case no.: 12-cv-01997-bas-wvg · kazerounian decl. in supp. of mtn. for attorneys’ fees, costs...
TRANSCRIPT
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203) [email protected] Jason A. Ibey Esq. (SBN: 284607) [email protected] 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Settlement Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 12-cv-01997-BAS-WVG DECLARATION OF ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE PAYMENT DATE: November 7, 2016 TIME: 10:30 a.m. CRTRM: 4B JUDGE: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
PAUL STEMPLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, V. QC HOLDINGS, INC., DEFENDANT.
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 1 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
DECLARATION OF ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN
I, ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN, declare:
1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiff Paul Stemple (“Plaintiff”) in this
action filed against defendant QC Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant” or “QC
Holdings”). I am over the age of 18 and am fully competent to make this
declaration. I was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2007 and have
been a member in good standing ever since that time. I have litigated cases
in both state and federal courts in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona,
Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Tennessee, Ohio, Florida,
Illinois and Texas. I am admitted in every federal district in California and
have handled federal litigation in the federal districts of California. I am
also admitted to the state bar of Texas, Illinois, Washington, Michigan,
District of Columbia, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme
Court of the United States.
2. If called as a witness, I would competently testify to the matters herein from
personal knowledge. The declaration is based upon my personal knowledge,
except where expressly noted otherwise.
3. In this action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), I
submit this declaration in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’
Fees, Costs and Incentive Payment.
4. I have been preliminarily approved as Class Counsel for the proposed
settlement class.
5. In this action, which was taken on a contingency fee basis, the Parties
participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management
Conference. The Parties also attended one full-day mediation session with
the Honorable Judge Leo S. Wagner (Ret.), and one half-day mediation
session with the Honorable Judge Leo S. Papas (Ret.), which ultimately
culminated in a class action settlement agreement after months of further
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 2 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
negotiations (“Settlement Agreement”), which calls for a substantial
settlement fund of $1,500,000.
6. Plaintiff’s attorneys have vigorously litigated this action since it was filed
on August 13, 2012. Plaintiff conducted a considerable amount of written
discovery, including confirmatory discovery following the half-day
mediation with Judge Papas. Plaintiff engaged third party experts to analyze
data obtained from Defendant through discovery, and received from
Defendant a confirmatory declaration. Plaintiff also conducted post-
certification discovery.
7. I have incurred 109 hours in connection with this action, which time records
were carefully reviewed. Specifically, I have incurred approximately 3.4
hours investigating and preparing the pleadings, approximately 15 hours on
discovery matters, approximately 11.3 hours in connection with the Early
Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference, approximately 1.7
hours for the Rule 26(f) conference of counsel, approximately 1.4 hours
concerning the stipulated protective order, approximately 0.1 hours
reviewing opposition to motion to strike Plaintiff’s notice of errata,
approximately 0.8 hours on the joint motion for extension to complete
discovery, approximately 18.8 hours preparing the motion for class
certification, approximately 10.3 hours on the opposition to motion to strike
Plaintiff’s expert testimony, approximately, 4.1 hours on the opposition to
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the class certification order,
approximately 0.3 hours on the ex parte motion to delay mailing class
notice, approximately 2.8 hours on the opposition to Defendant’s ex parte
motion for leave to file supplemental briefing, approximately 0.3 hours on
the joint motion to stay proceedings, approximately 1.2 hours preparing to
take or defend depositions, approximately 3.9 hours on the motion for
preliminary approval of settlement, approximately 0.6 hours on the motion
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 3 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
for leave to file documents under seal, approximately 0.9 hours preparing
for and attending hearings, approximately 16.5 hours on mediation and
settlement discussions, approximately 15.76 hours on communications with
co-counsel, opposing counsel, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s experts, and
calendaring deadlines.
8. I anticipate incurring 20 additional hours through final approval.
9. As of August 1, 2016, Class Counsel have incurred over $50,000 in costs,
with $18,013.14 of those costs having been incurred by my office, and
spent 509 hours litigating this action, resulting in a lodestar of $270,012.50
10. As reported by the claims administrator, the costs of notice and claims
administration are approximately $185,000 to date, which are expected to
increase through final approval.
11. The claims administrator reports that 1,291 claims have been received as of
approximately July 29, 2016. No objections to the settlement have been
received to date.
12. Plaintiff assisted in the case by, amongst other things, having reviewed the
pleadings, communicated regularly with counsel, assisted with discovery
responses, appeared for his deposition in Los Angeles, California, made
himself available telephonically for mediations in the event he was needed,
and reviewed the proposed settlement.
13. I believe that the Parties are fully apprised of the relative strengths and
weaknesses of each other’s claims and defenses and the potential risks to
each party of pursuing further litigation in this matter, especially following
one full day mediation before Judge Wagner, and one half-day mediation
before Judge Papas. Furthermore, I participated in several conference calls
with my co-counsel and counsel for Defendant, where we analyzed and
discussed methodology, databases used, technical details of database
searches and other questions related to the parameters of the Settlement
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 4 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
Class, and how the number of cell phones called on a nationwide basis was
determined.
14. I continue to be unaware of any conflict of interest between Plaintiff and
any settlement class member or between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys.
RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION
15. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), may TCPA defendants have filed motions to
dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue
their claims absent some injury beyond receiving unwanted and allegedly
unlawful calls or text messages to their cell phones.
16. Taking into account the burdens, uncertainty and risks inherent in this
litigation, Plaintiff’s counsel concluded that further prosecution of this
action could be protracted, unduly burdensome, and expensive, and that it is
desirable, fair, and beneficial to the class that the action now be settled and
terminated in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
17. Class Counsel believe the terms and conditions of the Agreement provide a
benefit that is fair, reasonable and adequate to the proposed class.
18. It is my understanding that Defendant does not intend to oppose the motion
for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive payment.
CLASS COUNSEL’S EXPERIENCE
19. Since my admission to the California bar in 2007, I have been engaged
exclusively in the area of consumer rights litigation, primarily in the area of
fair debt collections, the defense of debt collection lawsuits, and class action
litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, California’s
invasion of privacy statutes, under Penal Code § 630 et seq., and false
advertising actions concerning consumer products.
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 5 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
20. The hourly rate that I am seeking in this action is $605, which I believe is
reasonable.
21. Earlier this year, I was approved for an hourly rate of $595 in Mount v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. B260585 (Court of Appeal of the State
of California, Second Appellate District; Feb. 10, 2016).
22. I was previously approved for an hourly rate of $565 in Sherman v. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc. 3:13-cv-00981-JAH-JMA, Dkt. No. 58 (May
12, 2015) and Macias v. Water & Power Community Credit Union, Case
No. BC515936 (Los Angeles Superior Court, April 21, 2016), and
impliedly so in Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM
(C.D. Cal. July 1, 2016).
23. My firm, Kazerouni Law Group, APC, in which I am a principal, has
litigated over 1000 cases in the past eight years. My firm has six offices in
Orange County, California, Oakland, California, San Luis Obispo,
California, Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Dallas, Texas.
Kazerouni Law Group, APC has extensive experience in consumer class
actions and other complex litigation. My firm has a history of aggressive,
successful prosecution of consumer class actions, specifically under
California’s invasion of privacy statutes and Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. Approximately 95% percent of my practice concerns
consumer litigation in general, and approximately 50% percent of my class
action practice involves litigating claims under the TCPA.
EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
24. I have filed and litigated numerous other class actions based on the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the past four years. The following is
a non-exhaustive list of other TCPA class actions which I am or have been
personally involved in:
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 6 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
a. Lemieux v. EZ Lube, LLC, et al., 12-CV-01791-JLS-WYG (S.D. Cal.)
(Served as co-lead counsel; finally approved on December 8, 2014);
b. Malta, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al., 10-CV-1290-IEG
(BLM) (Served as co-lead counsel for a settlement class of borrowers in
connection with residential or automotive loans and violations of the
TCPA in attempts to collect on those accounts; obtained a common
settlement fund in the amount of $17,100,000; final approval granted in
2013);
c. Conner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., 10-CV-1284 DMS (BGS) (S.D.
Cal.) (finally approved $11,973,558);
d. In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD) (S.D. Cal.)
(Counsel for a Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being
recategorized through the multi-district litigation process; preliminarily
approved for $18,000,000);
e. In Re: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-02295-JAH (BGS) (Counsel for a
Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being recategorized through
the multi-district litigation process; preliminarily approved);
f. Arthur v. SLM Corporation, 10-CV-00198 JLR (W.D. Wash.)
(Nationwide settlement achieving the then-largest monetary settlement in
the history of the TCPA concerning calls to cellular telephone at the time:
$24.15 million; final approval granted in 2012);
g. Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, et al., 11-CV-1009-JLS-MDD
(S.D. Cal.) (Achieving one of the highest class member payouts in a
TCPA action of $1,331.25 per claimant; final approval granted in 2012);
h. Sarabri v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 10-01777-AJB-NLS
(S.D. Cal.) (Approved as co-lead counsel and worked to obtain a national
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 7 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
TCPA class settlement where claiming class members each received
payment in the amount of $70.00 per claimant; final approval granted in
2013);
i. Barani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-02999-GPC (KSC) (S.D. Cal.)
(Co-lead class counsel in a settlement under the TCPA for the sending of
unauthorized text messages to non-account holders in connection to wire
transfers; finally approved on March 6, 2015 for over $1,000,000);
j. Mills v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Case No. 12-CV-04010-SI (N.D.
Cal.) (Finally approved for $39,975,000);
k. Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-06030-SI (N.D. Cal.);
l. Heinrichs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 13-CV-05434-WHA (N.D. Cal.);
m. Newman v. ER Solutions, Inc., 11-CV-0592H (BGS);
n. In Re Jiffy Lube International, Inc., MDL No. 2261 (Finally approved for
$47,000,000.00);
o. Jaber v. NASCAR, 11-CV-1783 DMS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.);
p. Ridley v. Union Bank, N.A., 11-CV-1773 DMS (NLS) (S.D. Cal.);
q. Ryabyshchuk v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., et al, 11-CV-1236-IEG
(WVG);
r. Sherman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 13-CV-0981-JAH
(JMA) (S.D. Cal.) (Settled for $5,350,000 and finally approved on May
12, 2015; served as co-lead counsel);
s. Rivera v. Nuvell Credit Company LLC, 13-CV-00164-TJH-OP (E.D.
Cal.);
t. Karayan v. Gamestop Corp., 3:12-CV-01555-P (N.D. Texas);
u. Foote v. Credit One Bank, N.A. et al., 13-cv-00512-MWF-PLA (C.D.
Cal.);
v. Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, 13-cv-00737–RS (N.D.
Cal.);
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 8 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
w. Couser v. Comenity Bank, 12-cv-02484-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Oc. 2,
2014) (Finally approved for $8,475,000 on May 27, 2015 as served as co-
lead counsel);
x. Couser v. Apria Healthcare, Inc. et al., 13-cv-00035-JVS-RNB (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2014) (Finally approved on March 9, 2015 and served as
co-lead counsel);
y. Rose v. Bank of America Corporation et al., 12-cv-04009-EJD (N.D.
Cal.) (Finally approved for $32,000,000 in 2014);
z. Newman v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, 11-cv-03041-DMS-BLM
(S.D. Cal.) (finally approving TCPA settlement for over $6,500,000 on
March 28, 2016);
aa. Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 14-cv-00734-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. July 1,
2016) (finally approved TCPA class action for $1,000,000; $200,000
cash and $800,000 debt relief);
bb. Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank, 12-cv-02078−JAH−MDD (S.D. al.)
(Class Certification granted and preliminarily approved for $7,000,000);
cc. Barrett v. Wesley Financial Group, LLC, 13-cv-00554-LAB-KSC (S.D.
Cal.) (Class certification granted); and,
dd. Gehrich v. Chase Bank, N.A., 12-cv-5510 (N.D. Cal.) (finally approved
for $34,000,000).
25. Many of the cases listed above, which have settled, have resulted in the
creation of combined common funds and/or distribution to class member in
the tens of millions of dollars. The outstanding results mentioned above are
a direct result of the diligence and tenacity shown by both myself and
Kazerouni Law Group, APC, in successfully prosecuting complex class
actions.
26. I argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the TCPA
case of Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio, No. 12-56120 (9th Cir. 2014) as co-
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 9 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
lead counsel, which resulted in an order in favor of my client.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC’S OTHER CONSUMER RELATED EXPERIENCE AND RESULTS
27. Kazerouni Law Group, APC has extensive experience in other consumer
related issues, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and other related consumer statutes. A brief
summary of a non-inclusive list of notable published decisions are as
follows:
a. Knell, et al. v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 13-CV-01653-AJB-WVG (S.D.
Cal.) (California class action settlement under Penal Code 632 et seq., for
claims of invasion of privacy. Settlement resulted in a common fund in
the amount of $2,750,000; finally approved in August 15, 2014);
b. Hoffman v. Bank of America Corporation, 12-CV-00539-JAH-DHB
(S.D. Cal.) (California class action settlement under Penal Code 632 et
seq., for claims of invasion of privacy. Settlement resulted in a common
fund in the amount of $2,600,000; finally approved on November 6, 2014
and served as co-lead counsel);
c. Sherman v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13286; 13-CV-0041-
GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (TCPA class action where Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment was denied holding that a single call or text
message with the use of an ATDS may be actionable under the TCPA);
d. Olney v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 13-CV-2058-GPC-
NLS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9146 (S.D. Cal.) (Defendant’s motion to
dismiss or in the alternative to strike the class allegations was denied
finding that debt collection calls were not exempt from coverage under
the TCPA);
e. Iniguez v. The CBE Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127066 (E.D.
Cal.); 13-CV-00843-JAM-AC (The court denied Defendant’s motion to
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 10 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
dismiss and to strike class allegations holding that the TCPA applies to
any call made to a cellular telephone with an ATDS);
f. Macias v. Water & Power Community Credit Union, BC515936 (Los
Angeles Superior Court) (Class certification granted under the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; class action settlement preliminarily
approved on November 10, 2015); and,
g. Mount v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., BC395959 (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles)
(finally approved for $5,600,000).
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT TRAINING, SPEAKING/TEACHING ENGAGEMENTS AND ASSOCIATIONS
28. I have undergone extensive training in the area of consumer law and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The following is a list of recent
training conferences I attended:
a. Four-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Nashville, TN –
2008;
b. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Portland, OR -
2008;
c. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; San Diego, CA -
2009;
d. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Seattle, WA -
2011;
e. Three-day CAALA Conference; Las Vegas, NV – 2009;
f. Three-day CAALA Conference; Las Vegas, NV – 2013;
g. Three-day CAALA Conference; Las Vegas, NV – 2015;
h. Three-day COAC Conference – 2014 and 2015
i. Speaker at ABA National Conference, Business Litigation Section;
Trends in Consumer Litigation; San Francisco, CA – 2013; and
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 11 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
j. Speaker at the ABA TCPA National Webinar (Consumer Protection,
Privacy & Information Security, Private Advertising Litigation, and
Media & Technology Committees) – September 2013.
k. Spoke at the 2014 ACA Conference in November 2014.
29. As one of the main plaintiff litigators of consumer rights cases in the
Central District of California, I have been requested to and have made
regular presentations to community organizations regarding debt collection
laws and consumer rights, including the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (“TCPA”). These organizations include Whittier Law School, Iranian
American Bar Association, Trinity School of Law and Chapman Law
School, University of California, Irvine, and California Western School of
Law.
30. I was the principle anchor on Time Television Broadcasting every Thursday
night as an expert on consumer law generally, and the TCPA specifically,
between 2012 and 2013.
31. I am an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law where I teach
a three credit course in consumer law.
32. I have been named Rising Star by San Diego Daily Tribune in 2012, and
Rising Star in Super Lawyers Magazine in 2013, 2014 and 2015. I was
named a Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine in 2016.
33. I lectured in Class Action Trends at the CAOC 2015 Conference in San
Francisco.
34. I was selected for membership into The National Trial Lawyers: Top 40
Under 40 in 2016.
35. I was a panelist in a webinar, ABA Telephonic Brown Bag re: TCPA, on
August 25, 2015.
36. I lectured in Class Action Trends at the CAOC 2015 Conference in San
Francisco, California.
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 12 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
37. In January of 2016, I spoke on the impact of the Federal Communications
Comission’s 2015 Declaratory Ruling on TCPA litigation at the ABA
National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah.
38. In May of 2016, I spoke on Class Action Trends at the CAOC seminar in
Palm Springs, California.
39. I lectured on the TCPA before the ABA Business Law Section, Consumer
Financial Services Committee in January 2016 at an event in Utah entitled,
“Impact of the FCC’s 2015 Rulings on TCPA Litigation .”
40. I am often called upon to give legal analysis on popular television and radio
shows such as Dr. Drew Midday Live and Fox 5.
41. I am a member in good standing of the following local and national
associations:
a. Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles;
b. The Orange County Bar Association;
c. Twice served as former President of the Orange County Chapter of
the Iranian American Bar Association;
d. Member in good standing of National Association of Consumer
Advocates;
e. Member of Consumer Attorneys of California;
f. Member of the Federal Bar Association; and
g. Member of the Leading Forum of the American Association of
Justice.
42. I have been appointed class counsel in several class actions brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA).
My practice involves significant TCPA litigation and I am or have been
counsel in significant national TCPA class actions including, but not limited
to, class actions against Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and Comenity
Bank, to mention a few.
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 13 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
43. In addition to my class action experience, I have experience in commercial
litigation and large-scale products liability litigation including a $2.5 million
dollar settlement in Mei Lu Hwei, et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
et al. (Case No. BC401211 in Superior Court of California for County of
Los Angeles). I have regularly litigated cases in state and federal courts, and
have reached numerous confidential seven-figure settlements against
internationally known companies.
EXHIBITS
44. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the TCPA matrix filed in
the matter of Wilkins v. HSBC Bank, No. 14-cv-190 (N.D. Ill.) (Dkt. No.
109-1 in that case)), which was downloaded from PACER on August 1,
2016.
45. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the final approval order
in In Re Jiffy Lube International, Inc. Text Spam Litigation, 3:11-MD-2261-
JM (JMA) (Feb. 20, 2013).
46. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the order finally
approving the settlement and the fee petition in the matter of Adams v.
AllianceOne, Inc., 08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012).
47. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the final judgment and
order of dismissal in Wojcik v. Buffalo Bills, Inc., 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM
(M.D. Florida August 25, 2014).
48. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the final approval order
in Knutson v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. et al., 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
(S.D.Cal. April 1, 2015).
49. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Judgment in the matter of Fox v.
Asset Acceptance, LLC, 14-cv-00734-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2016).
KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 14 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kaz
erou
ni L
aw G
roup
, APC
C
osta
Mes
a, C
alifo
rnia
50. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the 2012 National Law
Journal Billing Survey obtained online.
51. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the 2013 National Law
Journal Billing Survey obtained online.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
declaration was executed on August 1, 2016.
By:/s/ Abbas Kazerounian Abbas Kazerounian
5th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 8 of 88 PageID #:2453
Exhibit A 01
Spillman v. RPM Pizza, LLCCase No. 3:10-cv-00349
(M.D. Louisiana)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $9,750,000 available to the class.)
$3,058,056
Administrative Costs $ 519,261Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 2,538,795Fee Award $ 2,535,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres99.8%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 27.4%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 891,960Lodestar Hours 2,871.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 310.64Lodestar Multiplier 2.84
Class InformationClass Members 1,400,000Claimants 253Claim Rate 0.018%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 15Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 15
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 9 of 88 PageID #:2454
Exhibit A 02
7th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 10 of 88 PageID #:2455
Exhibit A 03
Able Home Health v. Oxygen Qualifying Servs., Inc.Case No. 3:09-cv-50128
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund $ 270,000Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 91,500Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 178,500
Fee Award $ 81,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)45.4%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 20,936Claimants 191Claim Rate 0.9%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 500
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 11 of 88 PageID #:2456
Exhibit A 04
Addison Automatics, Inc. v. Precision Electronic Class, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:10-cv-06903
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This is the amount the defendant made available to the class. A $15,875,500 judgment was entered and was to be pursued through defendant’s insurance policies.)
$ 85,000
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award 1/3 of future recoveryFee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33% of future recovery
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 31,751 faxesClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 12 of 88 PageID #:2457
Exhibit A 05
Balbarin v. North Star Capital Acquisition, LLC, et al.Case No. 1:10-cv-01846
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 500,000Administrative Costs $ 8,719Cy Pres Award $ 93,747Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 397,534Fee Award $ 166,667Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres41.9%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 183,438Lodestar Hours 561.8Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 327Lodestar Multiplier 0.91
Class InformationClass Members 1,395Claimants 1,395Claim Rate 100%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 211Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 211
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 13 of 88 PageID #:2458
Exhibit A 06
Brian J. Wanca, J.D., P.C. v. L.A. Fitness International, LLCCase No. 11-cv-4311
(Cir. Ct. Lake County, Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $1,089,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres
(Admin costs and cy pres award not publicly available.)
Not Publicly Available
Fee Award $ 359,370Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 14 of 88 PageID #:2459
Exhibit A 07
Cain v. Consumer Portfolio Servs., Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-02697
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants andthe fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $1,100,000.)
$ 447,448
Administrative Costs(Defendant made $5,000 available for admin costs. This amount was excluded from the Total Fund amount per the settlement agreement.)
Not Included in Fund
Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres
(Admin costs were excluded from the Total Fund amount per the settlement agreement.)
$ 447,448
Fee Award $ 363,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres81.1%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 4,043Claimants 464Claim Rate 11.5%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 182Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 182
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 15 of 88 PageID #:2460
Exhibit A 08
CE Design Ltd. v. Cy’s Crab House North, Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-05456
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The total judgment issued by the Court was $3,647,500. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,215,833Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 4,258Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 16 of 88 PageID #:2461
Exhibit A 09
CE Design, Ltd. v. Exterior Sys., Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-00066
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund
(The defendant made $315,334 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs $ 250Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 105,110Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 1,892Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 400Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 17 of 88 PageID #:2462
Exhibit A 10
Clearbrook v. RoofLifters, LLCCase No. 1:08-cv-03276
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 1,400,000Administrative Costs $ 4,314Cy Pres Award $ 20,049Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 1,375,636Fee Award $ 420,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres30.5%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 15,091Claimants 565Claim Rate 3.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 1,603Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 1,603
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 18 of 88 PageID #:2463
Exhibit A 11
Cummings v. Sallie Mae, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-09984
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 9,250,000Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 3,052,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 251,000Claimants 31,589Claim Rate 12.6Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 179Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 19 of 88 PageID #:2464
Exhibit A 12
Desai v. ADT Security SystemsCase No. 1:11-cv-01925
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This is a lump-sum, non-reversionary, common fund.)
$ 15,000,000
Administrative Costs $ 3,400,000Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin
(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 11,600,000
Fee Award $ 5,000,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres43.1%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 1,280,221Claimants 136,440Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 47Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 20 of 88 PageID #:2465
Exhibit A 13
Fike v. The Bureaus, Inc.Case No. 1:09-cv-02558
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This is a lump-sum, non-reversionary, common fund.)
$800,000
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award
(The cy pres award consisted of uncashed checks only.)
$ 21,103
Fund Less Cy Pres(Admin costs not publicly available.)
$ 778,897
Fee Award $ 200,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres25.7%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 125,035Lodestar Hours 367.75Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 340Lodestar Multiplier 1.6
Class InformationClass Members 58,403Claimants 3,472Claim Rate 6%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 144Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 146
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 21 of 88 PageID #:2466
Exhibit A 14
Garret, et al. v. Sharps Compliance, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-04030
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 350,000Administrative Costs $ 48,364Cy Pres Award $ 4,363Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 297,273Fee Award $ 105,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres35.3%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 60,920Claimants 6,767Claim Rate 11%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 27-$ 29Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 28.13
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 22 of 88 PageID #:2467
Exhibit A 15
Garrett et al. v. Ragle Dental Laboratory, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:10-cv-01315
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 475,000Administrative Costs $ 5,151Cy Pres Award $ 29,957Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 439,892Fee Award $ 142,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres32.4%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 2,063Claimants 1,981Claim Rate 96%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 163
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 23 of 88 PageID #:2468
Exhibit A 16
Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.Case No. 1:09-cv-05114
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $1,889,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 566,700Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 3,736Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 24 of 88 PageID #:2469
Exhibit A 17
G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Finish Thompson, Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-05953
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $3,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,000,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 432,565Lodestar Hours 924.3Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 463Lodestar Multiplier 2.31
Class InformationClass Members 10,797Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 184Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 184
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 25 of 88 PageID #:2470
Exhibit A 18
Hanley v. Fifth Third BankCase No. 1:12-cv-01612
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 4,500,000Administrative Costs $ 418,160Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,081,840Fee Award $ 1,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres36.7%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 216,498Claimants 16,241Claim Rate 7.5%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 200Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 157
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 26 of 88 PageID #:2471
Exhibit A 19
Hinman v. M and M Rental Center, Inc.Case No. 1:06-cv-01156
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $5,817,150 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs $ 6,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,939,050Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 5,015Claimants 190Claim Rate 3.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 534Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 27 of 88 PageID #:2472
Exhibit A 20
Holtzman v. CCH Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-07033
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $397,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 132,333Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 90Claimants 36Claim Rate 40%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 500
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 28 of 88 PageID #:2473
Exhibit A 21
Lockett v. Mogreet, Inc.Case No. 2013-CH-21352
(Cir. Ct. Cook County, Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $16,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 2,850,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 17.8%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 105Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 29 of 88 PageID #:2474
Exhibit A 22
Locklear Elec., Inc. v. Norma L. LayCase No. 3:09-cv-00531
(S.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the admin costs, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $1,753,161.)
$ 1,665,437
Administrative Costs $ 2,369Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin $ 1,663,068Fee Award $ 584,387Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres35.1%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 3,475Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 308Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 308
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 30 of 88 PageID #:2475
Exhibit A 23
Lozano v. Twentieth Century FoxCase No. 1:09-cv-06344
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund
(The defendant made $16,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 3,750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 23.4%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,128,112Lodestar Hours 3,094.7Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 365Lodestar Multiplier 2.9
Class InformationClass Members 98,849Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 200Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 200
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 31 of 88 PageID #:2476
Exhibit A 24
Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-00215
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin, costs, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $7,500,000.)
$ 4,900,000
Administrative Costs $ 129,000Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres
(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 4,771,000
Fee Award $ 1,666,666Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres34.9%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 22.2%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 65,334Claimants 4,857Claim Rate 7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 635Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 32 of 88 PageID #:2477
Exhibit A 25
Martin v. CCH, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-03494
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin costs, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $2,000,000.)
$ 1,224,182
Administrative Costs $ 51,782Cy Pres Award $ 250,000Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 1,031,964Fee Award $ 600,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres58%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 571,697Lodestar Hours 1,112Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 514Lodestar Multiplier 1.05
Class InformationClass Members 17,962Claimants 2,046Claim Rate 11.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 150Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 150
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 33 of 88 PageID #:2478
Exhibit A 26
Martin v. TaxWorks, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-05485
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin, costs, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $225,000.)
$ 174,398
Administrative Costs $ 4,751Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres
(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 169,647
Fee Award $ 74,993Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres44.2%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 36,850Lodestar Hours 73.7Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 500Lodestar Multiplier 2
Class InformationClass Members 906Claimants 189Claim Rate 21%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 395Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 395
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 34 of 88 PageID #:2479
Exhibit A 27
Miller v. Red Bull North America, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-04961
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $6,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award
(This amount includes fees and costs.)$ 1,275,000
Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres
Not Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 21.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 439,331Lodestar Hours 877.2Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 501Lodestar Multiplier 2.9
Class InformationClass Members 88,355Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 110Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 110
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 35 of 88 PageID #:2480
Exhibit A 28
Paldo Sign and Display Company v. Topsail SportswearCase No. 1:08-cv-05959
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants andthe fee award. The total fund that defendant made available was $2,000,000.)
$ 747,601
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 666,667Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres89.2%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 254,740Lodestar Hours 696.88Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 366Lodestar Multiplier 2.62
Class InformationClass Members 10,352Claimants
(Claims were submitted for 1,927 faxes.)591
Claim Rate 5.71%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 42 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 42 per fax
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 36 of 88 PageID #:2481
Exhibit A 29
R. Rudnick & Co. v. G.F. Protection, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:08-cv-01856
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund
(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $265,000.)
$ 229,750
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 31,750Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 201,500
Fee Award $ 79,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)39.5%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 6,177Claimants 244Claim Rate 3.9%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 500
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 37 of 88 PageID #:2482
Exhibit A 30
Rojas v. Career Education CenterCase No. 1:10-cv-05260
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $19,999,400 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 3,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 17.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,462,603Lodestar Hours 3,482.7Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 420Lodestar Multiplier 2.39
Class InformationClass Members 99,997Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 200Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 38 of 88 PageID #:2483
Exhibit A 31
Sadowski v. Med1OnlineCase No. 1:07-cv-02973
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 345,000Administrative Costs $ 2,819Cy Pres Award $ 2,912Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 339,269Fee Award $ 103,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres30.5%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 16,388Claimants 562Claim Rate 3.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 416
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 39 of 88 PageID #:2484
Exhibit A 32
Saf-T-Gard Int’l v. Seiko Corp. of Am.Case No. 1:09-cv-00776
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $3,500,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,155,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 26,005Claimants 1,656Claim Rate 6.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 375Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 375
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 40 of 88 PageID #:2485
Exhibit A 33
Saf-T-Gard v. Transworld SystemsCase No. 1:10-cv-07671
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $5,356,800 available to the class, including the value of defendant’s offered services ($624 per class member). There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs $ 8,222Cy Pres Award $ 92,587Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 240,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 4.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 222,389Lodestar Hours 665.3Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 334Lodestar Multiplier 1.08
Class InformationClass Members 8,409Claimants 124Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 200 & $ 624Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 41 of 88 PageID #:2486
Exhibit A 34
Saf-T-Gard International v. Vanguard Energy Services, LLCCase No. 1:12-cv-03671
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $59,500.)
$ 50,120
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 19,635Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 82Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 335 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 335 per fax
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 42 of 88 PageID #:2487
Exhibit A 35
The Savanna Group, Inc. et al v. Trynex, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-07995
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $2,550,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 850,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 10,223Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 43 of 88 PageID #:2488
Exhibit A 36
Sawyer v. Atlas Heating and Sheet Metal Works Inc.Case No. 2:10-cv-00331
(E.D. Wisconsin)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $900,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 315,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 35%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 3,416Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 400Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 44 of 88 PageID #:2489
Exhibit A 37
Targin Sign Sys., Inc. v. Preferred Chiropractic Ctr., Ltd.Case No. 1:09-cv-01399
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $1,551,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 517,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 3,988Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 250 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 250 per fax
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 45 of 88 PageID #:2490
Exhibit A 38
Weinstein v. Airit2me, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:06-cv-00484
(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund
(The defendant made $7,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 200,000Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,625,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 23.2%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 696,650 Lodestar Hours 1,704.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 409Lodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 18,902Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 150Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 46 of 88 PageID #:2491
Exhibit A 39
Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc.Case No. 3:10-cv-00229
(W.D. Wisconsin)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $1,296,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs $ 17,392Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 432,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 1,384Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 332 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 332 per fax
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 47 of 88 PageID #:2492
Exhibit A 40
Woodman, et al. v. ADT Dealer Servs. et al.Case No. 2013-CH-10169
(Cir. Ct. Cook County, Illinois)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $7,500,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,875,000Fee Award as Percentage of
Fund Less Cy PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 15 or $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 48 of 88 PageID #:2493
Exhibit A 41
9th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 49 of 88 PageID #:2494
Exhibit A 42
Adams v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.Case No. 3:08-cv-00248
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This is the amount claimants received plus administrative costs, and fees. The total amount defendant made available to the class was $9,000,000.)
$ 7,792,041
Administrative Costs $ 2,549,121Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 5,242,920Fee Award $ 2,700,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres51.5%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 708,660Lodestar Hours 1,332Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 532Lodestar Multiplier 3.81
Class InformationClass Members 5,627,963Claimants 63,573Claim Rate 1.1%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 40Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 40
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 50 of 88 PageID #:2495
Exhibit A 43
Agne v. Papa John’s International, et al.Case No. 2:10-cv-01139
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This amount is the total amount paid to the class in cash plus administrative expenses and attorneys’ fees. The total amount defendant made available to the class was $16,585,000.)
$ 2,867,350
Administrative Costs $ 250,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 2,617,350Fee Award $ 2,450,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres93.6%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 15%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 3,001,094Lodestar Hours 5,142.5Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 584Lodestar Multiplier 0.82
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants 3,347Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 50 Cash Plus
$13 Merchandise
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 51 of 88 PageID #:2496
Exhibit A 44
Arthur, et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc.Case No. 2:10-cv-00198
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 24,150,000Administrative Costs $ 6,692,637Cy Pres Award $ 980,396Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 16,476,967Fee Award $ 4,830,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres29.3%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 20%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,729,885Lodestar Hours 3,963Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 436.51Lodestar Multiplier 2.79
Class InformationClass Members 7,792,256Claimants
(This figure includes approximately 53,400 claimants who had their accounts charged off and were not eligible to receive a cash or reduction award.)
171,263
Claim Rate 2.2%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 20-$ 40Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 118
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 52 of 88 PageID #:2497
Exhibit A 45
Bellows v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.Case No. 3:07-cv-01413
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund
(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the cy pres award, and the attorneys’ fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $950,000.)
$ 499,254
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 197,970Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 301,283
Fee Award $ 299,254Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres 99.3%Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 31.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 166,898Lodestar Hours 430.35Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 388Lodestar Multiplier 1.79
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants 29Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 70Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 70
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 53 of 88 PageID #:2498
Exhibit A 46
Chesbro v. Best Buys Stores, L.P.Case No. 2:10-cv-00774
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 4,550,000Administrative Costs $ 195,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,355,000Fee Award $ 1,137,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres26.1%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 826,360Lodestar Hours 1,568Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 570Lodestar Multiplier 1.38
Class InformationClass Members 463,050Claimants 5,404Claim Rate 1.1%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 270
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 54 of 88 PageID #:2499
Exhibit A 47
Clark v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc.Case No. 2:09-cv-00915
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The parties reported the total value of the settlement to be $3,809,988, which included 319,055 merchandise certificates with a face value of $10, attorneys’ fees, and administrative costs.)
Not Available
Administrative Costs $ 317,604Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not AvailableFee Award $ 301,834Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 7.9%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 241,468Lodestar Hours 500.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 483Lodestar Multiplier 1.25
Class InformationClass Members 319,055Claimants 319,055Claim Rate 100%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 10 Merchandise
CertificateActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 10 Merchandise
Certificate
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 55 of 88 PageID #:2500
Exhibit A 48
Cubbage v. The Talbots, Inc. et al.Case No. 2:09-cv-00911
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The parties reported the total value of the settlement to be $492,360, which included cash awards, merchandise certificates, attorneys’ fees, and administrative expenses. The total amount the defendants made available was $1,570,000.)
Not Available
Administrative Costs $ 40,000Cy Pres Award $ 0 Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not AvailableFee Award $ 400,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 25.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $482,366Lodestar Hours 704.5Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 685Lodestar Multiplier 0.83
Class InformationClass Members 19,654Claimants 936Claim Rate 4.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 40 Cash or $ 80
Merchandise Certificate Actual Recovery Per Claimant
(561 claims at $40, 367 claims at $80, and 14 where information is not publicly available.)
$ 40 Cash or $ 80 Merchandise Certificate
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 56 of 88 PageID #:2501
Exhibit A 49
Ellison v. Steve Madden, Ltd.Case No. 2:11-cv-05935
(C.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, administrative costs, and the attorneys’ fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $10,000,000.)
$ 4,709,450
Administrative Costs $ 459,450Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,250,000Fee Award $ 1,250,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres29.4%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 12.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 739,403Lodestar Hours 1,851.2Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 399Lodestar Multiplier 1.7
Class InformationClass Members 203,254Claimants 20,000Claim Rate 10%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 150Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 150
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 57 of 88 PageID #:2502
Exhibit A 50
Grannan v. Alliant Law Group, P.C.Case No. 5:10-cv-02803
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 1,000,000Administrative Costs $ 121,840Cy Pres Award $ 54,143Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 824,017Fee Award $ 250,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres30.3%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 169,528 Lodestar Hours 265.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 639Lodestar Multiplier 1.47
Class InformationClass Members 137,981Claimants 1,986Claim Rate 1.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 300-$ 325Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 306
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 58 of 88 PageID #:2503
Exhibit A 51
Gutierrez, et al. v. Barclays Group, et al.Case No. 3:10-cv-01012
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund $ 8,184,875Administrative Costs $ 67,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 8,117,875Fee Award $ 1,574,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres19.4%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 19.2%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 340,428Lodestar Hours 803.75Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 424Lodestar Multiplier 4.64
Class InformationClass Members 65,479Claimants 65,479Claim Rate 100%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 100
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 59 of 88 PageID #:2504
Exhibit A 52
Hovila v. Tween Brands, Inc.Case No. 2:09-cv-00491
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The total amount paid to the class cannot be determined based on publicly available information. The total potential recovery for the class was $4,500,000.)
Not Available
Administrative Costs $ 142,597Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not AvailableFee Award $ 750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 16.7%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 459,724Lodestar Hours 618.25Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 744Lodestar Multiplier 1.63
Class InformationClass Members 100,000Claimants (As of final approval.) 2,690Claim Rate 2.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 20 Cash or $ 45
Merchandise CertificateActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 20 Cash or $ 45
Merchandise Certificate
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 60 of 88 PageID #:2505
Exhibit A 53
In re Jiffy Lube International, Inc. Text Spam Litig.Case No. 3:11-MD-02261
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The total value of the certificates defendant issued was $39,883,585.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 4,750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Value of Certificates 11.9%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,325,490Lodestar Hours 2,292.67Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 578Lodestar Multiplier 3.58
Class InformationClass Members 2,342,239Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant
(Each class member received on certificate worth $15 cash and $20 in goods and services.)
$ 15
Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 61 of 88 PageID #:2506
Exhibit A 54
Kazemi v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc. et al.Case No. 3:09-cv-05142
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $10,000,000 in cash and/or certificates available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,250,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 12.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,036,729Lodestar Hours 1,784.48Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 581Lodestar Multiplier 1.21
Class InformationClass Members 8,500,00Claimants 22,500Claim Rate 1.2%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 25 Merchandise
CertificateActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 25 Merchandise
Certificate
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 62 of 88 PageID #:2507
Exhibit A 55
Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., et al.Case No. 4:10-cv-02722
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 12,200,000Administrative Costs $ 1,246,933Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin
(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 10,953,067
Fee Award $ 3,050,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin
(Cy pres award not publicly available.)27.8%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,129,629Lodestar Hours 2,741.7Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 412Lodestar Multiplier 2.7
Class InformationClass Members 47,000,000Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 63 of 88 PageID #:2508
Exhibit A 56
Kwan v. Clearwire Corp.Case No. 2:09-cv-01392
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(In addition to a cash payment of $6,300,000,defendant provided $23,000,000 in class member debt relief.)
$ 6,300,000
Administrative Costs $ 421,777Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 5,878,223Fee Award $ 2,900,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres49.3%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 46%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 988,413Lodestar Hours 1,759.81Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 562Lodestar Multiplier 2.93
Class InformationClass Members 1,800,000Claimants 11,686Claim Rate 0.65%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available Actual Recovery Per Claimant
(This amount was capped at $653 per claimant in cash and/or debt relief.)
$ 53 per call in cash and/or debt relief
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 64 of 88 PageID #:2509
Exhibit A 57
Lemieux v. Global Credit & Collection Corp.Case No. 3:08-cv-01012
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes total amount paid to claimants, cy pres award, and attorneys’ fees. The amount the defendant made available was $505,000.)
$ 343,884
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 111,360Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 232,524
Fee Award $ 193,884Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres(Admin costs not publicly available.)
83.4%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 38.4%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 132,797Lodestar Hours 315.5Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 421Lodestar Multiplier 4.46
Class InformationClass Members 27,844Claimants 552Claim Rate 1.98%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 70Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 70
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 65 of 88 PageID #:2510
Exhibit A 58
Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC et al.Case No. 3:11-cv-01009
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 49,100Administrative Costs $ 4,500Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 44,600Fee Award $ 12,275Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres27.5%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 72,228Lodestar Hours 142Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 509Lodestar Multiplier 0.17
Class InformationClass Members 203Claimants 22Claim Rate 10.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 1,331.23
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 66 of 88 PageID #:2511
Exhibit A 59
Malta v. Freddie Mac & Wells Fargo Home MortgageCase No. 3:10-cv-01290
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admincosts, and the fee award. The total fund that defendant made available was $17,100,000.00.)
$ 17,078,324
Administrative Costs $ 2,997,291Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 14,081,033Fee Award $ 3,847,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres27.3%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 22.5%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 746,061Lodestar Hours 1,352.28Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 552Lodestar Multiplier 5.16
Class InformationClass Members 4,337,960Claimants 120,650Claim Rate 2.78%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 85
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 67 of 88 PageID #:2512
Exhibit A 60
Meilleur v. AT&T Corp.Case No. 2:11-cv-01025
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, administrative costs, and the attorneys’ fee award.)
$ 973,905
Administrative Costs $ 75,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 898,905Fee Award $ 750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres83.4%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 77%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 388,711Lodestar Hours 685Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 495Lodestar Multiplier 2.2
Class InformationClass Members 15,386Claimants 1,088Claim Rate 7.07%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 270/$ 135Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 270/$ 135
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 68 of 88 PageID #:2513
Exhibit A 61
Palmer v. Sprint Solutions, Inc.Case No. 2:09-cv-01211
(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 5,500,000Administrative Costs $ 1,012,825Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,487,175Fee Award $ 1,540,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres34.3%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 28%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 621,000Lodestar Hours 1,185Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 524Lodestar Multiplier 2.48
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants
(There were 37,676 claimants as of the date of the motion for final approval.)
Not Publicly Available
Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 69 of 88 PageID #:2514
Exhibit A 62
Pimental v. Google, Inc.Case No. 4:11-cv-02585
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 6,000,000Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award
(Final cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 950,000-$ 1,450,000
Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 820,612Lodestar Hours 1,805.1Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 454.61Lodestar Multiplier 1.83
Class InformationClass Members 185,688Claimants
(As of final approval.)5,598
Claim Rate(As of final approval.)
3%
Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 70 of 88 PageID #:2515
Exhibit A 63
Robles v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, et al.Case No. 3:10-cv-04846
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(Defendant made $9,900,000.00 available to the class. This figure is based on total number of claims made as of final approval plus attorneys’ fees. The final total fund was likely larger given there were 90 days remaining in the claims period.)
$ 3,615,600
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 2,400,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund 66.4%Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 24.2%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 878,343Lodestar Hours 1,803.3Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 487Lodestar Multiplier 2.73
Class InformationClass Members 216,711Claimants
(As of final approval.)12,156
Claim Rate(As of final approval.)
5.6%
Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 100
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 71 of 88 PageID #:2516
Exhibit A 64
Sarabi v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co.Case No. 3:10-cv-01777
(S.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This was not a common fund. This amount includes the amount paid to claimants, administrative costs,and the attorneys’ fee award.)
$ 1,350,000
Administrative Costs $ 600,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 750,000Fee Award $ 225,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres30%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 16.6%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 166,312Lodestar Hours 324.9Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 512Lodestar Multiplier 1.35
Class InformationClass Members 577,278Claimants 10,475Claim Rate 1.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 48
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 72 of 88 PageID #:2517
Exhibit A 65
Satterfield v. Simon & SchusterCase No. 4:06-cv-02893
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $10,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 250,000Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 2,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,323,888.00Lodestar Hours 2,639.9Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 501.49Lodestar Multiplier 1.89
Class InformationClass Members 58,079Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 175Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 175
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 73 of 88 PageID #:2518
Exhibit A 66
Steinfeld, et al. v. Discover Financial Services, et al.Case No. 3:12-cv-01118
(N.D. California)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund $ 8,700,000Administrative Costs $ 1,397,100Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 7,302,900Fee Award $ 2,175,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
Pres29.8%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 25%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 712,364Lodestar Hours 1,348.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 528.3Lodestar Multiplier 3.05
Class InformationClass Members 9,321,114Claimants 109,154Claim Rate 1.2%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 20-$ 40Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 47
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 74 of 88 PageID #:2519
Exhibit A 67
6th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 76 of 88 PageID #:2521
Exhibit A 68
Avio, Inc. v. Creative Office Solutions, Inc.Case No. 2:10-cv-10622
(E.D. Michigan)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $1,587,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually receivedbecause no public information exists regarding the number of faxes claimed.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 529,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 3,258Claimants
(This amount reflects the total claims received as of final approval. There is no publicly available information regarding the number of faxes claimed.)
483
Claim Rate 14.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
($ 305 per fax)Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
($ 305 per fax)
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 77 of 88 PageID #:2522
Exhibit A 69
Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Heel, Inc.Case No. 3:12-cv-01470
(N.D. Ohio)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $6,000,000.)
$ 3,713,472
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 196,435Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 3,517,037
Fee Award $ 2,000,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres
(Admin costs not publicly available.)56.9%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 711,328Lodestar Hours 1,620.3Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 439Lodestar Multiplier 2.81
Class InformationClass Members 34,381Claimants 6,774Claim Rate 19.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 224Actual Recovery Per Claimant
(This amount represents an average paid per claimant as claims were paid on a per fax basis.)
$ 224
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 78 of 88 PageID #:2523
Exhibit A 70
Siding and Insulation Co. v. Beachwood Hair Clinic, Inc.Case No. 1:11-cv-01074
(N.D. Ohio)Settlement Details
Item Amount
Fund InformationTotal Fund
(This includes the amount paid to claimants and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $1,956,650.)
$ 1,793,500
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 600,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund
(Admin costs not publicly available.)33.5%
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30.6%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 16,847Claimants 1,081Claim Rate 6.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant
(This amount represents an average paid per claimant as claims were paid on a per fax basis.)
$ 1,104
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 79 of 88 PageID #:2524
Exhibit A 71
8th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 80 of 88 PageID #:2525
Exhibit A 72
Heller v. HRB Tax Group, Inc.Case No. 4:11-cv-01121
(E.D. Missouri)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $91,150 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 31,717Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 34.8%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 87Claimants 13Claim Rate 14.9%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 550 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 81 of 88 PageID #:2526
Exhibit A 73
Lindsay Transmission v. Office Depot, Inc.Case No. 4:12-cv-00221
(E.D. Missouri)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $381,150 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 125,780Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 232Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 450-$ 550 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 82 of 88 PageID #:2527
Exhibit A 74
10th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 83 of 88 PageID #:2528
Exhibit A 75
Bailey Brothers Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Papa's Leatherbarn LLC
Case No. 5:10-cv-00080(W.D. Oklahoma)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $1,318,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 439,333Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 2,756Claimants 321Claim Rate 11.6Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 295Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 84 of 88 PageID #:2529
Exhibit A 76
11th Circuit Cases
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 85 of 88 PageID #:2530
Exhibit A 77
Espinal v. Burger King Corp., et al.Case No. 1:09-cv-20982
(S.D. Florida)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(The defendant made $510,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 170,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33.3%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 218,562Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier 0.78
Class InformationClass Members 1,277Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 250Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 86 of 88 PageID #:2531
Exhibit A 78
In Re Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation
Case No. 6:13-md-02398(M.D. Florida)
Settlement DetailsItem AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This settlement included injunctive relief, only. No money was distributed to the class.)
Not Publicly Available
Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,250,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy
PresNot Publicly Available
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,255,843Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 87 of 88 PageID #:2532
Exhibit A 79
Wojcik v. Buffalo Bills, Inc.Case No. 8:12-cv-02414
(M.D. Florida)Settlement Details
Item AmountFund Information
Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin costs, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $2,487,745.)
$ 2,487,745
Administrative Costs $ 86,164Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin
(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 2,401,581
Fee Award $ 562,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin 23.4%
Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available
Class InformationClass Members 39,750Claimants 2,280Claim Rate 5.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 58, $65, or $75Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available
Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 88 of 88 PageID #:2533
Exhibit A 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re JIFFY LUBEINTERNATIONAL, INC. TEXTSPAM LITIGATION
))))))
Case No.: 3:11-MD-2261-JM (JMA)
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASSACTION AND ORDER OFDISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement (Dkt. 90) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses and Class Representative Incentive Awards (Dkt. 86) (collectively, the
“Motions”). The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of the Motions,
having heard argument of counsel, and finding good cause appearing therein, hereby
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motions and it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
THAT:
1. Terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning as ascribed to
them in the Parties’ August 1, 2012 Class Action Settlement Agreement, as amended by
the First Amendment to Class Action Settlement Agreement as of September 28, 2012
(the “Settlement Agreement”).
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all
Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members.
1 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. On October 10, 2012, this Court granted Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement Agreement and preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of:
All persons or entities in the United States and its Territorieswho in April 2011 were sent a text message from short codes72345 or 41411 promoting Jiffy Lube containing languagesimilar to the following:
JIFFY LUBE CUSTOMERS 1 TIME OFFER:REPLY Y TO JOIN OUR ECLUB FOR 45% OFFASIGNATURE SERVICE OIL CHANGE! STOP TOUNSUB MSG&DATARATES MAY APPLY T&C: JIFFYTOS.COM.
(Dkt. 85 at 3.)4. Excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons who have submitted
valid and timely requests for exclusion pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order and
the Notice to the Settlement Class. Valid and timely requests for exclusion were received
from the persons listed on Appendix 1 attached hereto and incorporated into this Final
Judgment. Those persons listed on Appendix 1 are found to have validly excluded
themselves from the Settlement in accordance with the provisions of the Preliminary
Approval Order, and are not bound by this Final Judgment or the Releases herein.
5. The Court finds that the Notice and the Notice Plan implemented pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order of October 10, 2012 and
consisting of individual notice via first-class U.S. Mail postcard, internet publication on
the interactive settlement website, a toll-free phone number to field inquiries by Settlement
Class Members, and in-store signage directing Settlement Class Members to the settlement
website and toll-free phone number, has been successfully implemented and was the best
notice practicable under the circumstances and: (1) constituted notice that was reasonably
calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of the
pendency of the Action, their right to object to or to exclude themselves from the Settle-
ment Agreement, and their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing; (2) was reasonable and
constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice;
2 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and (3) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due
Process Clause, and the rules of the Court.
6. The Court finds that Defendants properly and timely notified the appropriate
state and federal officials of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The Court has reviewed the substance
of Defendants’ notice and accompanying materials, and finds that they complied with all
applicable requirements of CAFA.
7. This Court now affirms certification of the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only, gives final approval to the Settlement, and finds that the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
The settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes fair
value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released
Parties. The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement
Class is reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances of the numerous types of
claims and affirmative defenses asserted in the Action, and the potential risks and
likelihood of success of alternatively pursuing trials on the merits. The complex legal and
factual posture of this case, and the fact that the Settlement is the result of arms’ length
negotiations between the Parties, including negotiations presided over by the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, support this finding.
8. The Court finds that the Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately
represented the Settlement Class for purposes of litigation of this matter and entering into
and implementing the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally
approved in all respects, and the Parties are hereby directed to implement the Settlement
according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated
into this Order in full and shall have the full force of an Order of this Court.
9. The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied for settlement
purposes only, for the reasons set forth herein. The Settlement Class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; there are at least some questions of law or fact
3 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
common to the class; the claims do fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;
the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members; and a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy between the Class Repre-
sentatives and Defendants.
10. The appointment of Class Counsel and Liaison Class Counsel are hereby
confirmed. Class Counsel and Liaison Class Counsel are found to be experienced in class
litigation, including litigation of similar claims in other cases, and have fairly and
adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class in the Action and the Settle-
ment.
11. This Court hereby dismisses the Action, comprised of the seven actions
identified in the Settlement Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or
costs to any of the Parties except as expressly provided herein.
12. Upon the Effective Date of this Order, Plaintiffs and each and every Settle-
ment Class Member who did not timely and validly opt out of the Settlement Class, and
any Person claiming by or through any Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member as his,
her, or its spouse, marital community, parent, child, heir, associate, co-owner, attorney,
agent, administrator, devisee, predecessor, successor, assignee, representative of any kind,
shareholder, partner, director, employee, or affiliate, whether or not he, she or it receives
any Settlement Benefits, shall fully, finally, completely and forever, release, acquit and
discharge Heartland, TextMarks, Jiffy Lube, and Oil Express as well as any other entity in
which Heartland, TextMarks, Jiffy Lube, and/or Oil Express has a controlling interest, to
which they are related, or with which they are affiliated, and any and all of any such
entities’ present, past, or future heirs, executors, estates, administrators, predecessors,
successors, assigns, parent entities, subsidiaries, franchises, associates, affiliates, employ-
ers, employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, insurers, directors, managing
directors, officers, partners, principals, shareholders, members, attorneys, accountants,
financial and other advisors, investment bankers, underwriters, lenders, auditors, invest-
4 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ment advisors, legal representatives, and/or successors in interest, from any and all claims,
demands, liabilities, duties, rights, obligations, or causes of action whatsoever belonging
to any of the Releasing Parties, pursuant to the TCPA, the CPA, the CEMA, or other
federal, state, local, statutory, or common law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, related
to, arising out of, or in any way connected to the alleged transmission of the Text Mes-
sage, whether or not such claims were or could have been asserted in the Action, including
claims sounding in law or in equity, whether accrued or unaccrued, suspected or unsus-
pected, known or unknown, direct or derivative, and including Unknown Claims as that
term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.
13. Additionally, Defendants Heartland and TextMarks, on behalf of themselves
and their respective present, past, or future predecessors, successors, assigns, parent
entities, subsidiaries, franchises, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, and agents,
hereby release and forever discharge each other from any and all claims, demands,
liabilities, duties, rights, obligations, or causes of action whatsoever, including Unknown
Claims, related in any way to the Action or the Text Message, including without limitation
claims for defense, indemnification, contribution, comparative fault, reimbursement, or
offset.
14. Upon the Effective Date, the above release of claims and the Settlement
Agreement will be binding on, and will have res judicata and preclusive effect on, all
pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Plaintiffs
and all other Settlement Class Members, Releasing Parties, and their heirs, executors, and
administrators, successors, and assigns. All Settlement Class Members who have not been
properly excluded from the Settlement Class are hereby permanently barred and enjoined
from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members
or otherwise) in any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction based on or arising out of
the Released Claims.
Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant Heartland, as of the
Effective Date, is hereby enjoined from sending or directing the sending of any marketing
5 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
text message to any Person without first obtaining that Person’s prior express consent, as
that term is defined in Section 2.1(a) of the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, Heart-
land shall keep documented proof of all such prior express consent received from such
Persons for a period of two years after said consent is obtained. Heartland is also permitted
to send or direct the sending of marketing text messages in a manner consistent with
applicable laws as such laws may exist from time to time. Defendant Heartland is hereby
ordered to implement and comply with Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement regarding
the injunctive relief made available to the Settlement Class Members.
15. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant TextMarks,
as of the Effective Date, is hereby enjoined from sending any marketing text message to
any Person without first obtaining that Person’s prior express consent, as that term is
defined in Section 2.1(b) of the Settlement Agreement, or an express representation from
TextMark’s client(s) that such consent was obtained. Additionally, TextMarks shall keep
documented proof of all prior express consent received from such Persons, or the express
representation of TextMarks’ client(s) that such consent was obtained, for a period of two
years after said consent is obtained. TextMarks is entitled to rely upon express representa-
tions by its clients that prior express consent has been obtained. TextMarks is also
permitted to send or direct the sending of marketing text messages in a manner consistent
with applicable laws as such laws may exist from time to time. Defendant TextMarks is
hereby ordered to implement and comply with Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement
regarding the injunctive relief made available to the Settlement Class Members.
16. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant TextMarks,
as of the Effective Date, is hereby enjoined from sending any marketing text message to
any Person without first obtaining that Person’s prior express consent, as that term is
defined in Section 2.1(b) of the Settlement Agreement, or an express representation from
TextMarks’ client(s) that such consent was obtained. Additionally, TextMarks shall keep
documented proof of all prior express consent received from such Persons, or the express
representation of TextMarks’ client(s) that such consent was obtained, for a period of two
6 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
years after said consent is obtained. TextMarks is entitled to rely upon express representa-
tions by its clients that prior express consent has been obtained. TextMarks is also
permitted to send or direct the sending of marketing text messages in a manner consistent
with applicable laws as such laws may exist from time to time. Defendant TextMarks is
hereby ordered to implement and comply with Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement
regarding the injunctive relief made available to the Settlement Class Members.
17. The Court approves the agreed-upon Fee Award to Class Counsel. The Court
hereby awards to Class Counsel 366,230 Certificates, yielding an aggregate cash value of
$4,750,000, as attorneys’ fees and costs. In this Circuit, a 25 percent fee is the accepted
“benchmark” in common fund cases. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043,
1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002). In assessing the Fee Award, the Court has considered the results
achieved in this litigation, the risks of litigation, the skill required of Class Counsel and
the quality of their work, the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried
by the Plaintiffs, and awards made in similar cases. In light of these factors, the Court
finds this Fee Award to be fair and reasonable, given that it represents approximately
13.51% of the total common financial benefit to the Class of the Certificates, exclusive of
the value of the injunctive relief contained in the Settlement Agreement and exclusive of
the costs of settlement administration and of mailing Notice, which were paid for by
Heartland. The Court additionally finds this amount to be fair and reasonable based upon a
lodestar cross check. Class Counsel provided the Court with documentation and sworn
declarations supporting a lodestar of $1,325,490.25 as of November 19, 2012, based on an
expenditure of 2,292.67 hours investigating, litigating and resolving this case. Addition-
ally, Class Counsel set forth the experience of each attorney working on the case and his
or her corresponding billable rate. The Court finds the rates charged to be appropriate and
reasonable in light of the experience of each attorney and that the hourly rates are in line
with comparable market rates. The Court finds the hours expended to be reasonable when
compared with the time and effort put forth by Class Counsel and supporting counsel in
investigating, litigating, and resolving this case, as well as in light of the results achieved
7 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for the Settlement Class in terms of both monetary and injunctive relief. Accordingly, the
overall lodestar of $1,325,490.25, when enhanced by a multiplier of 3.58, which the Court
finds reasonable and proper in light of the benefits to the Class, lodestars applied in other
similar matters, and the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67
(9th Cir. 1975), provides a reasonable lodestar cross-check in awarding Class Counsel’s
Fee Award of 366,230 Certificates, yielding an aggregate cash value of $4,750,000.00.
Class Counsel’s total Fee Award is inclusive of $13,582.02 in costs as of November 19,
2012, which is likewise reasonable based on the documentation and sworn declarations
submitted.
18. Defendants shall pay the Fee Award pursuant to and in the manner provided
by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
19. The Court approves the agreed Incentive Award of $5,000.00, or 386
Certificates with the equivalent cash value of $5,000.00, to each Class Representa-
tive––Joseph Crowl, Lawrence Cushnie, Tramy Duong, Rene Heuscher, Edward Koeller,
Dawn Souder, and Jacob Barr––as an Incentive Award for their roles as Class Representa-
tives. The Court finds this Incentive Award to be reasonable in light of the Class Represen-
tatives’ willingness and efforts with respect to taking on the risks of litigation and helping
achieve the results to be made available to the Settlement Class. Such payment shall be
made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
20. Except as otherwise set forth in this Order, the Parties shall bear their own
costs and attorneys’ fees.
21. This Court hereby directs entry of this Final Judgment based upon the Court’s
finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of this Final
Judgment notwithstanding the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to oversee implementation
and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
22. Neither this Final Judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, the
Settlement Agreement, the settlement that it reflects, nor any act, statement, document, or
proceeding relating to the Settlement:
8 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) is, may be deemed, or shall be used, offered, or received against Defendants
as an admission, concession, finding or evidence of the validity of any Released
Claims, the truth of any fact alleged by the Plaintiffs, the validity of any defense that
has been or could have been asserted in the Action, or of any alleged wrongdoing,
liability, negligence, or fault of the Released Parties;
(b) is, may be deemed, or shall be used, offered, or received against Plaintiffs or
the Settlement Class as an admission, concession, finding or evidence of the
infirmity or strength of any claims raised in the Action, the truth or falsity of any
fact alleged by Heartland or TextMarks, or the availability or lack of availability of
meritorious defenses to the claims raised in the Action;
(c) is, may be deemed, or shall be construed against Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class or against Defendants as an admission or concession, finding or evidence that
the consideration to be given hereunder represents an amount equal to, less than, or
greater than that amount that could have or would have been recovered after trial;
(d) is, may be deemed, or shall be construed as or received in evidence as an
admission or concession, finding or evidence against Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class or against Defendants that any of Plaintiffs’ claims are with or without merit
and that damages recoverable in the Action would have existed, would have
exceeded or would have been less than any particular amount; or
(e) is, may be deemed, or shall be used, offered, or received against Defendants
as an admission or concession, finding or evidence with respect to any liability,
negligence, fault, or wrongdoing as against any Parties to the Agreement in any
civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or
other tribunal.
23. The Parties, without further approval from the Court, are hereby permitted to
agree and to adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions of the Settlement
Agreement and its implementing documents (including all exhibits to the Settlement
9 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement) so long as they are consistent in all material respects with the Final Judgment
and do not limit the rights of Settlement Class Members.
24. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5), the Court approves the withdrawl of the
Manbeck and Stephens Objection.
25. The objections by Johnathon Sigward-Waters, Cathleen Knutson, and Robert
Caldwell Jr. are hereby overruled in their entirety. Sigward-Waters’ objection that the
Defendants’ merely be told to not send such texts again, at best, only expresses general
disagreement with the Settlement without addressing the Settlement’s adequacy.
Knutson’s objection that the Settlement should not be approved because it should “only be
three years time” is unclear. Caldwell’s objection that each class member should receive
the $500 pursuant to the statute is unconvincing because providing such a large settlement
per class member would likely drive Heartland out of business.
26. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, this Court
hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
27. Based upon the Court’s finding that there is no just reason for delay of
enforcement or appeal of this Final Judgment notwithstanding the Court’s retention of
jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Court directs the Clerk to enter final
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Clerk is further instructed to close this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 20, 2013
Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
10 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTINA M. ADAMS et al., onbehalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated,
Plaintiff,v.
ALLIANCEONE, INC.,
Defendant.
)))))))))))))))
Civil No. 3:08-cv-0248-JAH-WVG
ORDER
(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTIONFOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASSACTION SETTLEMENT [DKT NO.116];
(2) GRANTING CLASSCOUNSEL’S MOTION FORATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, ANDSERVICE AWARDS [DKT NO.115]
Plaintiffs Christina M. Adams, Sarah Gabany, and Michael D. Messner
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.
(“Defendant”) (the “Parties”) entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Settlement”),
which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
On February 24, 2012, the Parties filed the Settlement, along with their Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval
Motion”).
On April 23, 2012, upon consideration of the Preliminary Approval Motion, and
the record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval
3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order, the Court, among other things, (i) preliminarily certified (for settlement purposes
only) a class of plaintiffs (the “Class Members”) with respect to the claims asserted in this
case; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed settlement; (iii) appointed Plaintiffs
Christina M. Adams, Sarah Gabany, and Michael D. Messner as the Class
Representatives; (iv) appointed Hyde & Swigart and The Law Offices of Douglas J.
Campion as Class Counsel; and (v) set the date and time of the Final Approval Hearing.
On July 9, 2012, Class Counsel filed their Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs and Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs (the “Fee, Cost, and Award Motion”).
On July 30, 2012, the Parties filed their Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Motion”). Pursuant to the Final
Approval Motion, the Parties request final certification of the Settlement Class under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and final approval of the Stipulation.
Thus, before the Court is the Final Approval Motion and the Fee, Cost, and Award
Motion.
On September 18, 2012, a Final Approval Hearing was held by this Court pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to determine whether this action satisfies the applicable prerequisites
for class action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members, and should be
approved by the Court. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court heard argument from
the Parties regarding the fairness of the settlement and the objections filed pursuant to
conditions set forth in the Notice. Having reviewed the Final Approval Motion, the
memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other documents filed in
support thereof, including the Settlement, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court
hereby GRANTS the Final Approval Motion.
At the same hearing on September 18, 2012, the Court heard argument from Class
Counsel in support of the Fee, Cost, and Award Motion. Having reviewed the Fee, Cost,
and Award Motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other
documents filed in support thereof, including the Settlement, and good cause appearing
2 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the Fee, Cost, and Award Motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. TERMS: This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Settlement and all terms in this Order shall be deemed to have the same meaning as
defined in the Settlement.
2. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
case and over the Parties.
3. CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 23 (b)(3), this case is hereby
finally certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following
Class Members with respect to the claims asserted in this case:
The Settlement Class is defined as all persons within the United States towhom any telephone calls were made by AllianceOne or any of the otherReleased Parties between February 8, 2004 and November 30, 2010 to suchperson’s cellular telephone, paging service, specialized mobile radio service,other radio common carrier service or any service for which the called partyis charged for the call, through the use of any automatic telephone dialingsystem which has the capacity to store or produce numbers (whether or notsuch capacity was used), including, without limitation, an automated dialingmachine dialer, auto-dialer or predictive dialer, or an artificial or prerecordedvoice, without such person’s prior express consent; provided, however, thatthe Class shall not include: (a) the officers, directors, and employees ofAllianceOne, the members of the immediate families of the foregoing, andtheir respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns; (b) theofficers, directors and employees of any parent, subsidiary or affiliate ofAllianceOne, and the members of the immediate families of the foregoing;and (c) Counsel for AllianceOne and Class Counsel and the members oftheir respective immediate families. Also excluded from the Class is anypotential Class Member who requested exclusion from the Class in a timelymanner, and those individuals identified by the List of Excluded Numbers.
4. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS COUNSEL APPOINTMENT:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court finally certifies Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives and appoints Hyde & Swigart and The Law Offices of Douglas J.
Campion as Class Counsel.
5. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval
Order, the Court finds the Settlement Administrator has complied with the approved
Notice process as confirmed in its declaration filed with the Court. The form and method
for notifying the Class Members of the Settlement and its terms and conditions were in
3 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conformity with the Preliminary Approval Order and satisfied the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 and due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances. The Court finds that the Notice given was clearly designed to advise the
Class Members of their rights. Further, the Court finds that the claim process set forth
in the Stipulation was followed and that the process was the best practicable procedure
under the circumstances.
6. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court again finds that this case
satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
namely:
A. The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all of them in the
Litigation would be impracticable;
B. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members,
which predominate over any individual questions;
C. The claims of Plaintiffs appointed as Class Representatives are typical
of the claims of the Class Members;
D. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented
and protected the interests of all the Class Members; and
E. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable,
thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy, and a class action is
superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
7. FAIRNESS OF THE SETTLEMENT: The Court finds that the settlement
of the action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement, is in all respects
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members,
especially in light of the benefits to the Class Members, the strength of Plaintiffs’ case and
the defenses asserted by Defendant, the complexity, expense and probable duration of
further litigation, the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, and the risk of collecting
any judgment obtained on behalf of the class.
8. SETTLEMENT TERMS: The Settlement, which has been filed with the
4 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, shall be consummated in accordance with
the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court.
The material terms of the Settlement include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. The amount of the Settlement Fund remaining after all costs of Notice
and Administrative Expenses, incentive payments and attorneys’ fees and costs, and
related expenses incurred in this case, shall revert to Defendant subject to the terms of the
Settlement;
B. Plaintiffs shall receive from the Settlement Fund the sum of
$10,000.00 as Incentive Payments for bringing and participating in this action, divided
among them as follows: Christina M. Adams shall receive $5,000, Sarah Gabany shall
receive $2,500, and Michael D. Messner shall receive $2,500;
C. The Settlement Administrator shall be paid the amounts it has
incurred for its services as set forth in the Settlement in the total amount of
$2,549,120.99.
D. Class Counsel shall receive attorneys’ fees in an amount representing
30% of the Settlement Fund, which departure from the 25% benchmark this Court finds
is justified for the reasons set forth in the record, for a total award of $2,700,000 as
attorneys’ fees incurred pursuing this case; and
E. Class Counsel shall receive the total sum of $288,319.87 for payment
of costs incurred pursuing this case, which includes miscellaneous litigation costs in the
amount of $36,082.37 and the cost of an information technology consultant in the
amount of $252,237.50, which cost this Court finds was necessarily incurred given the
amount and type of discovery exchanged in this case.
F. Because the aggregate amount of the Settlement Awards is greater
than $1,000,000, a cy pres award is not required.
9. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION: A total of 70 Requests for Exclusion were
received. Those persons who filed valid and timely Requests for Exclusion are named on
Exhibit A to this Order. The Court hereby excludes these individuals from the Class and
5 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 5 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement.
10. OBJECTIONS: The Class Members were given an opportunity to file
Objections to the Settlement. Out of 63,573 valid and timely claims, only 6 Class
Members filed timely Objections. After consideration of each of the Objections, and for
the reasons set forth in the record, the Court hereby OVERRULES such Objections.
11. This Order is binding on all Class Members, except those individuals named
on Exhibit A, who filed valid and timely Requests for Exclusion.
12. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION: The Class
Representatives, Class Members, and their successors and assigns are permanently barred
and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either individually or as a class, or in any
other capacity, any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties, as set forth
in the Stipulation. Pursuant to the Releases contained in the Stipulation, the Released
Claims are compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of these
proceedings and this Order.
13. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
With Prejudice, the Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
Parties and all matters relating to this case and/or Settlement, including the
administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and
consummation of the Settlement and this Order.
14. TERMINATION OF DEADLINES: As of the date of this Order, all dates
and deadlines associated with this case are VACATED, other than those related to the
administration of the Settlement, unless and until further order of this Court.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH CAFA: Consistent with the Class Action Fairness
Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the Court finds that granting the Final Approval Motion
is appropriate because the required Notices of the Settlement were sent and appropriate
documentation was submitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the
Attorneys General of all 50 states; more than ninety (90) days have elapsed from the date
on which the Attorneys General were served with the notice required by CAFA; and, as
6 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 6 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the date of this Order, neither the Attorney General of the United States nor any State
Attorney General has filed any objections to or comments regarding the Settlement.
16. USE OF THE SETTLEMENT: Neither the Settlement, nor any act
performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement (i) is or
may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the validity or
lack thereof of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of any of the
Released Parties; or (ii) is or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, or
evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Released Parties, in any civil, criminal, or
administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal.
17. RELEASES AND BINDING EFFECT ON THE CLASS: Upon entry of this
Order, all Class Members who have not filed valid and timely Requests for Exclusion from
the Class in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Settlement shall be bound by
the Settlement and by this Order and by all determinations and judgments in this case,
whether favorable or unfavorable; and each Class Member shall be (i) conclusively deemed
to have, and by operation of this Order shall have, fully, finally and forever settled,
released, relinquished, waived and discharged Defendant and all Released Parties from all
Released Claims, all as defined in the Settlement, and (ii) barred from suing Defendant
in any action or proceeding alleging any of the Released Claims, even if any Class Member
may thereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those which the Class
Members or Class Counsel now know or believe to be true with respect to this case,
whether or not such Class Members have filed an objection to the Settlement or to the
Fee, Cost, and Award Motion, and whether or not the objections or claims for distribution
of such Class Members have been approved or allowed.
18. DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT: This case (together
with all claims asserted herein, whether asserted by Class Representatives on their own
behalf or on behalf of the Class) is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety, WITH
PREJUDICE. No costs are awarded to any party apart from those awarded to Class
Representatives and/or Class Counsel under this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to
7 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 7 of 8
Exhibit C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
enter final judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 27, 2012 _______________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge
8 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG
Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 8 of 8
Exhibit C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JERRY WOJCIK, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 8:12-cv-2414-T-23TBM
BUFFALO BILLS, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The plaintiff moves (Doc. 77) for final approval of a class action settlement,
for an award of attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff’s counsel, for an award of expenses,
and for an incentive award. A “fairness hearing” on the settlement occurred on
August 20, 2014.
1. An April 17, 2014 order (Doc. 73) grants preliminary approval of the
settlement and certifies a settlement class* that comprises:
All Persons in the United States and its territories who during the
Class Period (from the period of September 12, 2008 until the date
of a final Settlement Agreement) subscribed to the Text Service by
texting the word “BILLS” from their cellular telephone to SMS
short code 64621 in order to receive SMS text message alerts from
Defendant during the Class Period and who received text messages
from Defendant within a Weekly period (a period of seven (7) days
* The terms and phrases in this order retain the meaning ascribed to them in the settlement
agreement.
Case 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM Document 79 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID 2043
Exhibit D
measured from 12:00:01 a.m. Sunday to 11:59:59 p.m. Saturday)during the Class Period where the number of text messages sent aspart of the Text Service exceeded five (5) text messages in thatWeek.
2. Excluded from the settlement class are (1) the defendant, Buffalo Bills,
Inc. (“BBI”), and BBI’s agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, and predecessors;
(2) any entity in which BBI has a controlling interest; (3) BBI’s current and former
employees, officers, and directors; (4) the attorneys, other legal representatives,
successors, and assigns of any excluded person; and (5) any person whose claim
against the defendant has been adjudicated or released in another action.
3. The settlement is approved because the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and because the settlement is in the best interests of the settlement class,
which is confirmed by the legal and factual composition of this action, the
arm’s-length negotiations that preceded the settlement, the maturity of the litigation,
and participation by both experienced and skillful counsel for the parties and an
experienced and skillful mediator. The plaintiff and the class counsel adequately
represented the settlement class in entering and implementing the settlement
agreement. Accordingly, the settlement agreement is APPROVED. This order
incorporates by reference (1) the settlement agreement and (2) the findings of fact
and conclusions of law announced during the August 20, 2014 fairness hearing.
4. An April 17, 2014 order preliminarily approves, as the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, the parties’ plan to notify the settlement class.
- 2 -
Case 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM Document 79 Filed 08/25/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2044
Exhibit D
Now successfully implemented, the notice plan satisfies the requirements of Rule 23,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. In accord with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28
U.S.C. § 1715, BBI properly and timely notified state and federal officials of the
settlement agreement. BBI’s notice and the accompanying material comply with the
applicable requirements of CAFA.
6. On the effective date of the settlement agreement, the plaintiff and each
settlement class member fully, finally, completely, and forever release, acquit, and
discharge each released party from each released claim. The settlement agreement
binds each settlement class member not excluded from the settlement class. Each
settlement class member not excluded from the settlement class is permanently
barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, or prosecuting and from intervening
or participating in (as a class member or otherwise) any other action in any
jurisdiction, if the action is based on, or arises from, a released claim.
7. As an award of attorneys’ fees, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s
counsel $562,500.
8. BBI must pay the plaintiff an incentive award of $5,000 in consideration
(1) of his assuming the risk of litigation and (2) of his contributing to the result
achieved for the settlement class.
9. In good faith and with the application of best efforts, the parties must
deliver the BBI debit cards to eligible members of the settlement class no later than
- 3 -
Case 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM Document 79 Filed 08/25/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID 2045
Exhibit D
November 1, 2014. If either party appeals or causes a tolling of the time to appeal,
the parties must deliver the BBI debit cards to eligible members of the settlement
class within sixty days after this order becomes final (for example, by expiration of
the time to appeal or by receipt of the mandate of the appellate court).
10. Except as specified in this order, the parties must bear their own costs
and attorneys’ fees.
11. Neither the settlement agreement nor the settlement itself nor the acts,
statements, documents, or proceedings pertaining to the settlement agreement
admits, concedes, or evidences any fault, wrongdoing, or liability by a party; the
validity of any claim or defense; the existence or amount of damages; or the
recovery, if any, that might have resulted from a trial.
12. Until the settlement agreement is wholly performed, jurisdiction is
retained over the parties and the action (a) to implement, enforce, and administer the
settlement agreement and (b) to resolve any dispute concerning the composition of
the settlement class or the entitlement to a benefit under the settlement agreement.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 25, 2014.
- 4 -
Case 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM Document 79 Filed 08/25/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID 2046
Exhibit D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement - 1 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ERIK KNUTSON AND KEVIN
LEMIEUX, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS,
V.
SCHWAN’S HOME SERVICE, INC.; AND CUSTOMER ELATION, INC.,
DEFENDANTS.
Case No.: 3:12-CV-00964-GPC-DHB
CLASS ACTION
FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
JUDGMENT
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement - 2 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER
On May 5, 2014, after active litigation commencing on April 18 2012,
extensive arm’s length negotiations, a mediation before the Honorable Leo S. Papas
(Ret.) and also before the Honorable Leo Wagner (Ret.), Plaintiffs Erik Knutson
and Kevin Lemieux, on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants
Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. and Customer Elation, Inc. (jointly the “Defendants”)
(collectively the “Parties”), entered into a Class Action Settlement (the
“Agreement”), which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
On May 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed the Agreement, along with the Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Preliminary
Approval Motion”), with the Court.
In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-
2, 119 Stat. 4, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), on May 15, 2014, the claims
administrator, at Defendants’ request and direction, served written notice of the
proposed class action settlement on the United States Attorney General and the
Attorney General of each State in which a Class Member resides.
On July 14, 2014, upon consideration of the Agreement, Preliminary
Approval Motion, and the record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Preliminary Settlement Approval
Order”). Pursuant to the Preliminary Settlement Approval Order, the Court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, approved Kurtzman Carson
Consultants as the claims administrator, and set the date and time of the Final
Fairness Hearing for December 12, 2014.
On September 12, 2014, Class Counsel filed their application for attorneys’
fees, costs, and incentive payments.
On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement (the “Final Approval Motion”). Pursuant to their Final
Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 6
Exhibit E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement - 3 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
Approval Motion, the Plaintiffs request final approval of the proposed class action
settlement, which is unopposed by Defendants.
On December 12, 2014, a Final Fairness Hearing was held pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 to determine the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members and should be
approved by the Court. The Court has read and considered the Agreement, Final
Approval Motion, and the record. All capitalized terms used herein have the
meanings defined herein and/or in the Agreement unless defined otherwise herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Action and over all settling Parties hereto.
2. SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3),
this Action is hereby finally certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class
action on behalf of the following Class or Class Member with respect to the
claims asserted in this Action:
All persons who are past or present customers of NutriSystem,
Inc., who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone
service, which number was called by Defendants using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or
prerecorded voice between April 18, 2008 and August 31,
2012. Excluded from the Class are persons who Defendants
called for emergency purposes or persons who gave express
consent to Defendants to call their cellular telephone number
prior to Defendants first placing a call using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.
Also excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers and
directors, families and legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any other entity in which Defendants have a
controlling interest, any judge assigned to this case and their
immediate families. [Dkt. No. 119]
Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 6
Exhibit E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement - 4 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
3. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary
Settlement Approval Order, the claims administrator has complied with the
approved notice process as confirmed in its declaration filed with the Court.
The form and method for notifying the Class Members of the settlement and
its terms and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary
Settlement Approval Order and satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under
the circumstances. The Court finds that the notice process was clearly
designed to advise the Class Members of their rights. Further, the Court finds
that the claim process set forth in the Agreement was followed and that the
process was the best practicable procedure under the circumstances.
4. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: The Court finds that the settlement of the
Action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is
in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the Class
Members, the complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation,
the serious risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, the cross motion for
summary judgment filed by Defendants as to the entire Class and Defendants’
motion to decertify the class action, and the risk of collecting any judgment
obtained on behalf of the Class.
5. SETTLEMENT TERMS: The Settlement Agreement, which has been filed
with the Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed
settlement, are finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with
the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by
this Court. The material terms of the Settlement Agreement include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 4 of 6
Exhibit E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement - 5 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
a. Defendants shall pay each of the 166 claimants who submitted a timely
and valid Claim Form a cash payment of $20.00 in the form of a check,
and a merchandise certificate for Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. products
in the amount of $80.00. The merchandize certificate shall not be
redeemable for cash. The merchandize certificate shall be non-
transferable and shall expire two years after it is issued;
b. Defendants shall pay Class Counsel $453,1551 in attorneys’ fees and
$30,000 in costs of litigation;
c. Defendants shall pay the total sum of $1,500.00 to each of the two
Representative Plaintiffs, Erik Knutson and Kevin Lemieux, payable
through Class Counsel as incentive awards for bringing and participating
in this Action;
d. Defendants shall pay Kurtzman Carson Consultants for the cost of Notice
and other Administrative Expenses of the class action settlement in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and
6. EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS: The Class Members were given an
opportunity to object to the settlement.
a. None of the Class Members filed an objection.
b. No requests for exclusion were received. This Order is binding on all of
the Class Members.
1 Class counsel had requested $750,000 in attorney fees and argued that such an amount was merited by a percentage-
of-the-fund method. (ECF No. 140.) However, the Court does not find $750,000 to be reasonable in this case. While
a percentage-of-the-fund may be appropriate, it is unclear what the size of the fund actually is. The parties argue that
the fund is approximately $2.5 million based on the approximately 16,691people that were sent notice. (ECF No.
140-1, at 1.) However, that is not the actual number of potential claimants because notice was sent to all unique cell
phone numbers in Defendants’ records whereas the actual class is only those people who were called but did not give
consent. (ECF No. 135-1, at 6.) The parties made no effort to send notice only to those who did not give consent and
thus it is inappropriate to consider all 16,691people as the class size and basis for the size of the fund. The fact that
only 217 valid claims were filed in this case further indicates that the size of the class is likely not as large as the
number of people who were noticed. (See ECF No. 145, at 1.) Without a clear indicator of the size of the fund, the
Court turns the actual fees incurred by Class Counsel. Class Counsel has incurred a total $453,155 for approximately
912.4 hours. (ECF No. 140-2, at 7.) Based on the work done and the complexity of this case, as well as comparable
rates in the Southern District of California that have been reviewed by the Court and cited by the parties, the Court
finds both the hours and hourly rate to be reasonable and thus approves $453,155 in attorney fees.
Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 5 of 6
Exhibit E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement - 6 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB
7. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT: The Class
Representatives, Class Members, and their successors and assigns are
permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either
individually or as a class, or in any other capacity, any of the Released Claims
against any of the Released Parties, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to the release contained in the Agreement, the Released Claims are
compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of these
proceedings and this Order. [Agreement § 13].
8. The Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice in all respects.
9. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendants
of any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding.
10. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice, the Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
over the Parties and all matters relating to the Action and/or Settlement
Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, construction,
effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2014
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit E
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 1 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: CV 14-734-GW(FFMx) ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT JUDGE: Hon. George H. Wu
ANN FOX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF, V. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
DEFENDANT.
JS-6Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1629
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 2 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff Ann Fox (“Ms. Fox” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant
Asset Acceptance, LLC (“Asset Acceptance” or “Defendant”), entered in to an
Amended Settlement Agreement and Release (hereinafter referred to as the
“Agreement”), which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of
Settlement Class (hereinafter referred to as the “Preliminary Approval Motion”) in
the above-captioned action (the “Lawsuit”).
On August 17, 2015, upon consideration of the Agreement, Preliminary
Approval Motion, and the record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “Preliminary
Approval Order”).
On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,
Costs and Incentive Payment, and supplemental briefing was filed on June 13,
2016 (together the “Fee Brief”).
On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her initial Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement.
On March 9, 2016, the Court issued an order approving and requiring
supplemental notice via postcard to the Settlement Class and scheduled a hearing
on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement for June 30, 2016.
On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed her renewed and revised Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “Final
Approval Motion”). Pursuant to their Final Approval Motion, Plaintiff requests
final certification of the settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and final
approval of the proposed class action settlement.
On June 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing in support of the
Final Approval Motion.
On June 30, 2016, a Fairness Hearing was held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 to determine whether the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:1630
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 3 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members and should be
approved by the Court.
The Court has read and considered the Agreement, Fee Brief, Final
Approval Motion, and the objection to the Settlement. All capitalized terms used
herein have the meanings defined herein and/or in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED THAT:
I. The Agreement and all definitions set forth therein are hereby incorporated
with and made part of this Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement
and Judgment (“Final Order and Judgment”).
II. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Lawsuit and over all settling Parties thereto including, without limitation, the
Class Members.
III. CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Lawsuit is
hereby finally certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on
behalf of the following Class Members:
1. The settlement Class or Class Members consists of:
All persons who were called using a dialer without consent on a cellular telephone by Asset Acceptance, LLC or someone acting on behalf of Asset Acceptance, LLC between April 17, 2009 and September 4, 2014.
2. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its parent companies, affiliates or
subsidiaries, and any entities in which any of such companies has a
controlling interest; the judge or magistrate judge to whom the Lawsuit is
assigned; and, any member of those judges’ staffs and immediate
families, as well as persons who validly requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class.
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:1631
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 4 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL APPOINTMENT:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff Ann Fox is the Class Representative
and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart, Abbas Kazerounian of the
Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Todd M. Friedman of the Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman, P.C. are certified as Class Counsel.
V. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary
Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator, Heffler Claims Group, has
complied with the approved notice process as confirmed in its declaration
filed with the Court. The Court finds that the form and method for notifying
the settlement Class Members of the Settlement and its terms and conditions
was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, provided a
means of notice reasonably calculated to apprise the Class Members of the
pendency of the action and the proposed settlement, and thereby satisfied the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) and due process, and constituted the
best notice practicable under the circumstances, and due and sufficient notice
to all Class Members entitled thereto. Specifically, individual notice was
provided to those potential Class Members who are current or former Asset
Acceptance account holders who are identified in Asset Acceptance’s records
as having received a call made using a dialer during the Class Period from
Asset Acceptance or Astra Business Services, Inc. on a telephone number
that Asset Acceptance determined was assigned to a cellular telephone
service at the time of the call; and all other persons were notified by
publication by (1) an insertion of the Publication Notice in People magazine
in an advertisement size of at least 1/3 of a page in two consecutive issues;
(2) sponsored link and banner advertising on the Internet for a duration of
thirty days delivering over 197,000,000 total impressions; and (3) a press
release on PR Newswire’s US1 full-nation English and Hispanic wire
transmission. The Court finds that the notice process was designed to advise
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:1632
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 5 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the settlement Class Members of their rights. The Court finds that the notice
requirements set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act and any other
applicable law have been satisfied. Further, the Court finds that Common
Fund is approved, and the claim process set forth in the Agreement was
followed and that the process was the best practicable procedure under the
circumstances.
VI. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court finds that the Lawsuit satisfies
the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, for settlement purposes. The Court finds that the Settlement of the
Lawsuit, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all
respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of
the settlement Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the
settlement Class Members, the strength of the Plaintiff’s case, the
complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation, the risk and
delay inherent in possible appeals, and the risk of collecting any judgment
obtained on behalf of the class.
VII. SETTLEMENT TERMS: The Agreement, which has been filed with the
Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed Settlement,
are finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with the terms
and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court.
The Settlement Administrator shall conduct all administration of the
Common Fund. The Settlement Administrator shall prepare and issue all
disbursements of the Individual Cash Settlement Amounts from the
Common Fund to Authorized Claimants entitled to such benefits within the
time period specified in the Agreement. Asset Acceptance shall prepare and
issue all of the Individual Debt Forgiveness Settlement Amounts from the
Common Fund to Authorized Claimants entitled to such benefits within the
time period specified in the Agreement. The Court approves deficient
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:1633
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 6 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
claims that were cured within thirty (30) days of the date the deficiency
letters were mailed by the Settlement Administrator. The Court also
approves late claims (which are otherwise valid) that were received by the
Settlement Administrator by June 30, 2016.
VIII. The Court finds that Class Counsel are qualified to represent the settlement
Class. The Court hereby grants Class Counsel’s request for an award of
attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $262,500 to be paid by Asset
Acceptance within the time period set forth in the Agreement, separate and
apart from the Common Fund. The Court finds that the amount of this
award is fair and reasonable in light of the efforts expended by Class
Counsel in prosecuting this Action and the results obtained.
IX. The Court finds that it is appropriate for the Class Representative, Ann Fox,
to be paid a one-time payment of $2,500 from the Cash Component of the
Common Fund, which amount shall include her compensation for the
telephone calls she claims were made to her cell phone without consent as
well as the compensation for instituting, prosecuting and bearing the
laboring oar and risk of this litigation. This shall be the only consideration
paid to the Class Representative.
X. EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS: This Final Order and Judgment applies
to all claims or causes of action settled under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, and shall be fully binding with respect to all Class Members who
did not properly request exclusion. A total of fourteen (14) requests for
exclusion were received. Those persons requesting exclusion are named on
Exhibit A to this Order. The Court hereby excludes these individuals from
the Class and Settlement.
XI. The Class Members were given an opportunity to object to the settlement.
Only one (1) objection was submitted. After consideration of the objection,
the Court hereby overrules the objection.
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:1634
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 7 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
XII. This Order is binding on all Class Members, except those individuals named
on Exhibit A who validly and timely excluded themselves from the Class.
XIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT: The Class
Representative, Class Members, and their successors and assigns are
permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either
individually or as a class, or in any other capacity, any of the Released
Claims against any of the Released Parties, as set forth in the Agreement.
Pursuant to the Release contained in the Agreement, the Released Claims are
released, compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of
these proceedings and this Order. The Released Claims include, without
limitation, any and all liabilities, claims, causes of action, damages, penalties,
costs, attorneys’ fees, losses, or demands, whether known or unknown,
existing or past potential, suspected or unsuspected, which were asserted in
the Action, or could have been asserted in the Action only as it pertains to the
placing or initiating of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice, any and all claims for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, and any and all claims for violation of any laws of
any state that regulate, govern, prohibit or restrict the making, placing or
initiating of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or any
automated process or technology or any artificial or prerecorded voice.
XIV. This document shall constitute a judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Final Judgment in this action is hereby
entered. This action, including all claims asserted herein, is hereby dismissed
with prejudice in all respects.
XV. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendant of
any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding.
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:1635
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 8 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
XVI. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice, the Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
over the Parties and all matters relating to the Action and/or Agreement,
including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation,
enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order and
judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 1, 2016 ___________________________ THE HON. GEORGE H. WU U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:1636
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 9 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:1637
Exhibit F
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 10 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exclusions First Name Last Name
1 Autumn Johnson 2 Ashlea Street 3 Mohammad Alabed 4 Mary Ann Verner 5 Gloria Leonard 6 Chelsea Brown 7 Jennifer Fletcher 8 Justin Melnick 9 Michael Barrett 10 William Jordan 11 Julian Alan Schulman 12 Tracy R Downs 13 Collette Greene 14 Juliet Pablico
Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:1638
Exhibit F
Location Firmwide Billing Rate High
Firmwide Billing Rate Low
Firmwide Billing Rate Med
Partner Billing Rate High
Partner Billing Rate Low
Partner Billing Rate Med
Associate Billing Rate High
Associate Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate Med
NLJ Billing Source
Notes
New Orleans $595.00 $120.00 $320.00 $595.00 $275.00 $375.00 $305.00 $175.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Riverside,
CA
$625.00 $225.00 $390.00 $625.00 $310.00 $435.00 $390.00 $225.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Chicago $835.00 $105.00 $385.00 $835.00 $325.00 $560.00 $460.00 $190.00 $325.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
St. Louis $795.00 $200.00 $480.00 $795.00 $390.00 $553.00 $550.00 $200.00 $373.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Detroit $750.00 $210.00 $313.00 $750.00 $290.00 $363.00 $425.00 $210.00 $234.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Philadelphia $970.00 $235.00 $440.00 $970.00 $320.00 $513.00 $575.00 $235.00 $345.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Detroit $585.00 $285.00 $280.00 $205.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Year Firm Name Average FTE Attorneys
2012 Adams and Reese 267
2012 Best Best & Krieger 191
2012 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
135
2012 Bryan Cave 884
2012 Butzel Long 140
2012 Cozen O'Connor 503
2012 Dickinson Wright 254
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1 888-770-5647
www.alm.com Exhibit G
Washington $1250.00 $210.00 $580.00 $1250.00 $560.00 $700.00 $570.00 $235.00 $460.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Cincinnati $650.00 $130.00 $310.00 $650.00 $180.00 $380.00 $325.00 $130.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
New York $1200.00 $105.00 $635.00 $1200.00 $550.00 $775.00 $760.00 $335.00 $530.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Minneapolis $835.00 $200.00 $410.00 $835.00 $305.00 $525.00 $420.00 $200.00 $275.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Chicago $685.00 $130.00 $415.00 $675.00 $395.00 $505.00 $465.00 $235.00 $305.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
New York $750.00 $215.00 $435.00 $750.00 $330.00 $535.00 $455.00 $215.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Atlanta $565.00 $215.00 $410.00 $565.00 $350.00 $430.00 $395.00 $215.00 $305.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Milwaukee $875.00 $200.00 $495.00 $875.00 $390.00 $570.00 $605.00 $200.00 $370.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Philadelphia $795.00 $200.00 $435.00 $760.00 $340.00 $500.00 $480.00 $200.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Cincinnati $525.00 $150.00 $295.00 $525.00 $205.00 $350.00 $275.00 $150.00 $205.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Dallas $795.00 $230.00 $485.00 $795.00 $395.00 $565.00 $525.00 $235.00 $350.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Newark, NJ $815.00 $285.00 $450.00 $815.00 $395.00 $500.00 $450.00 $285.00 $320.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Rochester,
NY
$625.00 $175.00 $350.00 $625.00 $285.00 $400.00 $350.00 $175.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
2012 Dickstein Shapiro 343
2012 Dinsmore & Shohl 412
2012 DLA Piper 3746
2012 Dorsey & Whitney 531
2012 Dykema Gossett 331
2012 Epstein Becker & Green 275
2012 Fisher & Phillips 237
2012 Foley & Lardner 874
2012 Fox Rothschild 471
2012 Frost Brown Todd 393
2012 Gardere Wynne Sewell 242
2012 Gibbons 200
2012 Harris Beach 189
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 2 888-770-5647
www.alm.com Exhibit G
Syracuse,
NY
$650.00 $175.00 $361.00 $650.00 $235.00 $441.00 $275.00 $175.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Washington $1200.00 $230.00 $625.00 $1200.00 $545.00 $750.00 $655.00 $310.00 $465.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Denver $695.00 $180.00 $360.00 $695.00 $275.00 $420.00 $400.00 $180.00 $268.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Washington $985.00 $200.00 $490.00 $985.00 $315.00 $560.00 $575.00 $200.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
St. Louis $890.00 $185.00 $355.00 $890.00 $240.00 $405.00 $445.00 $185.00 $235.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
New York $950.00 $285.00 $550.00 $950.00 $450.00 $660.00 $600.00 $285.00 $450.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Irvine, CA $760.00 $120.00 $380.00 $760.00 $425.00 $525.00 $420.00 $295.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Kansas City,
MO
$595.00 $175.00 $355.00 $595.00 $285.00 $410.00 $385.00 $205.00 $245.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Phoenix $725.00 $225.00 $470.00 $725.00 $410.00 $520.00 $450.00 $225.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Dallas $1285.00 $265.00 $560.00 $1285.00 $455.00 $655.00 $600.00 $265.00 $400.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Oklahoma
City
$500.00 $165.00 $335.00 $500.00 $250.00 $375.00 $265.00 $165.00 $215.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Cleveland $600.00 $185.00 $380.00 $595.00 $310.00 $440.00 $370.00 $185.00 $270.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Morristown,
NJ
$575.00 $190.00 $300.00 $575.00 $300.00 $385.00 $325.00 $190.00 $255.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
2012 Hiscock & Barclay 165
2012 Hogan Lovells 2253
2012 Holland & Hart 394
2012 Holland & Knight 908
2012 Husch Blackwell 520
2012 Kelley Drye & Warren 303
2012 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
265
2012 Lathrop & Gage 290
2012 Lewis and Roca 183
2012 Locke Lord 540
2012 McAfee & Taft 183
2012 McDonald Hopkins 128
2012 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
286
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 3 888-770-5647
www.alm.com Exhibit G
Atlanta $830.00 $215.00 $455.00 $830.00 $375.00 $550.00 $560.00 $215.00 $395.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Milwaukee $650.00 $210.00 $380.00 $650.00 $245.00 $425.00 $350.00 $210.00 $265.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Baltimore $700.00 $230.00 $405.00 $700.00 $320.00 $460.00 $350.00 $230.00 $300.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Chattanooga,
TN
$630.00 $180.00 $340.00 $630.00 $250.00 $385.00 $285.00 $185.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Columbia,
SC
$850.00 $80.00 $330.00 $850.00 $230.00 $420.00 $370.00 $160.00 $258.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Washington $990.00 $170.00 $550.00 $990.00 $425.00 $665.00 $570.00 $240.00 $435.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Seattle $910.00 $220.00 $485.00 $910.00 $290.00 $560.00 $605.00 $220.00 $365.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Kansas City,
MO
$650.00 $210.00 $350.00 $650.00 $300.00 $390.00 $325.00 $210.00 $260.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Costa Mesa,
CA
$650.00 $200.00 $650.00 $340.00 $425.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Philadelphia $800.00 $225.00 $450.00 $800.00 $335.00 $500.00 $510.00 $225.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
New York $995.00 $125.00 $605.00 $995.00 $785.00 $895.00 $705.00 $295.00 $585.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
San
Francisco
$420.00 $157.00 $299.00 $587.00 $189.00 $361.00 $420.00 $157.00 $260.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Toledo, OH $570.00 $180.00 $375.00 $570.00 $280.00 $390.00 $325.00 $210.00 $255.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
2012 McKenna Long & Aldridge 424
2012 Michael Best & Friedrich 196
2012 Miles & Stockbridge 213
2012 Miller & Martin 169
2012 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
414
2012 Patton Boggs 491
2012 Perkins Coie 747
2012 Polsinelli Shughart 503
2012 Rutan & Tucker 144
2012 Saul Ewing 219
2012 Schulte Roth & Zabel 371
2012 Sedgwick 343
2012 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick
219
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 4 888-770-5647
www.alm.com Exhibit G
Miami $635.00 $190.00 $380.00 $635.00 $250.00 $415.00 $370.00 $190.00 $263.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Portland, OR $655.00 $200.00 $400.00 $655.00 $300.00 $463.00 $435.00 $200.00 $276.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Dallas $649.36 $189.65 $397.00 $649.00 $213.00 $402.00 $385.00 $190.00 $243.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Boston $900.00 $320.00 $570.00 $900.00 $500.00 $670.00 $540.00 $320.00 $430.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Dallas $900.00 $260.00 $530.00 $900.00 $440.00 $595.00 $480.00 $260.00 $365.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
St. Louis $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $330.00 $460.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Cleveland,
OH
$615.00 $195.00 $350.00 $615.00 $265.00 $420.00 $395.00 $195.00 $295.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
Dallas $645.00 $215.00 $410.00 $645.00 $375.00 $475.00 $425.00 $215.00 $320.00 2012 NLJ
Billing
Survey
2012 Shutts & Bowen 212
2012 Stoel Rives 374
2012 Strasburger & Price 212
2012 Sullivan & Worcester 144
2012 Thompson & Knight 291
2012 Thompson Coburn 309
2012 Ulmer & Berne 178
2012 Winstead 258
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 5 888-770-5647
www.alm.com Exhibit G
Location Partner Billing Rate High
Partner Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate High
Associate Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate Average
Partner Billing Rate Average
Firmwide Billing Rate Average
Associate Billing Rate Med
Partner Billing Rate Med
Houston
Memphis $595.00 $250.00 $315.00 $160.00 $228.00 $357.00 $311.00 225 345
Riverside, CA $575.00 $275.00 $375.00 $205.00 $265.00 $417.00 $358.00 240 420
Boston
Minneapolis $625.00 $325.00 $305.00 $230.00
Orlando $575.00 $295.00 $350.00 $180.00 $265.00 $435.00 $377.00 265 395
St. Louis $795.00 $375.00 $540.00 $200.00 $356.00 $565.00 $475.00 360 553
Detroit $700.00 $325.00 $425.00 $225.00 $274.00 $440.00
New York
Tampa $815.00 $320.00 $380.00 $195.00 $262.00 $470.00 $397.00 265 470
Philadelphia $900.00 $305.00 $550.00 $225.00 $330.00 $510.00 $439.00 330 490
Parsippany $960.00 $380.00 $470.00 $235.00 $317.00 $537.00 $447.00 315 525
Detroit $600.00 $325.00 $320.00 $200.00
Washington $1000.00 $540.00 $545.00 $225.00 $435.00 $680.00 $560.00 465 670
Cincinnati $630.00 $150.00 $310.00 $130.00 $217.00 $373.00 $308.00 220 370
New York $1120.00 $530.00 $730.00 $320.00 $508.00 $747.00 $585.00 510 730
Minneapolis $810.00 $295.00 $465.00 $190.00 $294.00 $526.00 $426.00 275 525
Philadelphia $875.00 $375.00 $530.00 $225.00 $365.00 $575.00 $503.00 365 570
Detroit $665.00 $310.00 $395.00 $260.00 $309.00 $482.00 $406.00 305 485
New York $850.00 $350.00 $550.00 $195.00 $341.00 $519.00 $428.00 325 500
New York $730.00 $460.00 $440.00 $275.00 325 525
Atlanta
2011 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto2011 Ford & Harrison
2011 Dykema Gossett2011 Epstein Becker & Green
2011 Dorsey & Whitney2011 Duane Morris
2011 Dinsmore & Shohl2011 DLA Piper
2011 Dickinson Wright2011 Dickstein Shapiro
2011 Cozen O'Connor2011 Day Pitney
2011 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft2011 Carlton Fields
2011 Bryan Cave2011 Butzel Long
2011 Briggs and Morgan2011 Broad and Cassel
2011 Best Best & Krieger2011 Bingham McCutchen
2011 Andrews Kurth2011 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
2011 NLJ Billing SurveyCopyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Fiscal Year
Firm Name
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1
888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G
Philadelphia $725.00 $325.00 $455.00 $190.00 $297.00 $486.00 $413.00 295 483
Cincinnati $515.00 $205.00 $265.00 $150.00 $200.00 $340.00 $296.00 200 340
Dallas $815.00 $380.00 $500.00 $225.00 $325.00 $550.00 $435.00 320 550
Newark $725.00 $400.00 $475.00 $285.00 $380.00 $562.00 $505.00 320 505
Rochester $390.00 $275.00 $260.00 $160.00
Syracuse $750.00 $195.00 $350.00 $150.00 $207.00 $304.00 $269.00 195 265
Buffalo $685.00 $240.00 $420.00 $180.00 $234.00 $378.00 225 360
Washington $895.00 $300.00 $495.00 $175.00 $295.00 $530.00 $445.00 290 520
New York $990.00 $625.00 $695.00 $270.00 $533.00 $828.00 $633.00 540 800
Richmond
St. Louis $850.00 $225.00 $425.00 $175.00 $226.00 $395.00 $341.00 210 390
Charleston, WV $505.00 $255.00 $260.00 $155.00 $208.00 $319.00 $275.00 205 325
White Plains
New York $1080.00 $685.00 $705.00 $310.00 $519.00 $831.00 $661.00 525 835
New York $925.00 $480.00 $595.00 $275.00 $425.00 $634.00 $474.00 420 645
Irvine $735.00 $415.00 $495.00 $295.00 $346.00 $525.00 $439.00 345 500
Seattle $645.00 $340.00 $360.00 $225.00 $295.00 $460.00 $405.00 285 450
New York
Kansas City, MO $735.00 $275.00 $410.00 $205.00 $246.00 $390.00 $337.00 245 390
St. Louis $470.00 $270.00 $320.00 $150.00 $275.00
Roseland, NJ $895.00 $435.00 $660.00 $250.00 $400.00 $613.00 $478.00 390 595
Los Angeles $850.00 $540.00 $550.00 $215.00 $464.00 $676.00 $602.00 500 670
Morristown, NJ $575.00 $295.00 $325.00 $185.00 $250.00 $350.00 $245.00 235 375
Atlanta $800.00 $405.00 $510.00 $215.00 $374.00 $562.00 $472.00 375 540
Milwaukee $650.00 $245.00 $310.00 $205.00 $241.00 $413.00 $321.00
Chattanooga $610.00 $240.00 $275.00 $185.00 $215.00 $369.00 $313.00 215 375
Columbia, SC $850.00 $220.00 $350.00 $170.00 $255.00 $412.00 $318.00 250 400
Columbia, SC $550.00 $235.00 $265.00 $170.00
2011 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough2011 Nexsen Pruet
2011 Michael Best & Friedrich 2011 Miller & Martin
2011 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter2011 McKenna Long & Aldridge
2011 Lowenstein Sandler2011 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
2011 Lathrop & Gage2011 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh
2011 Lane Powell2011 Latham & Watkins
2011 Kelley Drye & Warren2011 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
2011 Jackson Lewis2011 Kaye Scholer
2011 Husch Blackwell2011 Jackson Kelly
2011 Hughes Hubbard & Reed2011 Hunton & Williams
2011 Hodgson Russ2011 Holland & Knight
2011 Harris Beach2011 Hiscock & Barclay
2011 Gardere Wynne Sewell2011 Gibbons
2011 Fox Rothschild2011 Frost Brown Todd
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 2
888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G
San Francisco
Washington $990.00 $410.00 $570.00 $240.00 $410.00 $659.00 $546.00 415 645
Philadelphia $825.00 $380.00 $460.00 $235.00 $344.00 $557.00
Seattle $875.00 $285.00 $590.00 $215.00 $368.00 $550.00 $462.00 545
New Orleans $465.00 $190.00 $245.00 $150.00 $189.00 $281.00 $236.00 190 275
Kansas City, MO $630.00 $275.00 $335.00 $205.00
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia $750.00 $350.00 $495.00 $245.00 $326.00 $502.00 $431.00 300 490
New York $935.00 $770.00 $675.00 $285.00 $608.00 $846.00 $615.00 580 840
San Francisco
Chicago $790.00 $355.00 $505.00 $225.00 $341.00 $528.00 $437.00 340 525
Los Angeles $860.00 $505.00 $635.00 $275.00
Toledo $555.00 $265.00 $320.00 $195.00 $252.00 $364.00 $345.00 250 375
Washington
Portland, OR $625.00 $320.00 $500.00 $195.00 $292.00 $451.00 $385.00 275 450
Dallas $630.00 $211.00 $332.00 $199.00 $250.00 $395.00 $363.00 238 397
Dallas $875.00 $440.00 $460.00 $250.00 $358.00 $594.00 $520.00 350 585
St. Louis $750.00 $315.00 $445.00 $195.00
Cleveland $585.00 $280.00 $390.00 $200.00 $260.00 $405.00 $316.00
Chicago $735.00 $295.00 $520.00 $265.00 $345.00 $500.00 $445.00 335 490
Philadelphia
Washington
Washington
Dallas $680.00 $365.00 $410.00 $215.00 $301.00 $477.00 $406.00
Chicago $1130.00 $580.00 $600.00 $350.00 $434.00 $713.00 $557.00 413 700
Louisville $500.00 $240.00 $275.00 $180.00 $220.00 $325.00 $312.00 235 375
2011 Winston & Strawn2011 Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
2011 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr2011 Winstead
2011 White and Williams2011 Wiley Rein
2011 Ulmer & Berne2011 Vedder Price
2011 Thompson & Knight2011 Thompson Coburn
2011 Stoel Rives2011 Strasburger & Price
2011 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick2011 Steptoe & Johnson LLP
2011 Seyfarth Shaw2011 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
2011 Schulte Roth & Zabel2011 Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold
2011 Reed Smith2011 Saul Ewing
2011 Phelps Dunbar2011 Polsinelli Shughart
2011 Pepper Hamilton2011 Perkins Coie
2011 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe2011 Patton Boggs
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 3
888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G
Firmwide Billing Rate Med
Annual billable hours requirement
Variation on the billable hour
Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained through variations on the billable hour (%)
Firm Billing Alternatives Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained via alternative billing (%)
NLJ Billing Source
78 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
310 5 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
360 25 7 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
5 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
90 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
350 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
460 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
24 8 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
27 25 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
400 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
410 21 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 46 7 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
550 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
295 49 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
615 95 4 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
405 5 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
500 5 6 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
400 84 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
425 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
24 9 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
Notes
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 4
888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G
420 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
295 74 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 15 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 20 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
240 46 21 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
22 4 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
455 9 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
615 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
12 7 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
340 95 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
275 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
95 13 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
665 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
400 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
415 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
425 50 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
340 80 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
480 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
620 82 12 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
275 15 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
455 20 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
310 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
325 10 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
310 5 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 5
888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G
30 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
540 15 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
10 17 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
225 2 2 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
15 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
5 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 40 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
630 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
16 1 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
425 83 17 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
15 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
365 10 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
16 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
395 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
362 80 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
520 30 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
45 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
445 10 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
35 4 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
50 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
10 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
550 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
350 30 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 6
888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G
2013 NLJ Billing Survey
Source:National Law Journal
Category: National Law Journal
The National Law Journal's survey of billing rates of the largest U.S. law firms provides the high, low and average rates for partners and associates.
Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
Year Firm Name Location Average FTE Attorneys
Partner Billing Rate High
Partner Billing Rate Low
Partner Billing Rate Avg
Associate Billing Rate High
Associate Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate Avg
Counsel Avg Counsel Low Counsel High NLJ Billing Source Notes
2013 Adams and Reese New Orleans, LA
277 $650.00 $275.00 $390.00 $320.00 $200.00 $260.00 $460.00 $405.00 $500.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Akerman Senterfitt Miami, FL 502 $610.00 $350.00 $480.00 $425.00 $175.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Washington, DC
806 $1220.00 $615.00 $785.00 $660.00 $365.00 $525.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis
Los Angeles, CA
187 $680.00 $525.00 $615.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Alston & Bird Atlanta, GA 805 $875.00 $495.00 $675.00 $575.00 $280.00 $425.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Andrews Kurth Houston, TX 348 $1090.00 $745.00 $890.00 $1090.00 $265.00 $670.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Archer & Greiner Haddonfield, NJ
208 $460.00 $330.00 $400.00 $295.00 $200.00 $245.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Arent Fox Washington, DC
323 $860.00 $500.00 $650.00 $595.00 $275.00 $395.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Arnall Golden Gregory Atlanta, GA 139 $520.00 $430.00 $490.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Arnold & Porter Washington, DC
748 $950.00 $670.00 $815.00 $610.00 $345.00 $500.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Arnstein & Lehr Chicago, IL 141 $595.00 $350.00 $465.00 $350.00 $175.00 $250.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 2 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Baker & Hostetler Cleveland, OH
810 $685.00 $250.00 $450.00 $455.00 $120.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Baker & McKenzie Chicago, IL 4004 $1130.00 $260.00 $755.00 $925.00 $100.00 $395.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz
Memphis, Tenn.
587 $495.00 $340.00 $400.00 $465.00 $245.00 $295.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Ballard Spahr Philadelphia, PA
479 $650.00 $395.00 $475.00 $495.00 $235.00 $315.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Barnes & Thornburg Indianapolis, IN
487 $580.00 $330.00 $480.00 $370.00 $260.00 $320.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
Cleveland, OH
150 $635.00 $360.00 $455.00 $475.00 $155.00 $280.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Best Best & Krieger Riverside, CA 175 $655.00 $340.00 $455.00 $385.00 $235.00 $280.00 $435.00 $325.00 $565.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Bingham McCutchen Boston, MA 900 $1080.00 $220.00 $795.00 $605.00 $185.00 $450.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Blank Rome Philadelphia, PA
471 $940.00 $445.00 $640.00 $565.00 $175.00 $350.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Bond, Schoeneck & King Syracuse, NY 194 $520.00 $240.00 $355.00 $285.00 $160.00 $225.00 $385.00 $295.00 $485.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Bowles Rice Charleston, WV
128 $285.00 $165.00 $230.00 $180.00 $115.00 $135.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Bracewell & Giuliani Houston, TX 432 $1125.00 $575.00 $760.00 $700.00 $275.00 $440.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 3 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
Birmingham, AL
396 $605.00 $325.00 $430.00 $340.00 $200.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Broad and Cassel Orlando, FL 160 $465.00 $295.00 $380.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Denver, CO 216 $700.00 $310.00 $520.00 $345.00 $265.00 $305.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Bryan Cave St. Louis, MO 990 $860.00 $405.00 $590.00 $570.00 $210.00 $405.00 $600.00 $320.00 $810.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles, CA
134 $695.00 $475.00 $605.00 $375.00 $350.00 $365.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Burr & Forman Birmingham, AL
249 $525.00 $240.00 $355.00 $350.00 $200.00 $245.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Butzel Long Bloomfield Hills, MI
125 $535.00 $350.00 $440.00 $415.00 $215.00 $305.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
New York, NY
435 $1050.00 $800.00 $930.00 $750.00 $395.00 $605.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Carlton Fields Tampa, FL 276 $840.00 $455.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Connell Foley Roseland, NJ 121 $575.00 $275.00 $425.00 $325.00 $200.00 $265.00 $450.00 $275.00 $625.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Cooley Palo Alto, CA 632 $990.00 $660.00 $820.00 $630.00 $160.00 $525.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Covington & Burling Washington, DC
738 $890.00 $605.00 $780.00 $565.00 $320.00 $415.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 4 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Cox Smith Matthews San Antonio, TX
117 $595.00 $395.00 $505.00 $485.00 $230.00 $320.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Cozen O’Connor Philadelphia, PA
509 $1050.00 $300.00 $555.00 $590.00 $235.00 $345.00 $560.00 $360.00 $790.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
New York, NY
322 $860.00 $730.00 $800.00 $785.00 $345.00 $480.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Davis Graham & Stubbs Denver, CO 146 $595.00 $350.00 $435.00 $340.00 $150.00 $245.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York, NY
787 $985.00 $850.00 $975.00 $975.00 $130.00 $615.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Debevoise & Plimpton New York, NY
615 $1075.00 $955.00 $1055.00 $760.00 $120.00 $490.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Dechert New York, NY
803 $1095.00 $670.00 $900.00 $735.00 $395.00 $530.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Dentons $1050.00 $345.00 $700.00 $685.00 $210.00 $425.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Location and Average FTE Attorneys' data not available due to merger in 2013. Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Dickstein Shapiro Washington, DC
308 $1250.00 $590.00 $750.00 $585.00 $310.00 $475.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Dinsmore & Shohl Cincinnati, OH
422 $850.00 $250.00 $400.00 $350.00 $140.00 $235.00 $345.00 $140.00 $615.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 DLA Piper New York, NY
4036 $1025.00 $450.00 $765.00 $750.00 $250.00 $510.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Dorsey & Whitney Minneapolis, MN
517 $585.00 $340.00 $435.00 $510.00 $215.00 $315.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 5 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Duane Morris Philadelphia, PA
613 $710.00 $430.00 $620.00 $490.00 $295.00 $370.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Edwards Wildman Palmer Boston, MA 572 $765.00 $210.00 $535.00 $415.00 $245.00 $325.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Faegre Baker Daniels Minneapolis, MN
683 $580.00 $355.00 $455.00 $315.00 $110.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Foley & Lardner Milwaukee, WI
872 $860.00 $405.00 $600.00 $470.00 $210.00 $335.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Foley Hoag Boston, MA 223 $775.00 $590.00 $670.00 $385.00 $290.00 $325.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Fox Rothschild Philadelphia, PA
490 $750.00 $335.00 $530.00 $500.00 $245.00 $310.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
New York, NY
476 $1100.00 $930.00 $1000.00 $760.00 $375.00 $595.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Gardere Wynne Sewell Dallas, TX 223 $775.00 $430.00 $635.00 $445.00 $235.00 $310.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Gibbons Newark, NJ 210 $865.00 $440.00 $560.00 $475.00 $295.00 $360.00 $490.00 $385.00 $750.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher New York, NY
1086 $1800.00 $765.00 $980.00 $930.00 $175.00 $590.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Gordon & Rees San Francisco, CA
457 $475.00 $375.00 $420.00 $325.00 $285.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Greenberg Traurig New York, NY
1699 $955.00 $360.00 $655.00 $595.00 $200.00 $390.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 6 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Harris Beach Rochester, NY
204 $600.00 $295.00 $385.00 $285.00 $175.00 $260.00 $385.00 $175.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Harter Secrest & Emery Rochester, NY
136 $465.00 $300.00 $385.00 $290.00 $195.00 $250.00 $325.00 $260.00 $380.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Haynes and Boone Dallas, TX 489 $1020.00 $450.00 $670.00 $580.00 $310.00 $405.00 $510.00 $220.00 $840.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Hogan Lovells Washington, DC
2280 $1000.00 $705.00 $835.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Holland & Hart Denver, CO 409 $725.00 $295.00 $435.00 $415.00 $165.00 $275.00 $360.00 $185.00 $595.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Holland & Knight Washington, DC
926 $1035.00 $335.00 $595.00 $575.00 $210.00 $325.00 $580.00 $480.00 $775.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn
Detroit, MI 227 $560.00 $290.00 $390.00 $225.00 $205.00 $220.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Hughes Hubbard & Reed New York, NY
344 $995.00 $725.00 $890.00 $675.00 $365.00 $555.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Husch Blackwell St. Louis, MO 514 $925.00 $235.00 $430.00 $465.00 $190.00 $260.00 $395.00 $230.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Ice Miller Indianapolis, IN
301 $530.00 $335.00 $450.00 $305.00 $245.00 $270.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Irell & Manella Los Angeles, CA
164 $975.00 $800.00 $890.00 $750.00 $395.00 $535.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Jackson Kelly Charleston, WV
200 $370.00 $175.00 $280.00 $265.00 $145.00 $195.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 7 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Jackson Lewis Los Angeles, CA
690 $440.00 $310.00 $380.00 $315.00 $275.00 $290.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Jackson Walker Dallas, TX 328 $550.00 $450.00 $500.00 $385.00 $255.00 $335.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell
Los Angeles, CA
126 $875.00 $560.00 $690.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Jenner & Block Chicago, IL 432 $925.00 $565.00 $745.00 $550.00 $380.00 $465.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Jones Day New York, NY
2363 $975.00 $445.00 $745.00 $775.00 $205.00 $435.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Jones Walker New Orleans, LA
361 $425.00 $275.00 $385.00 $240.00 $200.00 $225.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
New York, NY
365 $1195.00 $600.00 $835.00 $625.00 $200.00 $340.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Katten Muchin Rosenman Chicago, IL 586 $745.00 $500.00 $615.00 $595.00 $340.00 $455.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Kaye Scholer New York, NY
414 $1080.00 $715.00 $860.00 $680.00 $320.00 $510.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Kelley Drye & Warren New York, NY
298 $815.00 $435.00 $640.00 $600.00 $305.00 $430.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Atlanta, GA 552 $775.00 $400.00 $550.00 $475.00 $315.00 $385.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 King & Spalding Atlanta, GA 838 $995.00 $545.00 $775.00 $735.00 $125.00 $460.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 8 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago, IL 1517 $995.00 $590.00 $825.00 $715.00 $235.00 $540.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear
Irvine, CA 268 $785.00 $440.00 $555.00 $535.00 $295.00 $345.00 $685.00 $685.00 $685.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
New York, NY
320 $1025.00 $740.00 $845.00 $750.00 $400.00 $590.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Lane Powell Seattle, WA 172 $465.00 $365.00 $430.00 $330.00 $225.00 $265.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Latham & Watkins New York, NY
2033 $1110.00 $895.00 $990.00 $725.00 $465.00 $605.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Lathrop & Gage Kansas City, MO
286 $700.00 $285.00 $420.00 $375.00 $195.00 $250.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Leonard, Street and Deinard Minneapolis, MN
184 $490.00 $295.00 $405.00 $305.00 $265.00 $285.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Lewis Roca Rothgerber $695.00 $380.00 $505.00 $525.00 $205.00 $400.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Location and Average FTE Attorneys' data not available due to merger in 2013. Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Lindquist & Vennum Minneapolis, MN
181 $600.00 $460.00 $520.00 $470.00 $275.00 $365.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Littler Mendelson San Francisco, CA
909 $615.00 $395.00 $550.00 $420.00 $245.00 $290.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Lowenstein Sandler Roseland, NJ 254 $755.00 $510.00 $615.00 $650.00 $260.00 $360.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Los Angeles, CA
325 $795.00 $640.00 $740.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 9 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 McCarter & English Newark, NJ 373 $625.00 $450.00 $530.00 $370.00 $220.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 McDermott Will & Emery Chicago, IL 1024 $835.00 $525.00 $710.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
Morristown, NJ
288 $505.00 $325.00 $440.00 $325.00 $200.00 $295.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 McGuireWoods Richmond, VA
941 $725.00 $450.00 $595.00 $525.00 $285.00 $360.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 McKenna Long & Aldridge Atlanta, GA 509 $650.00 $480.00 $530.00 $425.00 $375.00 $395.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Michael Best & Friedrich Milwaukee, WI
198 $650.00 $260.00 $445.00 $350.00 $190.00 $275.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Miles & Stockbridge Baltimore, MD
207 $725.00 $330.00 $470.00 $375.00 $230.00 $285.00 $425.00 $215.00 $675.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Miller & Martin Chattanooga, TN
133 $585.00 $245.00 $385.00 $270.00 $180.00 $215.00 $355.00 $210.00 $440.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Philadelphia, PA
1334 $765.00 $430.00 $620.00 $585.00 $270.00 $390.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Morris, Manning & Martin Atlanta, GA 142 $575.00 $400.00 $480.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Morrison & Foerster San Francisco, CA
1010 $1195.00 $595.00 $865.00 $725.00 $230.00 $525.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Nixon Peabody Boston, MA 612 $850.00 $295.00 $520.00 $550.00 $180.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 10 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Norton Rose Fulbright $900.00 $525.00 $775.00 $515.00 $300.00 $400.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Location and Average FTE Attorneys' data not available due to merger in 2013. Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Nutter McClennen & Fish Boston, MA 135 $715.00 $470.00 $575.00 $460.00 $295.00 $375.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 O’Melveny & Myers Los Angeles, CA
738 $950.00 $615.00 $715.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
San Francisco, CA
977 $945.00 $305.00 $625.00 $675.00 $170.00 $310.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
Charlotte, NC 178 $500.00 $425.00 $450.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Patton Boggs Washington, DC
485 $780.00 $490.00 $665.00 $475.00 $325.00 $405.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Paul Hastings New York, NY
899 $900.00 $750.00 $815.00 $755.00 $335.00 $540.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
New York, NY
803 $1120.00 $760.00 $1040.00 $760.00 $250.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Pepper Hamilton Philadelphia, PA
493 $850.00 $475.00 $630.00 $460.00 $245.00 $360.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Perkins Coie Seattle, WA 823 $940.00 $320.00 $600.00 $595.00 $215.00 $405.00 $565.00 $270.00 $790.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Washington, DC
609 $1070.00 $615.00 $865.00 $860.00 $375.00 $520.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Polsinelli Kansas City, MO
573 $750.00 $320.00 $410.00 $340.00 $220.00 $265.00 $370.00 $300.00 $425.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 11 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Proskauer Rose New York, NY
746 $950.00 $725.00 $880.00 $675.00 $295.00 $465.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Quarles & Brady Milwaukee, WI
413 $600.00 $350.00 $470.00 $600.00 $210.00 $335.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
New York, NY
697 $1075.00 $810.00 $915.00 $675.00 $320.00 $410.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Reed Smith Pittsburgh, PA
1468 $945.00 $545.00 $710.00 $530.00 $295.00 $420.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Richards, Layton & Finger Wilmington, DE
138 $850.00 $475.00 $660.00 $450.00 $250.00 $350.00 $465.00 $450.00 $475.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti
Morristown, NJ
151 $495.00 $430.00 $455.00 $295.00 $210.00 $250.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Robinson & Cole Hartford, CT 209 $490.00 $285.00 $410.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Rutan & Tucker Costa Mesa, CA
139 $675.00 $345.00 $490.00 $500.00 $230.00 $320.00 $490.00 $435.00 $575.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Saul Ewing Philadelphia, PA
226 $850.00 $365.00 $530.00 $575.00 $225.00 $340.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Sedgwick San Francisco, CA
347 $615.00 $305.00 $425.00 $475.00 $250.00 $325.00 $450.00 $350.00 $660.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Seward & Kissel New York, NY
152 $850.00 $625.00 $735.00 $600.00 $290.00 $400.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Seyfarth Shaw Chicago, IL 753 $860.00 $375.00 $610.00 $505.00 $225.00 $365.00 $470.00 $245.00 $800.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 12 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
Los Angeles, CA
521 $875.00 $490.00 $685.00 $535.00 $275.00 $415.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick Toledo, OH 226 $585.00 $295.00 $405.00 $335.00 $175.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Shutts & Bowen Miami, FL 221 $660.00 $250.00 $430.00 $345.00 $195.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
New York, NY
1735 $1150.00 $845.00 $1035.00 $845.00 $340.00 $620.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Snell & Wilmer Phoenix, AZ 422 $695.00 $295.00 $495.00 $420.00 $185.00 $280.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Squire Sanders Cleveland, OH
1257 $950.00 $350.00 $655.00 $530.00 $250.00 $355.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Stevens & Lee Reading, PA 167 $800.00 $525.00 $625.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Stinson Morrison Hecker Kansas City, MO
280 $695.00 $290.00 $475.00 $650.00 $185.00 $280.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Stoel Rives Portland, OR 371 $690.00 $320.00 $475.00 $425.00 $190.00 $280.00 $410.00 $320.00 $550.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Strasburger & Price Dallas, TX 208 $770.00 $225.00 $420.00 $450.00 $215.00 $260.00 $445.00 $225.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Cincinnati, OH
303 $535.00 $285.00 $415.00 $475.00 $200.00 $285.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Thompson & Knight Dallas, TX 281 $740.00 $425.00 $535.00 $610.00 $240.00 $370.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 13 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Thompson Coburn St. Louis, MO 305 $510.00 $330.00 $440.00 $350.00 $220.00 $270.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Troutman Sanders Atlanta, GA 575 $975.00 $400.00 $620.00 $570.00 $245.00 $340.00 $510.00 $325.00 $675.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Ulmer & Berne Cleveland, OH
178 $415.00 $315.00 $380.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Varnum Grand Rapids, MI
134 $465.00 $290.00 $390.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Venable Washington, DC
501 $1075.00 $470.00 $660.00 $575.00 $295.00 $430.00 $565.00 $435.00 $810.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Vinson & Elkins Houston, TX 677 $770.00 $475.00 $600.00 $565.00 $275.00 $390.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis
Nashville, TN 165 $600.00 $350.00 $460.00 $335.00 $190.00 $245.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Weil, Gotshal & Manges New York, NY
1201 $1075.00 $625.00 $930.00 $790.00 $300.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 White & Case New York, NY
1900 $1050.00 $700.00 $875.00 $1050.00 $220.00 $525.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Wiley Rein Washington, DC
272 $950.00 $550.00 $665.00 $535.00 $320.00 $445.00 $580.00 $380.00 $800.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Williams Mullen Richmond, VA
231 $410.00 $360.00 $385.00 $350.00 $260.00 $295.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Willkie Farr & Gallagher New York, NY
540 $1090.00 $790.00 $950.00 $790.00 $350.00 $580.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 14 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H
2013 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
Washington, DC
961 $1250.00 $735.00 $905.00 $695.00 $75.00 $290.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Winston & Strawn Chicago, IL 842 $995.00 $650.00 $800.00 $590.00 $425.00 $520.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Wolff & Samson West Orange, NJ
129 $450.00 $325.00 $400.00 $450.00 $225.00 $340.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
2013 Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs Louisville, KY 165 $500.00 $280.00 $418.00 National Law Journal, December 2013
Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.
Copyright 2013 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 15 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Exhibit H