In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation

Case # 12-md-02330
Case Name In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's "Carrier IQ" software on mobile devices improperly recorded and transmitted to third parties consumer information, including search histories and location information.  This invasion of privacy, under the guise of improving wireless service, damaged consumers.

Final Approval Date 08/25/2016
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. The Court noted that Objector Sweeney was a "serial objector" and that Objector Miorelli had "credibility issues" due to his having sought a side payment to dismiss an objection in another case. (see Final Approval Order, page 8)
  4. Objectors Sweeney and Miorelli appealed the Final Approval Order.
  5. Objector-Appellant Sweeney's appeal was dismissed for failure to respond (failure to pay the filing fee).
  6. Class Counsel and Objector-Appellant Miorelli met with Mediator Margaret Corrigan to resolve the appeal.  Class Counsel agreed to pay Objector-Appellant Miorelli $25,000 to withdraw his appeal, while effectuating no changes to the settlement.  The only reason cited by Class Counsel for this agreement was the expected delay caused by the Miorelli appeal (see Motion to Dismiss Miorelli Appeal with Payment, below).
  7. The side payment to Objector-Appellant Miorelli was approved by the District Court.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 03/09/2018
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sam A. Miorelli

Objectors Sam A. Miorelli
Signers Sam A. Miorelli
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Exisitence of a "confidential supplemental agreement" between Class Counsel and Defendants is improper.
  2. Settlement represents a small fraction of the class' actual damages.
  3. Cy pres provisions are improper.
  4. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
  5. Attorneys' fee request lacks sufficient public documentation.
  6. Attorneys' fees should be based on actual recovery by the class.
Attachments Objection of Sam A. Miorelli.pdf
Appeal of Objector Miorelli.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Miorelli Appeal with Payment.pdf
Miorelli Declaration in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal.pdf
Order Granting Dismissal of Miorelli Appeal.pdf
Miorelli Appeal Docket.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. Attorneys' fees lack adequate documentation.

NOTE:  This objection is substantially similar to numerous other objections filed by Patrick Sweeney.  Ex:  see Lennartson v. Papa Murphy's.

Attachments Objection of Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sweeney.pdf
Dismissal of Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Sweeney Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated