court's suspicions that the arguments in the Center [for Class Action Fairness]'s 36-page brief are boilerplate arguments raised against every class-action or multidistrict litigation settlement." (see Memorandum and Order, page 6)
  3. All four objectors appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Objector Miorelli's appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, since he was not a member of the class.
  5. Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $49,156 ($2,284 in direct appeal costs and $46,872 in increased administrative costs), the administrative portion of which was opposed by all four objectors.
  6. The full $49,156 bond was granted by the District Court on 1/21/2016 (and later upheld by the Eighth Circuit on 3/28/2016).
    • In granting the full appeal bond, the District Court noted, "the Court “treats with particular disapproval the objections and appeals of ‘professional objectors’ whose objections amount to a ‘tax that has no benefit to anyone other than to the objectors’ but serves to ‘tie up the execution of a Settlement and further delay payment to the members of the Settlement Class.’” Id. (quoting In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. 1:09md2036, 2012 WL 456691, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2012)). Objectors Olsen (sic) and Gibson fall in this category of professional objectors." (See Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond, page 2-3)
  7. Objector Gibson dropped her appeal in the face of the appeal bond.
  8. Objector Sciaroni motioned to stay the appeal bond, which was also denied on 3/28/2016.
  9. Objector Olson posted the entirety of the bond on 1/29/2016.
    • While continuing to appeal, as of 4/1/2016, Objector Sciaroni has still not contributed to the bond amount.
    • Objector Olson has attempted to vacate Objector Sciaroni's portion or the bond or dismiss his appeal, which the Eighth Circuit rejected on 3/28/2016.
    • The District Court noted that "Objector Olson purported to limit his bond payment to his own appeal and not to the appeals of his fellow Appellants. (citation omitted) But the Court's Order stated that the appeal bond was due jointly and severally; thus, a payment of the full amount of the appeal bond satisfies the bond requirement as to all Appellants.  Objector Olson is of course free to pursue whatever remedies he might have against Objector Sciaroni for his proportionate share of the bond." (see Order Denying as Moot Sciaroni Motion to Stay Appeal Bond, page 1, footnote)
  10. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case, finding that Objector Olson raised legitimate concerns about Class Counsel's ability to adequately represent the diversity of the Class.
  11. The Eighth Circuit also ordered the Appeal Bond to be recalculated to represent actual recoverable costs.
  12. On 05/17/2017, the District Court re-certified the class over the objections of Objector Olson.
    • The Court found that: 
      • Although Olson is highly critical of the settlement and the representation of named Plaintiffs and class counsel, he has utterly failed to demonstrate any conflict of interest.  In the end, it is insufficient to merely argue that a settlement is not good enough. To establish that the representation of class representatives and the settlement they negotiated is not fair or adequate, Olson must offer actual evidence of the conflict he claims. His failure to do so, or to offer any alternative potential—and reasonably achievable—recoveries shows that the representation was fair and adequate, and the settlement was as good a settlement as any class member could hope. (see Order Granting Renewed Motion to Certify Class, page 20, emphasis added)
  13. Objector Olson again appealed the District Court decision.
  14. The Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision to recertify the class, rejecting the renewed arguments of Objector Olson and the original arguments of Objector Sciaroni.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 06/13/2018
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Memorandum and Order.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Declaration in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Eighth Circuit Decision.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Recertify Class.pdf
Order Granting Renewed Motion to Certify Class.pdf
Second Eighth Circuit Decision Affirming Settlement.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Leif A. Olson

Objectors Leif A. Olson
Signers Leif A. Olson
Melissa Holyoak
Attorneys Melissa Holyoak
Theodore H. Frank
Summary
  1. Intra-class conflict exists between class members who receive compensation and those who do not.
  2. Class action may not be the best way to litigate the case.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Requirements to object and opt-out are unduly burdensome.
Attachments Objection of Leif Olson.pdf
Holyoak Appearance for Objector Olson.pdf
Frank Appearance for Objector-Appellant Olson.pdf
Appeal of Objector Olson.pdf
Olson Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Appeal (Bond) of Objector Olson.pdf
Appeal (Third) of Objector Olson.pdf
Motion to Stay Schedule by Objector Olson.pdf
Frank Declaration Regarding Compliance with Appeal Bond Order.pdf
Motion to Vacate Appeal Bond by Objector-Appellant Olson.pdf
Response to Motion to Vacate Appeal Bond by Objector-Appellant Olson.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion to Vacate Appeal Bond by Objector-Appellant Olson.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Vacate Appeal Bond etc.pdf
Olson Response to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Recertify Class.pdf
Olson Appeal of Motion to Recertify Class.pdf
Olson Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of James Sciaroni

Objectors James Sciaroni
Signers James Sciaroni
Robert C. Black, III
Attorneys Robert C. Black, III
Summary
  1. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  2. Includes steps the Defendant was already taking.
  3. Settlement agreement does not explain how unclaimed settlement funds will be distributed.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  5. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
Attachments Objection of James Sciaroni.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sciaroni.pdf
Sciaroni Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Appeal (Bond) of Objector Sciaroni.pdf
Motion to Stay Appeal Bond by Objector Sciaroni.pdf
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay Appeal Bond by Objector Sciaroni.pdf
Sciaroni Appeal Docket.pdf
Sciaroni Appeal Docket (Bond).pdf
Order Denying as Moot Sciaroni Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Lindsay Gibson

Objectors Lindsay Gibson
Signers Lindsay Gibson
Attorneys Dennis Gibson
Summary

This objection was sealed by the Court.

NOTE ON ATTORNEY:  While Objector Gibson proceeded pro se, she acknowledged that she was being advised by her father, Dennis Gibson, an attorney with experience objecting to cases.

Attachments Objection of Lindsay Gibson (placeholder).pdf
Email Regarding Gibson Representation.pdf
Appeal of Objector Gibson.pdf
Gibson Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Gibson Appeal.pdf
Gibson Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sam A. Miorelli

Objectors Sam A. Miorelli
Signers Sam A. Miorelli
Attorneys
Summary

This objection was sealed by the Court.

The Court found that Mr. Miorelli was not a member of the class, since his use of a payment card fell outside the class period (see Memorandum and Order, attached above).

Objector Miorelli requested a $2.3 million payment in exchange for dropping his objection (see Email Correspondence, attached below).

The Appellate Court ultimately dismissed Mr. Miorelli's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the District Court that he was not a class member.

Attachments Objection of Sam A. Miorelli.pdf
Email Correspondence Regarding Proposed Objector Payoff.pdf
Appeal of Objector Miorelli.pdf
Miorelli Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Objector Miorelli.pdf
Response to Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Objector Miorelli.pdf
Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Objector Miorelli.pdf
Dismissal of Miorelli Appeal.pdf
Miorelli Appeal Docket.pdf
http://flarecord.com/stories/511037045-florida-attorney-a-serial-class-action-objector
Added to Index
Last Updated