Gehrich v. Chase Bank

Case # 12-cv-05510
Case Name Gehrich v. Chase Bank
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. IL
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made numerous unsolicited robocalls to cellular telephones. These calls were attempts to locate debtors who were not the Class Representative. Defendant persisted in calling, despite being notified that they had an incorrect number. Plaintiffs allege that this was in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Class Members: All persons who, between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013, received an automated non-emergency call, text message, or voice alert from Chase USA or JP Morgan Chase Bank. 

Final Approval Date 03/02/2016
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. Objectors Lopez, Purgahn, and Schlagel appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Plaintiffs motioned for an appeal bond of $5,000, which was granted by the Court.
  5. Objector D'Oyley motioned to enjoin the objector-appellants from dismissing their appeals without Court approval, which was denied by the Court.
  6. Objector Schlagel, through Attorney Pentz, motioned for an extension of time in order to retain Ted Frank for the appeal.
  7. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed.
  8. Objector Schlagel, through Attorney Pentz, then filed a notice that Ted Frank was never retained in this case (attached below).
Dismissal of Last Appeal 10/20/2016
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Defendants' Response to Objections.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Motion to Enjoin Objector-Appellants from Voluntarily Dismissing Appeals.pdf
Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond and Denying Motion to Enjoin.pdf
Dismissal of All Appeals.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kristina Lopez

Objectors Kristina Lopez
Signers C. Jeffrey Thut
Attorneys C. Jeffrey Thut
Christopher A. Bandas
Robert W. Clore
Summary
  1. Class relief is inadequate, in that it does not compensate class members on a "per violation" basis.
  2. Sub-classes are compensated differently, leading to intra-class conflicts of interest.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

Attorney Thut's retainer agreement came to light as a result of separate litigation.  Attorney Thut was paid $5,000 for appearing at the District Court, $5,000 for appearing at the Circuit Court, and 15% of any separate recovery made by Objector Lopez.

Attachments Objection of Kristina Lopez.pdf
Objection of Kristina Lopez (Re-Urging).pdf
Appeal of Objector Lopez.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Lopez.pdf
Clore Appearance for Objector-Appellant Lopez.pdf
Lopez Motion for Extension to File.pdf
Lopez Response to Motion to Enjoin.pdf
Lopez Appeal Docket.pdf
Thut Retainer Agreement.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David D. Dishman

Objectors David D. Dishman
Signers David D. Dishman
Attorneys David D. Dishman
Summary
  1. The settlement fund is inadequate for the number of claimants.
  2. Class notice is deficient in that it does not explain whether the "per claim" amount is per person or per violation.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of David D. Dishman.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Schlagel

Objectors David Schlagel
Signers John J. Pentz
Attorneys John J. Pentz
Summary
  1. Plaintiffs did not adequately address the concerns of the Court regarding Seventh Circuit precedents for the allocation of settlement funds as payment of attorneys' fees.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and are in excess of what they informed the class they would be seeking.
Attachments Objection of David Schlagel.pdf
Supplemental Objection of David Schlagel.pdf
Notice of Frank Non-Retention by Objector-Appellant Schlagel.pdf
Schlagel Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Dawn Weaver, Susan House

Objectors Dawn Weaver
Susan House
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Settlement is unfair to a subset of the class that had their claims automatically waived and receive no compensation.
  2. Settlement provides little injunctive relief beyond what is already required by law.
  3. The Notice is inadequate.
  4. Electronic notice was not incorporated.
  5. The settlement website URL is misleading because it does not mention the Defendant (Chase) and is thus more difficult to locate.
  6. The deadlines for responding to Class Notice are not sufficiently clear.
  7. Attorneys' fees are excessive and abstrusely calculated.
Attachments Objection of Dawn Weaver and Susan House.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sam P. Cannata

Objectors Sam P. Cannata
Signers Sam P. Cannata
Attorneys Sam P. Cannata
Summary
  1. Settlement does not compensate class members on a "per violation" basis.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Sam P. Cannata.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Steve Purgahn

Objectors Steve Purgahn
Signers Jonathan E. Fortman
Attorneys Jonathan E. Fortman
Steve A. Miller
John C. Kress
Summary
  1. Settlement unfairly diverts funds to cy pres beneficiaries while existing class members receive diminished or no recovery.
  2. Some class members will receive no compensation and still be required to release the Defendants from future litigation.
  3. Attorneys' fees are improperly calculated using methodology precluded by Seventh Circuit precedent.
  4. Clear sailing provisions unfairly benefit class counsel, to the detriment of the class.
  5. Class counsel did not do sufficient work to merit their fees.
  6. Class representative Barry WIllis had his claim dismissed with prejudice, raising the possibility of impropriety.
  7. Unclaimed funds provisions also present the possibility of impropriety.
Attachments Objection of Steve Purgahn.pdf
Fortman Appearance for Objector Purgahn.pdf
Appeal of Objector Purgahn.pdf
Miller Appearance for Objector-Appellant Purgahn.pdf
Purgahn Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Tamiqueca J. Johnson Doyley

Objectors Tamiqueca J. Johnson Doyley
Signers Tamiqueca J. Johnson Doyley
Christopher Perez-Gurri
Daniel M. Samson
Norman T. Finkel
Attorneys Alan Geffin
Christopher Perez-Gurri
Daniel M. Samson
Norman T. Finkel
Daniel E. Beederman
William R. Klein
Summary
  1. Funds are improperly set aside for a cy pres fund without making all class members whole.
Attachments Objection of Tamiqueca J. Johnson Doyley.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated