Meyenburg v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Case # 05-cv-00015
Case Name Meyenburg v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. IL

Plaintiffs allege that Exxon Mobil sold premium lubricant products at a significant mark-up over other lubricants, even though the products were materially identical.

Prior to the merger of Exxon and Mobil, they retailed lubricant oil under their own brands. Mobil marketed as a premium, performance-based option, while Exxon was the "value" option. Following the merger, they maintained the separate brands at two different price points, even though they consolidated their manufacturing.

Final Approval Date 06/06/2006
  1. All objections were found to be without merit and were overruled.
  2. Objections of the Nolett, et al objectors were filed after the deadline and were not considered. The Court did note that the substance of the Nolett objections was identical to that of the Pentz objections.
  3. Appeals were dismissed by the parties.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 08/24/2006
Attachments Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Dismissal of Appeals.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Pentz, Guy Thrasher

Objectors David Pentz
Guy Thrasher
Signers J. Scott Kessinger
Attorneys J. Scott Kessinger
John J. Pentz
  1. Attorneys' fees are abstrusely calculated, depriving class members of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate and object to the fees.
  2. Attorneys' fees should be limited to a percentage of claims filed.
  3. Notice does not contain a description of the release.
  4. Settlement coupons have little value to the class.
Attachments Objection of David Pentz and Guy Thrasher.pdf
Appeal of Objectors David Pentz and Guy Thrasher.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Melissa Nolett, Paul Redd, Brenda Matthews, Thomas Schultz

Objectors Melissa Nolett
Paul Redd
Brenda Matthews
Thomas Schultz
Signers William F. Kopis
Attorneys William F. Kopis
N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Paul S. Rothstein
Edward W. Cochran
Frank H. Tomlinson
  1. Notice is deficient, in that it does not specify attorneys' fees.
  2. Notice unfairly expects class members to travel to East St. Louis to discover what claims and rights they are giving up through the settlement.
  3. Coupons have little or no value to class members.
  4. Attorneys' fees may be unreasonable.

NOTE ON ATTORNEYS: Objectors appeared to have multiple attorneys, which were consolidated into one objection filed by Attorney William F. Kopis. N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. received a pro hac vice admission for the case, at which point Kopis withdrew as the attorney for the objectors.

Attachments Objection of Melissa Nolett et al.pdf
Bacharach Pro Hac Vice Admission.pdf
Kopis Withdrawal.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Melissa Nolett et al.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated