Faught v. American Home Shield

Case # 07-cv-01928
Case Name Faught v. American Home Shield
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. AL
Summary

American Home Shield provides warranties for major home components and appliance systems.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired with service technicians to to avoid paying justified claims.

Final Approval Date 04/27/2010
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. Objector Attorneys Davis and Griffis motioned for $182,433.07 in fees.
  4. Objector Attorney Nutley motioned for $41,733 in fees.
  5. The Objectors' Attorneys' fee requests were opposed by both Class and Defense Counsel, noting that the all objections had been overruled and thus, the objectors did not improve the settlement at hand.
  6. The Motion of Objector Attorney Fees was denied by the Court, finding that "the record is devoid of any benefit to the class resulting from the objections made by the Objectors." (Order Denying Motion of Objector Attorney's Fees, page 6)
  7. Numerous Objectors appealed the Final Approval.
  8. The Thompson Appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute (failure to file appellant brief and record excerpts).
  9. The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court's decisions both to grant Final Approval and to deny fees for the Objectors' Attorneys.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 12/02/2011
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Amended Nationwide Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Order Denying Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Consolidated Appeal Docket.pdf
Appellate Decision.pdf
Appellate Decision Affirming Denial of Objector Fees.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Charles M. Thompson

Objectors Charles M. Thompson
Signers Charles M. Thompson
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement does not have a declared value.
  2. Claims are reviewed by Defendant, instead of independent claims administrator.
  3. Class members have no way to appeal a denied claim.
Attachments Objection of Charles M. Thompson.pdf
Appeal of Objector Thompson.pdf
Dismissal of Thompson Appeal.pdf
Thompson Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Todd Pettitt, Sharon Lee, John J. Pentz, Connie Pentz

Objectors Todd Pettitt
Sharon Lee
John J. Pentz
Connie Pentz
Signers Kearney Dee Hutsler
Attorneys Kearney Dee Hutsler
C. Benjamin Nutley
Summary
  1. Relief is illusory.
  2. Release is overbroad.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Class representative incentive award is excessive.
Attachments Objection of Todd Pettitt et al.pdf
Nutley Declaration in Support of Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Appeal of Pettitt et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of John Chapon, Miriam Chapon

Objectors John Chapon
Miriam Chapon
Signers John W. Davis
Attorneys John W. Davis
R. Stephen Griffis
Summary
  1. Settlement parties are forum shopping.
  2. Settlement offers no certain monetary relief.
  3. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  4. Class representative award is excessive and creates conflict with absent class members.
  5. Settling parties have not presented sufficient evidence for class members to conduct independent analysis.
  6. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  7. Right of exclusion is not adequate for class members who find the relief inadequate.
Attachments Objection of Miriam and John Chapon.pdf
Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Davis Declaration in Support of Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Griffis Declaration in Support of Motion for Objector Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Appeal of Pettitt et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of John Howe, Jenny Hill, Jennifer Deachin n/k/a Jennifer Hinjosa

Objectors John Howe
Jenny Hill
Jennifer Deachin n/k/a Jennifer Hinjosa
Signers Frank H. Tomlinson
Attorneys Frank H. Tomlinson
N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Summary
  1. A similar settlement was rejected by California state court.
  2. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  3. Settlement agreement does not indicate the value of the settlement.
  4. Claims are reviewed by Defendant, instead of independent claims administrator.
  5. Claims period is overly long.
  6. Settlement agreement does not contain sufficient information for class members to determine if they should opt out.
  7. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of John Howe et al.pdf
Appeal of Howe, McKerley and Williams et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Michael McKerley, Kenneth R. Behrend, Pamela Behrend

Objectors Michael McKerley
Kenneth R. Behrend
Pamela Behrend
Signers Frank H. Tomlinson
Attorneys Frank H. Tomlinson
N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Summary
  1. Settlement agreement does not indicate the value of the settlement.
  2. Relief is illusory.
  3. Attorneys' fees may be improper.
Attachments Objection of Michael McKerley et al.pdf
Appeal of Howe, McKerley and Williams et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeff Williams, Sabrina Williams, Janet K. Wood

Objectors Jeff Williams
Sabrina Williams
Janet K. Wood
Signers Frank H. Tomlinson
Attorneys Frank H. Tomlinson
N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Summary
  1. Relief is illusory.
  2. Settlement agreement does not indicate the value of the settlement.
  3. Claims are reviewed by Defendant, instead of independent claims administrator.
  4. Claims process is overly burdensome.
  5. Class counsel are the only beneficiaries of the settlement.
  6. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  7. Claims period is overly long.
  8. Settlement agreement does not contain sufficient information for class members to determine if they should opt out.
  9. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  10. A similar settlement was rejected by California state court.
  11. Class representative awards are excessive.
  12. Injunctive relief is overly narrow.
  13. Class members do not have recourse if their claims are denied.
Attachments Objection of Jeff Williams et al.pdf
Supplemental Objection of Jeff Williams et al.pdf
Appeal of Howe, McKerley and Williams et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated