In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation

Case # 11-cv-08176
Case Name In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. IL
Summary

Southwest Airlines offers vouchers, which customers can redeem for a complimentary alcoholic beverage during a flight.  These vouchers traditionally did not have an expiration date.  However, in 2010, Southwest announced it was changing their policy and would no longer honor vouchers of all types and ages.  Plaintiffs allege that by failing to honor all vouchers, this constitutes a breach of the contract between the customer and Southwest Airlines.

Final Approval Date 08/26/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections overruled.
  3. Objectors Paul (through Attorney Palmer) and Markow (through his CCAF attorneys) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
  5. The Seventh Circuit did, however, find that one of the class representatives had an improper relationship with class counsel, so his incentive award was stripped and attorneys' fees were reduced a corresponding amount.  The Seventh Circuit did find that the other class representative adequately represented the class.
  6. On 8/27/2015, Objector-Appellant Markow petitioned for a re-hearing in the Seventh Circuit.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 08/20/2015
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order.pdf
Final Judgement.pdf
Order Granting Attorneys Fees.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order Modifying Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Amended Appeal Docket.pdf
Appellate Decision.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Alison Paul

Objectors Alison Paul
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary

1. Objector Paul simply adopts the objections of the other objecting class members.

Attachments Objection of Alison Paul.pdf
Palmer Appearance for Objector Paul.pdf
Appeal of Objector Paul.pdf
Amended Appeal of Objector Paul.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jonathan E. Fortman

Objectors Jonathan E. Fortman
Signers Jonathan E. Fortman
Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
John C. Kress
Maureen Connors
Summary
  1. Claim form process is unnecessarily burdensome on class members.
  2. Coupon provisions are improper.
  3. Attorneys' fees should be calculated based on the actual recovery of the class.
  4. Release is overbroad.
Attachments Objection of Jonathan E. Fortman.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Daniel Sibley

Objectors Daniel Sibley
Signers Daniel Sibley
Attorneys Gary W. Sibley
Summary
  1. Parties have not sufficiently demonstrated predominance.
  2. Coupon provisions do not provide sufficient recovery for the class.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive and abstrusely calculated.
  4. Claims process is needlessly complex and designed to depress the recovery by the class.
  5. Objection requirements are overly burdensome.

NOTE:  This appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the docketing fee in a timely manner.

Attachments Objection of Daniel Sibley.pdf
Sibley Appearance for Objector-Appellant Sibley.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sibley.pdf
Dismissal of Sibley Appeal for Failure to Pay Docketing Fee.pdf
Sibley Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gregory Markow

Objectors Gregory Markow
Signers Melissa Holyoak
Attorneys Melissa Holyoak
Kirstin B. Ives
Theodore H. Frank
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and should be tied to the actual recovery of the class.
  2. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
  3. Objection requirements are overly burdensome and designed to depress the number of objectors.

NOTE:  Ted Frank filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Gregory Markow.pdf
Supplement to Markow Objection.pdf
Holyoak Appearance for Objector Markow.pdf
Ives Appearance for Objector Markow.pdf
Appeal of Objector Markow.pdf
Amended Appeal of Objector Markow.pdf
Frank Appearance for Objector-Appellant Markow.pdf
Motion to Intervene.pdf
Defendant's Response to Motion to Intervene.pdf
Reply to Defendant's Response to Motion to Intervene.pdf
Transcript of Proceedings Regarding Motion to Intervene.pdf
Transcript (Part 2) of Proceedings Regarding Motion to Intervene.pdf
Order Granting Motion to Intervene.pdf
Second Amended Appeal of Objector Markow.pdf
Markow Appeal Docket.pdf
Petition for Re-Hearing.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Dennis Gibson, Gleith Cozby

Objectors Dennis Gibson
Gleith Cozby
Signers Dennis Gibson
Gleith Cozby
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement allocation is not fair, reasonable, or adequate.
  2. Attorneys' fee request violates CAFA by treating coupons as cash.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive compared to the recovery of the class.
Attachments Objection of Dennis Gibson and Gleith Cozby.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated