Kolinek v. Walgreen Co.

Case # 13-cv-04806
Case Name Kolinek v. Walgreen Co.
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. IL
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, Walgreens, made unsolicited advertising robocalls to consumers, in an attempt to get them to refill prescriptions at Walgreens pharmacies.  These calls were made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Final Approval Date 11/23/2015
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. All serial objectors appealed the Final Approval.
Dismissal of Last Appeal ongoing
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Final Approval.pdf
Edelson Declaration in Support of Motion for Final Approval.pdf
Objector Discovery Hearing Transcript.pdf
Motion to Depose Objectors.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order.pdf
Final Judgment.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Todd Spann

Objectors Todd Spann
Signers Jonathan E. Fortman
Attorneys Jonathan E. Fortman
Steve A. Miller
John C. Kress
Summary
  1. Walgreens' robocall services should be considered a service to customers, not a nuisance.
  2. Class representative does not adequately represent the entire class.
  3. Settlement contains an improper and "hidden" cy pres provision.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

Objector Spann, claiming to have improved the settlement by preventing the automatic discontinuation of the robocalls to class members who wished to continue receiving them, withdrew his objection and motioned for $100,000 in attorneys' fees for his attorneys.  The Court denied this motion for fees without comment.

Attachments Objection of Todd Spann.pdf
Withdrawal of Spann Objection.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Withdrawal of Spann Objection.pdf
Motion for Attorneys' Fees for Objector Spann.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Attorneys' Fees for Objector Spann.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Lyndy Streight

Objectors Lyndy Streight
Signers Lyndy Streight
Attorneys Brent F. Vullings
Summary
  1. Class representative does not adequately represent the damages suffered by the class.
  2. Class representative award is excessive, especially when compared to compensation available to class members.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Settlement does not disclose cy pres recipients.
  5. Claims process is unduly burdensome.
    • Direct distribution to a majority of class members is feasible.
  6. Email notification is inadequate, compared to mail notification.

Objector Streight's standing to object (class membership) was disputed by class counsel.

Attachments Objection of Lyndy Streight.pdf
Vullings Appearance for Objector Streight.pdf
Email Regarding Objector Streight's Standing.pdf
Appeal of Objector Streight.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Melinda Erin Franz

Objectors Melinda Erin Franz
Signers Melinda Erin Franz
W. Allen McDonald
Attorneys W. Allen McDonald
Lloyd C. Chatfield
Summary
  1. Relief available to the class is inadequate, compared to the maximum allowable under the TCPA.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  3. Injunctive relief is illusory.

It remains unclear whether Christopher Cain was also an attorney representing Objector Franz.

Attachments Objection of Melinda Erin Franz.pdf
McDonald Appearance for Objector Franz.pdf
Chatfield Appearance for Objector Franz.pdf
Franz Retainer Agreement.pdf
Franz Motion to Quash Deposition.pdf
Franz Response in Opposition to Final Approval.pdf
Email to Franz Counsel Seeking Clarification of Christopher Cain Involvement.pdf
Franz Response to Motion for Depositions.pdf
Appeal of Objector Franz.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gleith Cozby, Rendee Bullard, Sharon Hughes, Christinna Oldham

Objectors Gleith Cozby
Rendee Bullard
Sharon Hughes
Christinna Oldham
Signers Justin A. Allen
Attorneys Justin A. Allen
Christopher J. Braun
Arthur J. Howe
Summary
  1. Settlement class is overbroad.
    • Common issues do not predominate among the class.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Case law cited in the fee motion is inconsistent.

NOTE:  Objectors Hughes and Oldham withdrew their objections, since they were not class members and had no standing to object.  Objectors Cozby and Bullard maintained their objections.

Attachments Objection of Gleith Cozby et al.pdf
Howe Appearance for Cozby et al Objectors.pdf
Cozby et al Motion to Quash Depositions.pdf
Cozby et al Discovery Response.pdf
Objector Attorneys' Fees Division Emails.pdf
Withdrawal of Hughes and Oldham Objections.pdf
Cozby et al Response to Motion for Depositions.pdf
Cozby Retainer Agreement.pdf
Bullard Retainer Agreement.pdf
Appeal of Cozby et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Pamela Sweeney

Objectors Pamela Sweeney
Signers Pamela Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Pamela Sweeney.pdf
Letter from Pamela Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sweeney.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Paige Nash

Objectors Paige Nash
Signers Paige Nash
Attorneys Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Summary
  1. Common issues do not predominate among the class.
  2. Plaintiffs' case is not strong enough.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Paige Nash.pdf
Cox Appearance for Objector Nash.pdf
Nash Document Production.pdf
Cox Document Production.pdf
Appeal of Objector Nash and Sibley.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gary W. Sibley

Objectors Gary W. Sibley
Signers Gary W. Sibley
Attorneys Gary W. Sibley
Summary
  1. Common issues do not predominate among the class.
  2. Relief available to class members is insufficient, given the amount statutorily allowed.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Injunctive relief is illusory, since Walgreens is merely agreeing to follow the law.
Attachments Objection of Gary Sibley.pdf
Appeal of Objector Nash and Sibley.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated