Rose v. Bank of America Corporation

Case # 11-cv-02390
Case Name Rose v. Bank of America Corporation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Bank of America used autodial technology to make automated calls to class members' cell phones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  These calls were not for emergency purposes and were made without the express consent of the recipient.  These calls particularly focused on possible credit card debts.

Final Approval Date 08/29/2014
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Attorneys' fees were reduced, with no reference to any objections.
  3. Objectors Kirby and House (through Attorney Palmer) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Appeal was voluntarily dismissed, one day after docketing.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 06/22/2015
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Final Judgement.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Cassie Grimes Hampe

Objectors Cassie Grimes Hampe
Signers Cassie Grimes Hampe
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  2. Relief available to class members is too low.

NOTE:  This objection was filed pro se, but Christopher Bandas was listed in the objection as providing legal assistance to the objector.

Attachments Objection of Cassie Grimes Hampe.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Erich B. Neumann

Objectors Erich B. Neumann
Signers Erich B. Neumann
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Relief is inadequate, since it does not compensate class members on a "per violation" basis.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
Attachments Objection of Erich Neumann.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Michael Narkin

Objectors Michael Narkin
Signers Michael Narkin
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement is not adequately linked to the damages suffered by the class.
  2. Actions of class counsel indicate unfairness and collusion.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Discovery is improperly subject to a protective order.
Attachments Objection of Michael Narkin.pdf
Objection of Michael Narkin (Supplement).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Susan House, James H. Kirby IV

Objectors Susan House
James H. Kirby IV
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Relief available to class members is too low.
  2. Injunctive relief does not benefit the class.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Quick pay provisions compromise class counsel's ability to adequately advocate for the class.

Attorney Palmer motioned for fees of $393,311.24, as well as incentive awards of $2,000 for the objectors for purported improvements to the settlement.  However, the Court found that the objectors' only contribution was the filing of their objection and that any changes to the settlement were made without consideration of the objection.  The motion for attorneys' fees was overruled.

The Kirby/House appeal was voluntarily dismissed one day after it was docketed (see Appeal Docket).

Attachments Objection of James Kirby and Susan House.pdf
Motion for Attorneys' Fees for Kirby and House Objectors.pdf
Order Denying Motion for Attorneys' Fees for Kirby and House Objectors.pdf
Appeal of Kirby and House Objectors.pdf
Dismissal of Kirby and House Appeal.pdf
Kirby and House Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated