Melito v. American Eagle Outfitters

Case # 14-cv-02440
Case Name Melito v. American Eagle Outfitters
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. NY
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used an automated system to send text message advertisements to class members' cell phones.  These advertisements were sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Final Approval Date 09/08/2017
Result
  1. The Sweeney objectors were found to not be members of the class and withdrew their objections.
  2. Final Approval granted.
  3. Objector Brooke Bowes was also found to not be a member of the class.
  4. The objections of Kara Bowes were overruled.
  5. Kara Bowes appealed the Final Approval.
  6. The appeals process is ongoing.
Dismissal of Last Appeal ongoing
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kara Bowes, Brooke Bowes

Objectors Kara Bowes
Brooke Bowes
Signers Eric Alan Isaacson
Attorneys Eric Alan Isaacson
C. Benjamin Nutley
Summary
  1. Class members will receive well below the statutorily allowed compensation for spam text messages.
  2. Class representative incentive awards are excessive and improper.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE:  Brooke Bowes was found to not be a member of the class.

Attachments Objection of Kara and Brooke Bowes.pdf
Nutley Appearance for Bowes Objectors.pdf
Plaintiffs' Motion to Depose Bowes Objectors.pdf
Bowes Objectors' Opposition to Depositions.pdf
Order Granting Motion to Depose Bowes Objectors.pdf
Kara Bowes Deposition Transcript.pdf
Brooke Bowes Deposition Transcript.pdf
Appeal of Objector Kara Bowes.pdf
Bowes Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kerry Ann Sweeney, Patrick Sweeney

Objectors Kerry Ann Sweeney
Patrick Sweeney
Signers Kerry Ann Sweeney
Patrick Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Claims process lacks sufficient oversight.
  2. A portion of the attorneys' fees should be withheld to provide adequate oversight.
  3. Notice is deficient because Sweeney objectors did not receive notice.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive and not supported by the docket record.
  5. Attorneys' fees lack adequate documentation.

NOTE:  The Sweeney objectors were found to not be members of the class and the objection was withdrawn.

Attachments Objection of Kerry Ann and Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Email Correspondence with Objector Sweeney.pdf
Withdrawal of Sweeney Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated