Smith et al v. Intuit

Case # 12-cv-00222
Case Name Smith et al v. Intuit
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Defendants operated TurboTax online tax preparation services. Most of these services charge fees but TurboTax also offered a free filing service as a result of an agreement with the IRS.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly directed customers away from the free filing service ("Freedom Edition") and towards a service that required a fee to file taxes (the "Free Edition").

Defendant also improperly used a "Refund Processing Option" to automatically deduct fees from customers' returns. Plaintiffs allege that this is in violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Final Approval Date 10/01/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objections were overruled.
  3. Objector Beau Lochridge (through Attorney Christopher Bandas) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Appeal of Objector Lochridge was voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/30/2014
Attachments Class Action Complaint.pdf
Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Plaintiffs Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval of Settlement.pdf
Final Approval of Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Beau Lochridge

Objectors Beau Lochridge
Signers Beau Lochridge
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and abstrusely calculated.
  2. Release is overly broad.
  3. Process for objecting is unnecessarily burdensome.
  4. Particularly the requirement to disclose other objections in class action cases.

Christopher A. Bandas did not appear until the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Beau Lochridge.pdf
Appeal of Objector Beau Lochridge.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Beau Lochridge.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jordon Echols

Objectors Jordon Echols
Signers Jordan Echols
Attorneys Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  2. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.

NOTE: There are discrepancies in the spelling of the Objector's name. Plaintiffs' attorneys were able to discover the identity of his advising attorney (see Response to Objections and Email attached).

Attachments Objection of Jordan Echols.pdf
Plaintiffs Response to Objections.pdf
Email Regarding Objector Echols.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Joscelyn C. Chapman

Objectors Joscelyn C. Chapman
Signers Joscelyn C. Chapman
Attorneys
Summary
  1. It is reasonable for TurboTax to charge fees for their service.
Attachments Objection of Joscelyn C Chapman.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated