In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 11-md-02269
Case Name In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Bank of America routinely engaged in deceptive practices regarding "Credit Protection" services for their credit cards.  Defendants routinely signed customers up for Credit Protection without their permission and used deceptive marketing and sales practices to sign consumers up for this optional service.  Consumers were then unwittingly billed monthly for a service they did not want or need.

Final Approval Date 01/16/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. Objectors Wasserman (through Attorney Weinberg) and Lochridge (through Attorneys Hanigan and Bandas) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Both objections were voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 04/01/2013
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Final Approval (Response to Objections).pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Order Granting Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Paul Bien, Khoi Truong

Objectors Paul Bien
Khoi Truong
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Cy pres recipient is not sufficiently linked to the settlement.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and based on inflated calculations of work performed.
Attachments Objection of Paul Bien and Khoi Truong.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Adina Wasserman

Objectors Adina Wasserman
Signers Adina Wasserman
Attorneys Allen G. Weinberg
Summary
  1. Relief available to the class is insufficient.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and constitute an unfair portion of the settlement.

NOTE:  Attorney Weinberg filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Adina Wasserman.pdf
Appeal of Objector Wasserman.pdf
Weinberg Appearance for Objector-Appellant Wasserman.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Wasserman Objector.pdf
Wasserman Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Beau Lochridge

Objectors Beau Lochridge
Signers Timothy R. Hanigan
Attorneys Timothy R. Hanigan
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Requirements to object are overly burdensome.
  2. Notice is deficient because it does not disclose the relief available to each individual claimant.
  3. Class contains two sub-classes, which may be in conflict with one another.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE:  Christopher Bandas filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Beau Lochridge.pdf
Appeal of Objector Lochridge.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Lochridge.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Lochridge Objector.pdf
Lochridge Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated