In re Midland Credit Management TCPA Litigation

Case # 11-md-02286
Case Name In re Midland Credit Management TCPA Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants contacted their cell phones using auto-dialing technology without prior express consent.  These calls were made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Final Approval Date 12/02/2016
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The four serial objector-linked objections were all withdrawn prior to Final Approval.
  3. At least one objection withdrawal (Objector Sweeney's, discussed below) was due to a payoff of $35,000 from Class Counsel.
  4. No payments to objectors were disclosed in the public record of this case.
  5. All remaining objections were overruled.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Special Master Report on Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Rhadiante Van de Voorde

Objectors Rhadiante Van de Voorde
Signers Rhadiante Van de Voorde
Matthew Kurilich
Attorneys Matthew Kurilich
Summary
  1. Class is impermissibly "fail-safe."
  2. Class membership is not ascertainable.
  3. Settlement violates Defendant's consent decree with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  4. Release is overbroad.
  5. Relief is inadequate and illusory.
  6. Settlement is contrary to Churchill factors.
  7. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Rhadiante Van de Voorde.pdf
Kurilich Appearance for Objector Van de Voorde.pdf
Withdrawal of Van de Voorde Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Steven F. Helfand

Objectors Steven F. Helfand
Signers Steven F. Helfand
Attorneys John W. Davis
Summary
  1. Clear sailing provisions are improper.
  2. Settlement terms are uncertain.
Attachments Objection of Steven F. Helfand.pdf
Davis Appearance for Objector Helfand.pdf
Withdrawal of Helfand Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Erich B. Neumann

Objectors Erich B. Neumann
Signers Erich B. Neumann
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement should be considered a "coupon settlement."
  2. Relief is illusory.
  3. Settlement is overvalued.
  4. Settlement contains intra-class conflicts.
  5. Settlement amount in inadequate.
  6. Notice is inadequate.
  7. Settlement ignores certain debt collection practices.
  8. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Erich Neumann.pdf
Withdrawal of Neumann Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Patrick Sweeney

Objectors Patrick Sweeney
Signers Patrick Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Claims process lacks sufficient oversight.
  2. There is no definite timeline for the claims administration process.
  3. A portion of the attorneys' fees should be withheld to provide adequate oversight.
  4. Attorneys' fees do not reflect actual recovery by the class.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and not supported by the docket record.
  6. Settlement lacks a cy pres provision.
  7. There are no caps on costs or expenses.
  8. Notice is inadequate.

In sworn deposition testimony in In re Yahoo! Mail Litigation, Objector Sweeney testified that he had received a payment of $35,000 from Class Counsel in exchange for dropping his objections in this case.  Objector Sweeney testified that he had not sought court approval for this payment and the payment does not appear in the record of this case.  (see Patrick Sweeney Deposition Transcript at 149:23-150:24).

Attachments Objection of Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Withdrawal of Sweeney Objection.pdf
Patrick Sweeney Deposition Transcript (Yahoo Mail).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated