Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services

Case # 07-cv-01434
Case Name Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services
Jurisdiction US District Court for M.D. FL
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that a high-level employee of the Defendant obtained and sold customers' credit reports to a third party without their consent.  This was done in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Final Approval Date 09/03/2008
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were either withdrawn (see below) or overruled.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Judgment.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Stephens

Objectors David Stephens
Signers Christopher A. Bandas
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Notice does not contain sufficient information to evaluate the fairness of the settlement.
  2. Benefits to the class are insufficient.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE:  This objection was withdrawn, following clarification from class counsel regarding the fairness of the settlement.

Attachments Objection of David Stephens.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector Stephens.pdf
Withdrawal of Stephens Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Ed Ellis

Objectors Ed Ellis
Signers Luke Lirot
Attorneys Luke Lirot
Edward F. Siegel
Summary
  1. Amount of relief available to the class is illusory.
    • Actual benefit depends on the number of claims submitted.
  2. Attorneys' fees are disproportionately large when compared to the size of the settlement.
  3. Lack of a cy pres provision prevents the total value of the settlement from being known.

NOTE:  This objection was withdrawn, following clarification from class counsel regarding the fairness of the settlement.

Attachments Objection of Ed Ellis.pdf
Siegel Website Printout.pdf
Withdrawal of Ellis Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Joel M. Shapiro

Objectors Joel M. Shapiro
Signers John J. Pentz
Attorneys John J. Pentz
David M. Snyder
Summary
  1. Settlement is grossly inadequate when compared to potential damages.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and may exceed the Defendant's liability.

NOTE:  Class counsel moved to depose Objector Shapiro.  When Shapiro's protective order was denied, he withdrew his objection, rather than proceed with the deposition.

Attachments Objection of Joel Shapiro.pdf
Pentz Appearance for Objector Shapiro.pdf
Shapiro Motion for Protective Order.pdf
Response to Shapiro Motion for Protective Order.pdf
Order Denying Shapiro Motion for Protective Order.pdf
Withdrawal of Shapiro Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated