Adams v. AllianceOne Receivables Management

Case # 08-cv-00248
Case Name Adams v. AllianceOne Receivables Management
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant used auto-dialing technology to make calls to individual's cell phones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Final Approval Date 09/28/2012
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objectors Nelson, Smith, and Morgan appealed the Final Approval.  All are represented by serially objecting attorneys.
  3. Class counsel sought an appeal bond of $64,536.69, which was opposed by the objectors and never ruled on by the Court.
  4. Class counsel also sought to depose all objectors to determine the legitimacy of their objections and appeals, which was also not ruled on by the Court.
  5. All appeals were voluntarily withdrawn.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 02/05/2013
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Third Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Objector Opposition to Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply to Objector Opposition to Appeal Bond.pdf
Motion to Depose Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Eric B. Nelson, Mary Margaret Smith

Objectors Eric B. Nelson
Mary Margaret Smith
Signers Eric B. Nelson
Mary Margaret Smith
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Recovery available to the class is too low.
  2. Possible cy pres provisions are improper.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Claims administrator's fees are excessive.
  5. Claims period should be extended.
Attachments Objection of Eric B. Nelson.pdf
Objection of Mary Margaret Smith.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Nelson and Smith.pdf
Palmer Appearance for Nelson and Smith Objector-Appellants.pdf
Response in Support of Depositions of Nelson and Smith Objectors.pdf
Dismissal of Nelson and Smith Appeal.pdf
Nelson and Smith Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gordon Morgan

Objectors Gordon Morgan
Signers Gordon Morgan
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Christopher A. Bandas
Timothy R. Hanigan
Summary
  1. Notice does not contain sufficient information.
  2. Proportion of the settlement available to the class is insufficient.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.

NOTE:  As disclosed by class counsel, Objector Morgan was unaware that he had filed an objection in this case, was unaware of the grounds he was objecting on, and had not signed the document himself; all this despite his having filed the objection pro se (See Deposition Transcript, pages 13-14, 19-20).

Attachments Objection of Gordon B. Morgan.pdf
Appeal of Objector Morgan.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Morgan.pdf
Palmer Appearance for Objector Morgan.pdf
Hanigan Appearance for Objector Morgan.pdf
Morgan Opposition to Motion to Depose Objectors.pdf
Deposition of Objector Morgan (from Dennings v. Clearwire, Referencing AllianceOne).pdf
Response in Support of Deposition of Morgan Objector.pdf
Motion to Strike Objection and Appeal of Morgan.pdf
Response to Motion to Strike Objection and Appeal of Morgan.pdf
Reply to Response to Motion to Strike Objection and Appeal of Morgan.pdf
Dismissal of Morgan Appeal.pdf
Morgan Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated