In re Apple iPhone 4 Products Liability Litigation

Case # 10-md-02188
Case Name In re Apple iPhone 4 Products Liability Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Lawsuit contends that Apple produced and marketed the iPhone 4, despite knowing that the product contained a significant defect.  Specifically, there was a significant reduction in cellular and wireless reception and performance when the phone was held in a manner that a normal person would expect to hold a cell phone.

Final Approval Date 08/10/2012
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Court agreed with the Objectors, in that attorneys' fees were excessive.
    • The Court struck the lodestar multiplier.
  3. All other objections were overruled.
  4. Objectors Schulz and Chapa (through Attorney Bandas) and Paul (through Attorney Palmer) appealed the Final Approval.
  5. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/11/2013
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Master Consolidated Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Objections.pdf
Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Dismissal of All Appeals.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Michael J. Schulz

Objectors Michael J. Schulz
Signers Michael J. Schulz
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Claims process is overly burdensome.
  2. Injunctive relief has no value to class members.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE:  Christopher Bandas filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Michael J. Schulz.pdf
Appeal of Objector Schulz.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Schulz.pdf
Schulz and Chapa Motion for Extension to File.pdf
Schulz Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Bert Chapa

Objectors Bert Chapa
Signers Bert Chapa
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Objection provisions are unduly burdensome.
    • Using the US Postal Service is not reliable enough to ensure proper service of objections.
  2. Claims process is designed to depress number of claimants.
  3. Injunctive relief should not be considered part of the settlement.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE:  Christopher Bandas filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Bert Chapa.pdf
Appeal of Objector Chapa.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Chapa.pdf
Schulz and Chapa Motion for Extension to File.pdf
Chapa Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Alison Paul

Objectors Alison Paul
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Class counsel did not make their motion for fees available to the class.
  2. Claims process is unduly burdensome.
Attachments Objection of Alison Paul.pdf
Appeal of Objector Paul.pdf
Paul Motion for Extension to File.pdf
Paul Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Frank Aldridge, John Davis, Jenny Dowdy, Larry Levine, Paige Nash, Katie Sibley, Warren Sibley, David Stevens

Objectors Frank Aldridge
John Davis
Jenny Dowdy
Larry Levine
Paige Nash
Katie Sibley
Warren Sibley
David Stevens
Signers Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Attorneys Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Summary
  1. Insufficient documents are available on the settlement website.
  2. Class definition is insufficient.
  3. Intra-class conflict improperly exists.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Frank Aldridge et al.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Burke O'Hara Fort

Objectors Burke O'Hara Fort
Signers Burke O'Hara Fort
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement does not provide compensation to all class members.
  2. Class definition is improperly abstruse.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Burke O'Hara Fort.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated