Milliron v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Case # 08-cv-04149
Case Name Milliron v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Jurisdiction US District Court for NJ
Summary

As part of its standard wireless customer service agreement, T-Mobile charged customers an early termination fee of $200 if they chose to end their contract sooner than the expiration date. This was a flat $200 fee, no matter when the contract was terminated or the terms of the termination (including T-Mobile's failure to provide wireless service). This fee did not reflect any actual loss by T-Mobile, which would be calculated and billed. Rather, it was a disincentive for customers who might consider switching providers. 

Final Approval Date 09/10/2009
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections overruled.
  3. Objectors Phee (through Attorneys Marguiles and Weinstein), Carder et al (through Attorney Miller), Petrus (through Attorney Bandas) and Hayes (through Attorney Rivero) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 03/23/2011
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Aaron Petrus

Objectors Aaron Petrus
Signers Aaron Petrus
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Settlement amount is inadequate.
  2. Settlement does not compensate class members based on the amount they actually paid.
  3. Settlement does not guarantee a minimum payment to class members.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE: Christopher Bandas filed his appearance on the Appeal.

Attachments Objection of Aaron Petrus.pdf
Appeal of Petrus Objector.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Petrus.pdf
Dismissal of Petrus Appeal.pdf
Petrus Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Daniel Phee

Objectors Daniel Phee
Signers Robert E. Margulies
Attorneys Robert E. Margulies
Jeffrey L. Weinstein
Summary
  1. Settlement discriminates against those who paid an ETF after the end of the class period.
  2. Claim form is unduly burdensome on class members.
  3. Class members have insufficient time to review attorneys' fees.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  5. Parties have not shown that settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Attachments Objection of Daniel Phee.pdf
Appeal of Daniel Phee.pdf
Dismissal of Phee Appeal.pdf
Phee Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Stacie Hayes

Objectors Stacie Hayes
Signers Stacie Hayes
Attorneys Omar Rivero
Summary
  1. Settlement does not inform class members of their exact expected compensation.
  2. Settlement does not compensate class members based on their actual payments in ETF fees.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE: Omar Rivero filed his appearance on the Appeal.

Attachments Objection of Stacie Hayes.pdf
Appeal of Hayes Objector.pdf
Rivero Appearance for Objector-Appellant Hayes.pdf
Dismissal of Hayes Appeal.pdf
Hayes Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Thomas A. Carder, Kimberly Lyons, Aaron Miller

Objectors Thomas A. Carder
Kimberly Lyons
Aaron Miller
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Summary
  1. Settlement discriminates against class members who have not paid an ETF in their contract, despite the fact that they have suffered harm.
  2. Settlement amount is inadequate.
  3. Defendant ought to have sufficient records to make payments without a claim process.
  4. Settlement does not provide enough injunctive relief.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Thomas Carder et al.pdf
Appeal of Carder et al Objectors.pdf
Dismissal of Carder et al Appeal.pdf
Carder et al Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated