Clayton Appeal Brief

No.
2-15-0326
IN THE APPELLATECOURTOF ILLINOIS

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHUAN FAULEY, SADON, INC.,
SANDY ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCIATES,
INC., DEBAUN DEVELOPMENT, INC. and
CHRISTOPHER LOWE HICKLIN DC PLC,
Individually, and as the representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons,
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of

Lake County
Case No. 14 CH 1518
)
)
Plaintiff-Appellants,
vs.
)
)
)
METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE
Judge Luis A. Berrones, Presiding
COMPANY, STORICK GROUP CO., THE

STORICK GROUP, SCOTT R. STORICK
and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendant-Appellees.
)
)
NOTICEOF FILING
TO:
Please See
Attached Service List.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June l1, 2015 there was mailed to be filed with Clerk of
Appellate Court for the Second District of Illinois, Objector, Judd Clayton's Appellate Brief, a
copy of which is hereby served upon you.
the
ROACH, JOHNSTON & THUT
By:
C.
Jeffrey Thut
Atty. No. 6188219

516 North Milwaukee Ave.
Libertyville, Illinois 60048
(847) 549-0600
Affidavit of Service
Under penalties provided by law, pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned certifies that they served this Notice upon each of the parties as shown
above, from Libertyville,Illinois before the hour of 5:00 p.m. on June l1, 2015.
SERVICE LIST
Shaun Fauley, Sabon, Inc., et al. v. MetropolitanLife Insurance Co.,
et al.
APPELLATECOURTNO. 2-15-0236
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Lake County No. 14 CH 1518
Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellees, Shaun Fauley, Sabon, Inc., Sandy Rothschild & Assoc.
DeBaun Development, Inc. and Christopher Lowe Hicldin, DC PLC
Brian J. Wanca
David Oppenheim
Ross M. Good
Anderson & Wanca
Algonquin Road, Suite 760

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
3701
Ph: (847) 368-1500

Fax: (847) 368-1501
Counsel
for Objector/AppellantAustin Distributing
Kirk A. Kennedy
6855 Colfax Drive
Dallas, Texas 75231
713-583-7069
E-mail: kkennedy bticlaims.com
Fax:
Counsel for Objector/AppellantAustin Distributing

Robert J. Long
Daniels, Long and Pinsel, LLC
19 North County Street
Waukegan, IL 60085
Fax: 847-406-4422
Email: rlong@dlplawyers, com
Eric Samore
Warren Wilkosz
Smith Amundsen, LLC
150 N.
Michigan Ave., Suite 3300
Chicago,
Fax:
IL 60601
312-894-3210
Email: esamore@salawus.com
Howard Poznanski
4800 North Federa; Highway, Suite 208A
Boca Raton, FL 33431
\Fax: 561-417-9422
Email: howardpoznanski@bellosouth.net
Frank A. Zacherl
Shutts & Bowen, LLP
201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33131
Ph: (305) 358-6300
Fax: (305) 381-9982
Email: fzacherl shutts.com
No.
2-15
0236
IN THE APPELLATECOURTOF ILLINIS


vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Lake County
Case
No.
14
CH 1518
)
)
METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE

and JOHN DOES 1-10,
)
)
BRIEF OF OBJECTOR/APPELLANT,
JUDD CLAYTON,JR.
Submitted by:
C. Jeffrey Thut
Attorney No. 6188219
516 North Milwaukee Avenue

(847) 549-0600
POINTSAND AUTHORITIES
I.
THE CLASS NOTICE VIOLATED THE CLASS MEMBERS'

CONSTITUTIONALDUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE IT WAS DEFECTIVE
AND NOT THE BEST NOTICE PRACTICABLE.
Miner
87
Gillette Co.
Ill.2d 7,
Frank
71
v.
Ill.
14
(Ill. 1981).......................................................................................12
v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America

2d 583, 593, (Ill. 1978)...............................................................................12
Schroeder v. City of New York

371 U.S. 208 (1962)............................................................................12
Mullanev. Central HanoverBank & Trust

339 U.S. 306
Co.
(1950)............................................................................12
Eisen v Carlisle & Jacquelin

.
417 U.S. 156
1974..........................................................................12,13
Hansberry v Lee
311 U.S. 32
A.
(1940).............................................................................13
The Publication Notice Failed To Inform Potential Class Members Of Their

Opt-OutRights And Procedures In Direct ContraventionOf Illinois Law.
Miner
87
Waters
111
B.
v.
Gillette Co.
14 (1981)........................................................................14
Ill.2d 7,
v.
Chicago
Ill. App. 3d
51, 56 (1st
1982)...........................................14
Dist.
The Notice Was Not The "Best Practicable" Because It Failed To Provide
Direct Access To Court Documents On A SettlementWebsite.
Phillips Petroleum
472 U.S. 797,
Co. v. Shutts
811-12 (1985)............................................................14,17
Mullanev. Central Hanover Bank & Trust

339 U.S. at
Schulken v.
Co.
314-315..................................................................14
Wash.
2013 U.S. Dist.
Mut. Bank
LEXIS 442
(N.D.
Cal.2013)....................................14
Gooch Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am.

672 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2012).......................................................14
Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp.

356 F.3d 781, 786 (7th
Cir. 2004).................................................14
Fox v. NorthwestIns. Brokers, Inc.

113
Ill.App.3 255, 258
Waters
95
v.
City
(1st Dist.
1983)...........................................14
of Chicago
Ill.App.3d 919,
(1st Dist.
1981)................................................14
GMAC Mortgage Corp. of PA. v. Stapleton

236 Ill.App.3d 486, 492 (1st Dist. 1992)..........................................16
USA Today
236
Ill.App.3d at 492.................................................................16
Carrao
118
H.
Health Care Service Corp.
Ill.App.3d 417, 429
Frank
71
v.
v.
Teachers
Ill.2d 583,
593
(1st Dist.
1983)..........................................17
Insurance & AnnuityAssociation of America

(Ill. 1978).........................................................17
REQUIRING THE NATIONWIDE CLASS MEMBERS TO APPEAR AT THE

FAIRNESS HEARING IN ORDER TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
VIOLATED THEIR CONSTITUTIONALDUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE IT
UNREASONABLYDEPRIVED CLASS MEMBERS OF AN OPPORTUNITYTO
BE HEARD.
Phillips Petroleum
Co. v. Schutts
472 U.S. 797, 811-12
(1985).................................................................18
Litwin v. iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC

226, Cal. App. 4th 877, 884 (Cal.App. 2d Dist.
2014).................................18
v. IIealth Care Service Corp.

Ill.App.3d 417 (1st Dist. 1983)........................................................18
Carrao
118
Vought v. Bank of Am.

901 F. Supp.2d 1071, 1093 (C.D. Ill.
2012)..............................................19
Freebird, Inc. v. Merit Energy Co.

No. 10-1154-KHV, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173075, at *18-*19
(D.
Kan. Dec.
6,
2012).......................................................................19
v. Lithia Motors
No. C11-859RAJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3846, at *17
(W.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2012)...............................................................19
McClintic
In Re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litig.

654
F.3d 242, 266 (2d Cir.
2011).........................................................20
In Re Literary Works
654 F.3d at 258,
C.
Galloway
v.
2012 U.S. Dist.
HI.
266........................................................................20
Kan. City Landsmen, LLC

LEXIS 147148, *16 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2012......................20
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSINGTO ALLOW THE OBJECTOR'S

DISCOVERYOF THE TIME RECORDS OF ANDERSON& WANCA AND THE
SETTLEMENTAGREEMENTENTEREDINTO BETWEENBRIAN WANCA
AND ANDERSON& WANCA IN THE OLD NATIONAL BANK FRAUDULENT
TRANSFERCASE.
A.
The Trial Court Erred In Denying Objector's Acces's To Time Records

To Verify Lodestar Calculations.
Old NationalBank v. Wanca
Cook County Circuit Court No.
14
CH 6229................................21
Brundridge v. Glendale Federal Bank

168
Ill.2d 235 (1995)...............................................................21
Americana Art China Co. v. Fox Fire Printing & Packaging

743 F.3d 243, (7th Circuit 2014)................................................22
Hensley
461 U.S.
B.
v.
Eckerhart
424, 103 Supreme Court 1933 (1983)..............................22
The Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Order The Disclosure Of

The Settlement Agreement In Old NationalBank v. Anderson & Wanca,
et al., Cook County No. 14 CH 6229
Creative Montessori Learning Centers v. Ashford Gear, LLC
662 F.2d 913 (7th Cir. 2011)....................................................22
Eubanks v. Pella Corp.
753 F. 3d 718 (7th Cir.
2014)....................................................23
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPROVING A SETTLEMENTTHAT

VIOLATED ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE
PUBLICATION NOTICE FAILED TO DESCRIBE OBJECTORS'OPT-OUTRIGHTS
AND BECAUSE CLASS NOTICE WAS NOTTHE BEST PRACTICABLE.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPROVING A SETTLEMENTTHAT
VIOLATED ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE IT
REQUIRED OBJECTORS FROM A NATIONWIDE CLASS TO ATTEND THE
FAIRNESS HEARING.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSINGTO ALLOW OBJECTOR'S DISCOVERY OF THE TIME RECORDS OF ANDERSON & WANCA AND THE
SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT ENTEREDINTO IN THE CASE OF OLD NATIONAL
BANK v. WANCA, ET AL., CASE NO. 14 CH 06229, CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY,ILLINOIS.
JURISDICTION
This
1574-79).
6,
is
an appeal
of
final approval order entered by
the
trial court on March
A timely notice of appeal was filed by Objector-Appellant Judd Clayton,
2015 and filed
an
amended notice of appeal on March
16,
6,
2015. (C.
Jr. on
March
2015. (C.1583-87). Jurisdiction
is
properly vested in this Court pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303.
STATUTESINVOLVED
735 ILCS 5/2-803
Sec.2-803. Notice in class cases. Upon a determination that an action may be maintained
a class
action, or at any time during the conduct of the action, the court in its
discretion may order such notice that it deems necessary to protect the interests of the
class and the parties.
as
An order entered under subsection (a) of Section 2-802 of this Act [735 ILCS 5/1-802],
determining that an action may be maintained as a class action, may be conditioned upon
the giving of such notice as the court deems appropriate.
Illinois Const. Art. I,
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

denied the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Const. Amend.
Due Process Clause
XIV,
without due process of law nor
be
All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
STANDARDOF REVIEW
Courts apply
due process
de
novo standard
of review for appeals involving violations of procedural
rights. Girot v. Keith, 212 Ill. 2d 372, 379, 818 N.E.2d 1232 (2004); see In re Online
DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir. Cal. 2015) ("We review 'de novo'
whether notice
of a proposed settlement satisfies
due process.").
STATEMENTOF FACTS
A.
Plaintiffs File and
Settle
$23
Million TCPA Nationwide Class Action in Two
Days.
July 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed
On
class
action complaint against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, Storick Group Co., the Storick Group Corporation, Scott R. Storick and
John Does 1-10. (C.1-9). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants sent facsimiles
in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
$500 in damages for each violation. (C.1-2,8).

(C.1319), the complaint sought over $1.4
Two days after
without proper notice
47 U.S.C. 227, seeking
With over 2.8 million known class members
billion in
damages.
filing their complaint, plaintiffs filed
Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement. (C. 20-22). The settlement agreement ("Settlement") created
of $23,000,000
that fund,
to be paid by
fund
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"). (C.26). From
plaintiffs' attorneys would
receive $15,000
for incentive awards,
be
paid $7,666,666.67 in fees,
and the settlement
class
representatives would
administrator would be paid notice and
administrative costs. (C.30). From whatever remained in the fund, the nationwide class members
could submit claims and receive: (1) $150 to $250 per fax up to
the faxes
10
10
faxes (claimant must attach
they received from defendants); (2) pro rata share up to $100 per fax for maximum of
faxes (claimant need not have offending faxes but defendants
must have record
of
transmission); or (3) pro rata share up
for whom defendants have
class
members
to claimants that were
sends
follow-up letter
to
claimant
of transmission and claimant must submit sworn statement).
million fund merely
(C.28-29). The $23

claimed by
no record
$50 (administrator
to
set a
would revert back
not cashed, would
to
ceiling, not
floor, because
any amounts
not
MetLife. (C.26). In addition, any checks issued
paid to cy pres recipients. (C.30).
be
Court Preliminarily Approves SettlementAnd Plan of Class Notice.
B.
The court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on August

The preliminary approval order adopted the Settlement's plan for
class
7,
2014. (C.126-29).
notice. (C.104). The court
found that:
The Settlement Agreement proposes notice to the Settlement Class by: (i) facsimile
(ii) publication in USA Today on three (3) occasions, and (iii) by maintaining a
settlement website. The Court finds that such proposed notice satisfies the
requirements of due process under the Illinois and United States Constitutions and
735 ILCS 5/2-803. The Court approves the form of the Notice as contained in
Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement.
(C.103-104).
The direct notice
(Exhibit 2
to the
Settlement) explained that
who received unsolicited facsimile advertisements
August
7,
2014. (C.55, 102-103). The direct notice
class
members were those
from defendants from August

briefly described the lawsuit
23, 2008 to
as
involving
TCPA allegations against defendants, but made no mention of the $500 statutory damages per
violation. (C.55). The direct notice explained that defendants created
fund, the three types
of relief available to
$15,000 incentive awards

equal to "one-third
for
each
of the
$23,000,000 settlement
members, and that
class
representatives and an award of attorneys' fees
class
counsel
would request
class
of the settlement fund." (C.56).
The direct notice gave directions

settlement. (C.56).
In addition,
the notice
for submitting
claim
form
or
opting out of the
explained that to object to the Settlement,
class
members had to appear
at the
final approval hearing
and to
review the complete file including the
settlement agreement, they had to visit the court in Waukegan,
Illinois:
4.
Object to the Settlement: If you wish to object to the gettlement rather than
excluding yourself, you must file a written objection with the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Lake County, 18 N. County St., Waukegan, Illinois 60085. Your objection
must be filed by [October 14], 2014, and must contain the name and number of this
case (as indicated at the top of this notice). You must also serve copies of your
objection on Class Counsel and Defendants' attorneys (identified above),
postmarked by the same date. Your objection must include your name, fax number,
and street address, along with a statement of the reasons why you believe the Court
find that the proposed settlement is not in the best interests of the Settlement
Class. It is not sufficient to simply state that you object; you must state your
reasons. Additionally, if you want the Court to consider your objection, then you
must also appear at the final approval hearing in Room C-301, on [November 14],
2014 at [9:00 a.m.]. You are not required to attend this hearing unless you object to
should
the settlement.
WHERE CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION? This Notice only

summarizes the litigation and the settlement. To see the complete file, including a
copy of the settlement agreement, you may visit the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Lake County, 18 N. County St., Waukegan, Illinois 60085. The
Clerk will make the files relating to the lawsuit available to you for inspection and
copying at your own expense.
.
If you have specific questions, you
can write to Class Counsel at the address listed

above. Include the case number, your name, your fax number, and your current
street address on any correspondence. You may also call attorney Brian J. Wanca,
Class Counsel, at 855-827-2329.
(C.57, 104-105) (Emphasis
in original).
The publication notice provided much
Publication notice defined the
class,
less
information about the settlement. (C.62).
and indicated that class
members could be entitled to
portion of the $23 million fund for unsolicited faxes. (C.61). The only information regarding
objection provided: "Claim forms are available from the claims administrator or the website
listed below. Claim forms are due by [November 26, 2014].
settlement, you must
identify yourself as
serve your objection by [October
14,
a class
member and
If you wish
state
the reasons
2014], and you must appear
to
at the
object
for
and
to
the
file and
Court hearing on
[November
14,
2014]." (C.61-62). The publication notice provided no information regarding opt-
out or exclusion
(C.61-62,
of what type of release would

The
991).
publication
be
involved if
notice
class
members failed to opt-out.
referred
class
members
to
www.termlifeinsurancetcpasettlement.com.(C.62).
Class
C.
Member Judd Clayton, Jr. Submits
Claim And Objects To The
Settlement.
Class member Judd
Clayton, Jr. received direct notice of the settlement and submitted
claim form. (C.213-17). Judd Clayton, Jr. also submitted
an
objection to the court.' Objector
Clayton objected, inter alia, to the fairness of the settlement (actual amount paid to
class
and
available relief relative to TCPA civil penalties) and the excessiveness of the fee award.
Clayton also argued that the
class
notice was inadequate. (C.204). Specifically, Clayton
argued that the direct notice was not the "best notice practicable" because it did not provide
access
to
public website with relevant court documents to allow class members to make an
informed decision. (C.205). Instead, the notice directed

protected
members
website
with
(http://class-settlement.com).
username/password to
class
(C.204).
allow them
"to
members to
username/password
notice provided
The direct
file your claim." (C.216). Access
class
to the
relevant documents (i.e., Notice, Settlement Agreement, and Preliminary Approval Order) could
only be viewed after

because it directed
the username/password
class
were entered. (C.221). The notice was misleading
members to the courthouse
for relevant court documents and did not
explain that those documents could also be viewed after the username/password were submitted.
(C.221). Class members who did not receive
access
username/password
the documents and class members who did not
would not have been
want to submit
able to
claim (and reasonably
Counsel for Clayton attempted to file the objection on October 14, 2014 but arrived at the courthouse
minutes after it closed. (C.163-64). The court granted leave for Objector Clayton to file his objection late.
(C.233).
believed that using the username/password would have submitted

been able to
requiring
relevant court documents. (C.205-206).
objector to appear
an
at the
rights. (C.206). Finally, Objector
due process
if
objections,
the
access
any,
filed in opposition
to
claim)
would also not have
Objector Clayton argued that
maintain his objection violated his
incorporated by reference all other
Clayton
to this proposed settlement that are
not consistent with this
objection. (See, 204).

I
Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Objector Clayton seeking all documents relating to:
(1) his
had
class
filed in
membership; (2) the basis for his objection in this

any
other
class
case;
(3) any objection Clayton
action; (4) Clayton's ability to post an appeal bond including his bank
statements and recent tax returns; and (5) telephone records
from each month of the
period
class
establishing ownership of the telephone lines establishing class membership. (C.263). The court
struck items
and
but required production
4,
Clayton on January
7,
2015. (C.1095).
of
1, 2
Plaintiffs
and
do
5.
(C.450).
Plaintiffs deposed Objector
not contend that Clayton
is
not
a class
member.
D.
Plaintiffs Respond To Clayton's Objections.
Plaintiffs filed
brief in support of final approval of the Settlement on January
(C.938). In response to Clayton's arguments regarding the amount

members,
plaintiffs argued that there would
be no
9,
2015.
of relief actually paid to
class
reversion to MetLife because the 50,000
received claims totaled over $17 million. (C.940). Plaintiffs defended their $7.67 million fee
request by arguing that the one-third request was in line
request
would provide
multiplier of 2.97 based
on
with other Illinois
cases
(C.954), and the
their $2.58 million lodestar. (C.959).
With respect to Clayton's arguments regarding notice, plaintiffs argued that the notice
provided contact information if
a class
member wanted additional
10
information and that there
was
that the documents be published on the website. (C.969). Regarding Clayton's
no requirement
argument that the objection procedures were unfair,

appear in court has been used in other
cases
in
plaintiffs argued that requiring objectors
to
which plaintiffs' counsel was involved and that
"the Federal Second Circuit has held that requiring objectors to hear does not violate due
process," citing
In re Literary Works
Electronic Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242,
in
266 (2d Cir. 2011). (C.969-70). Plaintiffs

the
In
re
Literary Works quotation
on
wrongly characterized
Trial Court
See
action issued
and the law
because
the dissent, and does

at
not
258.
Denies Objectors Discovery.

class
member in the above referenced
subpoena requesting a settlement agreement reahed between Brian Wanca
firm of Anderson & Wanca in
Cook County
Brian i
case
In re Literary Works, 654 F.3d
Objector Austin Distributing Company, another

class
holding of that
which they relied was from
reflect the holding or opinion of the Second Circuit.

E.
the
for fraudulent transfer of
Wanca and the Law
cause
of action pending in the Circuit Court of the
The lawsuit styled Old
assets.
Firm of Anderson &
Wanca,
National Bank,
N.A.
v.
Attorneys at Law, Cook County
Circuit Court No. 2014 CH 6229 sought relief against Attorney Wanca and his law firm for
fraudulentlytransferring funds
to
avoid a 3.35 million dollar indebtedness. (C. 1457-1468).
After the instant lawsuit was filed on July 28, 2014 Brian Wanca and Anderson & Wanca
entered into
settlement
Objector Austin issued
agreement in the
subpoena
Wanca's Motion to Quash.

records of Anderson
for
Old National Bank fraudulent transfer action.
these settlement agreements and the
trial court granted
(C. 703). The trial court also allowed the production of the time
& Wanca
to be
submitted for
protective order. (C. 703).
11
an
in camera
inspection pursuant to
Trial Court Approves The Settlement.
F.
for January
The court rescheduled the fairness hearing
16,
2015. (C. 293, 1492). On
February 27, 2015, the court overruled the objections in part and sustained the objections in part
("February 27 Order"). (C.1493). The court identified six objections: incentive awards to
representatives; adequacy
of
proposed settlement; the amount

cy pres
the
award. (C.1495).
objections regarding payments
counsel; amount of
class
of the settlement;
information provided relating
the excessiveness
The court overruled all
of incentive awards
to the
of the attorneys' fees;
of objectors'
to class
class
and
objections except for
representatives
C-Mart, Inc. and
Richard Cadenasso, who were class representatives in two other actions against MetLife pending
in the Southern District
of Florida. (C.1501-1502).
In analyzing the Settlement,
the court
reviewed the eight factors identified in Chicago
v.
Korshak, and found that the factors weighed in favor of approval. (Csl496). Among the factors,
the court considered the
reaction of
class
members to the Settlement and determined that the
opposition was "de minimus" because out of the
1.8
million
direct notice faxes
sent,
50,000
claims were made and only two objections were received. (C.1498). The court made no findings
in
its
February 27th Order regarding Clayton's objections about
insufficient notice and unfair
objection procedures. (C.1493-1502). The court concluded that because it could only approve or
disapprove
of a settlement, it disapproved of
the settlement based on the
incentive awards to C-
Mart and Cadenasso, but allowed the parties fourteen days to amend the Settlement. (C.1502).
On
March
2,
2015, Objector Clayton renewed his objections to any revised settlement
proposed by the parties. (C.1506). On March

to
3,
2015, the settling parties revised the Settlement
eliminate incentive awards to C-Mart and Cadenasso and provided
approval order. (C.1541). The final approval order was entered on March
12
revised proposed final

6,
2015 and overruled
the objections based on its

on January
16,
findings in the February 27th Order and
2015. (C.1574).
at
Objector-Appellant Clayton filed
final fairness hearing
the
a
timely appeal of
the
settlement approval. (C.1583-87).
ARGUMENT
MEMBERS'
THE
CLASS
NOTICE
VIOLATED
THE
CLASS
CONSTITUTIONALDUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE IT WAS DEFECTIVE
AND NOT THE BEST NOTICE PRACTICABLE.
I.
The
class
notice in this
case
violated the absent
members'
class
due process rights
because the publication notice was deficient and because the ineffectual settlement website was
not the best practicable. Under
class
action "that
Illinois Civil Procedure,
it deems necessary
to
the
district court may order notice in
protect the interests of the
ILCS 5/2-803. The notice, however, must "insure the
class
of
its
class
Ill. 2d
7, 14
Teachers Insurance &
that due process required

as
Miner
(1981). "The question of what notice must be given to absent
satisfy due process necessarily depends upon the circumstances

v.
and the parties." 735
constitutionalopportunity
heard and protect each member's option to choose not to participate."
Annuity Association of America,

individual notice to
interpreted in Schroeder
v.
class
v.
v.
to be
Gillette Co.,
class
87
members to
of the individual action." Frank

Ill.
2d 583, 593 (1978)
(holding
members based on due process requirements
City of New York,
371
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950); Eisen
(1974); Hansberry
71
U.S. 208 (1962); Mullane

v.
v.
Central
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156
Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940)). The notice plan here failed to satisfy due process
m two respects.
13
A. The Publication Notice Failed To Inform Potential Class Members Of Their

Opt-OutRights And Procedures In Direct ContraventionOf Illinois Law.
The
Illinois Supreme Court
rights, "notice must also
has
inform each
held that to protect absent
class
to
of the present action
member of his right to 'opt out'
and must specify the procedure to accomplish such."
necessary
members' due process
class
Miner, 87 Ill. 2d
at 15.
"protect each member's option to choose not to participate." Id.
This information is
at 14.
In Waters
v.
Chicago, the court vacated the settlement based on defective notice that failed to describe opt-out
rights.
111
Ill. App.
notice in the instant
3d 51, 56
case,
(lst
particularly the absence of
an
to due process."
specify
that the
consequences
case
unfair. Proper notice to
the
opt-out provision and the failure to
explain the alternative courses of action which were available to the

modified settlement of this
"[t]he deficiencies in
Dist. 1982). The court held that
class
members, makes the
class
members
essential to their
is
right
Id. (noting that "Sections 7(b)(2) and (3) of the Uniform Class Action Act
inclusion of information in the notice regarding
of participation in
the class
financial
the possible
action and the right to opt out
is
prerequisite to
proper notice to the class").

The notice plan in this
case
involved direct notice, publication notice
and
website.
(C.103-104). While the publication notice gave some information on objection procedures, it
provided no information to absent
accomplish
opt-out.
because nearly
class
members regarding their opt-out rights or how to
(C.62, 991). This due process
million class
violation
is
particularly significant here
members did not receive direct notice (C.985) but were provided
publication notice.2 While the publication notice referred
class
members to
settlement website,
Objector Clayton received direct notice. (C.216-17). This does not preclude him from challenging the
deficiency of the publication notice. See Fox v. Northwest Ins. Brokers, Inc., 113 Ill. App. 3d 255, 258
(Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1983) (holding that objectors' participation in the settlement did not preclude their
challenge to the inadequacy of the notice) (citing Waters v. City of Chicago, 95 Ill. App. 3d 919, (Ill. App.
2
14
that website could not cure this deficiency because it did not provide direct
settlement
documents
that
described
opt-out rights.
members'
class
access
to the
Section
See
I.B.
Accordingly, the settlement must be vacated based on this due process violation.
B.
The Notice Was Not The "Best Practicable" Because It Failed To Provide
Direct Access To Court Documents On A SettlementWebsite.
The Supreme Court explained that to provide minimal procedural due process protection,
notice to absent
class
members "must be the best practicable, 'reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested parties
of the pendency of
opportunity to present their objections."' Phillips Petroleum

(1985) (emphasis added) (quoting
websites have become
Schulken
v. Wash.
Mullane, 339 U.
S., at
Co.
v.
314-315).
widely accepted feature of successful
Shutts, 472 US 797, 811-12
In recent years, "settlement

action settlements."
class
Mut. Bank, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 442 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Because settlement
websites are effective and inexpensive, they have become the standard for
the
afford them an
the action and
class
notice. Indeed,
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals described the "due-process baseline" to include notice that
"gave potential
more
class
members
information' about
an
address, phone number, and website
the proposed
F.3d 402, 424 (6th Cir. 2012);
see
Cir. 2004) (recognizing that the
also
settlement." Gooch
v.
with which to 'obtain
Life Investors Ins.
Co.
Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d
"World Wide Web
communication, and, of particular pertinence here,
is an
an
ofAm., 672
781, 786 (7th
increasingly important method of
increasingly important substitute for
newspapers" for notice publication and holding that notice was acc.eptable because
was hired to
administer the settlement maintained
Brian Walters, Best Notice Practicable in
the
website
with details of
"firm that
the case")
(citing
Twenty-First Century, 2003 UCLA J.L. & Tech.
Ct. 1st Dist. 1981) (holding that objectors in a class may challenge unfair or inadequate aspects
settlement regardless of whether their rights are personally affected)).
15
of
4). The use
of
settlement website that contains the relevant settlement documents
is
the
recommended practice by the Federal Judicial Center:
information beyond the notice. Besides the

summary notice and detailed notice (following the FJC examples at www.fic.gov),
Class members
should have
access
to
it is reasonable to post the followingdocuments at a neutral administrator's website

dedicated to the case: the plaintiffs' complaint, the defendants' answer, your classcertification decision (in the event of a class certified for trial), and the settlement
agreement and claim form (in the event of a settlement). Other orders, such as your
rulings on motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, should ordinarily be made
available as well.
Judges' Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide,
(2010), available at
F JC, at 4
http://www.fic.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/NotCheck.pdf/$file/NotCheck.pdf.
While the parties in this
attempted to create
case
settlement website that contained the
Notice, Settlement and Preliminary Approval Order, the settlement website was ineffectual for
accessing such documents. The direct
notice and website were misleading
members to believe that the website was solely for submitting
it would lead
class
claim:
The direct notice mentioned the website only in the section "CLAIM INSTRUCTIONS,"
which explained that "TO FILE YOUR CLAIM, GO TO: http:// www.classsettlement.com Enter your unique USERNAME & PASSWORD below." (C.216).
inform class members that additional informationcould be

obtained on the website, but instead indicated that class members would have to "visit the
office" of the court in Waukegan, Illinois to obtain the settlement agreement. (C.216).
The direct notice did not
The settlement website "welcome page" presented the class members with a "Log In"
field requiring a username and password. (C.219). Only after class members entered
their log in information did the website show that class members could access the
settlement documents. (C.219).
In effect,
to
as
the website was
merely
additional informationto
class
claims submission process and did not provide direct
access
members.
Based on the direct notice,
class
members would not have even
additional information on the website. The direct notice was misleading
16
known to look for
as class
members in all
four corners of
the
United States would have been lead to believe that they would have to travel
of miles
thousands
submission of
great expense to view the relevant settlement
if
claim. Even
the website seeking
in screen and
at
a class
documents prior to
member who was unsure about'submitting
additional information, the
left the website without having
class
member
accessed such
claim went to
would likely have viewed the Log
information.
The notice was not the best practicable because the direct notice should have referred the
class
the
members to the website for additional
nationwide
class
claim must first
be
direct
access
information and
to the court documents
the website
should have provided
without confusion
as
to whether
submitted. These minimal changes to the notice and website were indeed
practicable and would not have required additional expense. (Indeed, any minimal additional
expense
for ensuring due process
is
especially appropriate in light of
class
counsel's $7.67
million fee award.)

When seeking preliminary approval,
fairly summarized
because it
Stapleton, 236
the
plaintiffs argued that
the
notice was sufficient
Settlement, relying on GMA C Mortgage Corp.
Ill.App.3d 486, 492 (lst Dist. 1992). (C.19-20). In GMAC Mortgage,
members were provided direct notice summarizing the settlement, which directed
to obtain
copy
Today. 236
"baseline"
.best
of
the settlement agreement from the court, and
Ill. App.3d
at
In their response
v.
the class
members
notice was published in USA
settlement website
with
access
to the
See
Gooch, 672 F.3d
to
Clayton's objections, plaintiffs argued that the trial court had
at
424.
discretion over the notice and that the ineffectiveness of the website was
was no
Pa.
492. While that may have been the best practicable in 1992, the
practicable notice in 2014 includes
relevant court documents.
class
of
irrelevantbecause there
requirement "that anything must be published somewhere." (C.969). Although the trial
17
court
has
discretion regarding notice, Illinois courts have made clear that "[t]he exercise of this
discretion
is,
Corp., 118
notice.
"
of course, limited by the dictates of due process." Carrao
Ill. App.
3d 417, 429
Shutts, 472 U.S.
at
Dist. 1983). Due process requires the "best practicable"
published ignores Illinois law that the court must look
practicable under the circumstances. Frank,
sufficient in
from 20
cases
Finally, plaintiffs
Health Care Service
811-12 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs' argument that nothing required
the settlement documents to be

best
(lst
v.
years ago do not

also
argue that
71
Ill.
at
what
Notice that may have been
2d at 593.
reflect best practicable notice today.

access
because the direct notice provided "contact
to the court documents was
information" if
class
not necessary
members wanted "additional
information." (C.969). The direct notice clarified, however, that the contact information for
counsel was to be used
"visit[ing]" the
class
for "specific questions." (C. 216). Because the direct notice detailed how
settlement documents were available for "inspection and copying"

by
is
court
in Waukegan, Illinois,
class
at 'the class
members expense
members would have been lead to believe
that visiting the court was the only way to receive the settlement documents and they would not
have been able to receive such documents from
documents,
members were denied context in
class
In sum,
class
the
because minimal
counsel; indeed,
which to
ask class
without access
to the
court
counsel specific questions.
ineffectual website provided in this settlement was not the best practicable
changes would have permitted the
settlement documents.
18
class
members to easily
access
the
II.
REQUIRING THE NATIONWIDE CLASS MEMBERS TO APPEAR AT THE

FAIRNESS HEARING IN ORDER TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
VIOLATED THEIR DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT UNREASONABLY DEPRIVED CLASS
MEMBERSOF AN OPPORTUNITYTO BE HEARD.
The notice plan violated absent
attendance
at
final fairness hearing in order
the
constitutional due process, notice to absent

"afford them
in the
at
an
members'
class
the fairness
object to the
to
opportunityto present their objections."
hearing to violate
Requiring
class
Settlement.3
TO
SatiSQ
members must be the best practicable and
class
California Court of Appeals, the court found
due process rights by requiring
Shutts, 472 U.S. at 812.
In
recent
case
similar requirement of objectors' attendance
members' due process rights:
members in a nationwide class or even a statewide class to appear

at the final approval hearing or hire an attorney to have their objections heard
works a hardship on objectors, as the benefit to the objector from the class action
may be so low that it would be cost prohibitive or physically challenging to
personally assert one's rights at a hearing in a potentially distant location.
Litwin
v.
class
iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 877, 884 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.
2014). Indeed, permitting objectors to
rely
on
written objections without having
to attend the
fairness hearing allows objectors the opportunity to be heard while minimizing the burden on the
court. As the
Litwin court recognized, "if
an
objector
considered, the burden on the court to review them

the same." 226 Cal.
App. 4th
is
is
permitted to file written objections to be
minimal and the cost to the parties remains
at 884.
The notice here contained the same offending requirement. Both the direct notice and the
publication notice indicated that for the court to consider

member "must also appear
at the
class
member's objection, the
final approval hearing in Room C-302." (C.216, 991).
class
As in
While Clayton was able to attend the fairness hearing (C.206), this does not preclude him from
challenging the unfairness of the objection procedures. See Waters v. City of Chicago, 95 Ill. App. 3d 919,
(Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1981) (holding that objectors in a class may challenge unfair or inadequate aspects
of a settlement regardless of whether their rights are personally affected).
3
19
Litwin, this requirement violated the absent

attendance
fairness hearing in Waukegan,
at the
challenging for
class
Illinois could
be cost
prohibitive or physically
members nationwide who would have to travel thousands
opportunity to be heard, or hire

Supp. 2d 1071, 1093 (C.D.
attorneys to
due process rights. Requiring
members'
class
an
attorney willing to do
Ill. 2012) (noting
fly in for fairness hearing
is a
so.
See
Fought
v.
that the fact objectors were
of miles for
Bank of Am., 901 F.
willing to
other class actions
fairness hearing. (C.969). Plaintiffs
do
was ever decided in those other cases.
requirement in those
cases
discourage objections. The
class
Indeed, there was likely no objection to the attendance
what it
because the requirement accomplished
only reason to require objectors

class
to attend the
members.
2012) (finding that objector's personal appearance
at
burdensome and seem[s] to be designed to discourage
class
See,
e.g.,
at
2012)
settlement
is one
accessible to
Plain
(critiquing objection process
and
Freebird, Inc.,
Language
v.
is
Merit
*18-*19 (D. Kan. Dec.
6,
fairness hearing was "unnecessarily

members
from filing objections"); cf

at
*17 (W.D. Wash.
finding that "a hallmark of
that encourages participation by making all forms
class
was intended to do:
final fairness hearing
McClintic v. Lithia Motors, No. Cll-859RAJ,2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3846,

12,
proper
counsel prosecuted were required to attend the
Energy Co., No. 10-1154-KHV, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173075,
Jan.
is
not argue, however, that the propriety of this requirement
additional hurdles for objecting
to create
pay their
"not insignificant" sacrifice).
In response to Clayton's objection, Plaintiffs argued that this requirement

because objectors in
an
reasonable
of participation reasonably
members"); cf Judges' Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and
Guide,
Federal
Judicial
Center,
at
(2010),
available
at
http://www.fic.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/NotCheck.pdf/$file/NotCheck.pdf(instructing
judges
20
to ensure
that "there no burdensome hurdles in the way of responding and exercising rights"
including "onerous requirements to submit
'satisfactory' objection").
In their response to objections, plaintiffs
also
argued that the "Second Circuit
has
held"
that requiring objectors to attend the fairness hearing does not violate due process. (C.969-70)
(quoting In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242, 266 (2d
Cir. 2011)). Plaintiffs' argument mislead the court because the In re
Literary Works quotation
relied on by plaintiffs (C.969-70) was from the dissent and did not reflect the Second Circuit's
holding. In re Literary Works, 654 F.3d
reversed the
class
at
258, 266.
In In
action settlement approval because the
re
Literary Works,
class
the Second
Circuit
representatives were inadequate,
but the majority did not decide objector's challenge to the requirement that objectors must attend
the fairness hearing.
Id
at
245-58.
In addition to violating the absent
class
members' due process rights, the objection
procedures improperly affected the court's settlement analysis. As part

considered the opposition to the settlement and the reaction
of
of
its analysis, the court
the class. (C.1498).
The court
found that the opposition to the settlement was "de minimus." The court's finding, however, was
based on
objections.
depressed number
Cf Galloway
(W.D. Mo. Oct.
12,
v.
of objections because
the
objection procedures discouraged
Kan. City Landsmen, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147148, *16
2012) (advising that notice should be improved to increase
participation and final approval would be withheld unless significant

improper objection procedures
cast
class
class
member
participation). The
shadows on the court's settlement approval.
In sum, the Settlement must be reversed because the onerous requirement that nationwide
objectors attend the fairness hearing violated absent
heard and present their objections.
21
class
members' constitutional right to be
THE TRIAL COURTERRED IN REFUSINGTO ALLOW THE

OBJECTOR'SDISCOVERYOF THE TIME RECORDS OF ANDERSON
& WANCA AND THE SETTLEMENTAGREEMENTENTEREDINTO
BETWEENBRIAN WANCA AND ANDERSON& WANCAIN THE OLD
NATIONAL BANK FRAUDULENTTRANSFERCASE.
III.
The Trial Court Erred In Denying Objector's Access To Anderson &

Verify Lodestar Calculations.
A.
Wanca Time Records to
Objector Austin Distributing issued

Wanca, together with
subpoena seeking the time records
settlement agreement entered into between Brian
& Wanca in the Cook County fraudulent transfer
County Circuit Court No.

reference the
14
Austin objections
CH 6229.
as
and
Objector
Wanca and Anderson
of Old National Bank
v.
Wanca, Cook
Clayton joined in and incorporated by
for his own objections
without affording
The trial court,
case
J.
of Anderson &
the objectors an
to this settlement agreement.
opportunity to review the time records
of Anderson & Wanca rejected a lodestar calculation of attorney's fees. Instead, the court elected
to proceed
with negotiating
one-third attorney's fee of the total settlement agreement. Thus,
Anderson & Wanca was afforded
windfall attorney's
fee award
of Seven Million, Six Hundred
Sixty-Six Thousand Dollars. ($7,666,000.00).

The traditional lodestar calculation
Supreme Court in the
not disclosed until
plaintiffs on January
case
of Brundridge
brief in support of
9,
2015.
law firm of Anderson & Wanca
as
y
the
approved in certain circumstances by the Illinois
Glendale Federal Bank, 168 Ill.2d 235 (1995) was
final approval of settlement
was
submitted by the
(C-938-972). In that brief the alleged lodestar calculation of the

was Two
Million, Five Hundred Seventy Eight
Thousand Eleven
Dollars and Sixty Cents ($2,578,011.60). This calculation was based upon six attorneys with
hourly rates of $595.00 per hour,

attorney with
one
attorney with an hourly rate of $550.00 per hour, one
rate of $395.00 per hour, and paralegal time billed
22
at
$95.00 per hour.
These
rates are
double those charged by civil litigators in Lake County, Illinois. Accordingly, no
multiplier is necessary for a lodestar calculator.

The objectors herein were not afforded any
amount
of hours actually expended
is
belied by the fact that the clients
objectors,
as
members
of the
class,
Recently the Seventh Circuit

court can
use
class
counsel.
(1983).
with
of
case is the
agreed
has
privileged
"class". As such, the
with the Illinois Supreme Court in holding that
Americana Art China
hourly time records of
the fee request.
Hensley
v.
is
Co.
v.
Fox Fire
Printing & Packaging,
inclined to use the common fund method
class counsel are
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
Finally, an attorney's fee award of one-third (33.3%) of the
class
are somehow
clients of Anderson & Wanca.
(7th Circuit 2014). Even if this Court
for awarding attorney's fees,

percentage
of the
either the lodestar method or the common fund method in evaluating an award of
attorney's fees to
743 F.3d 243,
their time records
of Anderson & Wanca in this

are
to the details
qualifications of the attorneys billing
or the experience and
The contention of Anderson & Wanca that
the time.
information reating
useful cross check on the

103
class
Supreme Court 1933
settlement
action settlements nationally and those within the Seventh Circuit.
is
out of line
At most
contingent fee of twenty-six percent (26%) ($5,980,000.00) would be appropriate should this
Court agree that the contingent fee method
B.
is
appropriate.
The Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Order The D.isclosure Of The

SettlementAgreement In Old NationalBank v. Anderson & Wanca, et al.,
Cook County No. 14 CH 6229.
As class counsel,
particularly when the
Anderson & Wanca and Brian Wanca have
class
is
made up
fiduciary duty to
the class
of consumers. Creative Montessori Learning Centers
Ashford Gear, LLC, 662 F.2d 913 (7th Cir. 2011). Wanca
$3,610,579.90 judgment
which was entered against him
23
v.
is
currently faced with the specter of a
on
March 29, 2011. The existence of
this judgment and financial pressure thereof creates
which could necessitate his removal

In the
embroiled in
firm
a
case
of Eubanks
as class
conflict between Wanca and
counsel.
Pella Corp. 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014),
separate lawsuit charging him with misappropriation of
misconduct related to the firm. The allegations were
and other
After
Cook County Chancery Case.
the
assets
set
class
counsel was
of their former law
forth in
the pleadings
of
trial court approved the Pella settlement objector's
appealed and the Seventh Circuit reversed, citing several
trial court errors including failing
conflict of interest resulting from
recognize an inherent
the class
the Cook
to
County Chancery matter.
Judge Posner stated:
"They [class counsel] may well have had an acute need for an infusion of
not only of Weiss's ethical embroilment which cannot help his practice,
litigation against him by his former law partners and his need of money to
new firm."
Eubanks v. Pella, 753
This acute need
for an infusion of money caused
conflict between
class
money, in light
but also of the
finance his
F.3d 724
counsel and the
class.
Here the trial court had evidence in the record that Brian Wanca and Anderson and
Wanca were being sued by
$3,610,579.90 judgment
This
since
April
2014. The
case
11,
was
2014.
them and Old

a
bank seeking
3.6
million dollar
to
set
fraudulent transfers
aside
which had been entered against Wanca
on
The settlement of this

was
case
received
voluntarily dismissed
law firm acknowledged that there
National Bank. It
is
collect
case
had been pending
preliminary approval
on
August
7,
on September 24, 2014.
was
settlement agreement between
fair to surmise that Old National Bank dismissed its action to
million dollar judgment

attorney's fee award.
to
March 29, 2011.
filed on July 28, 2014. The fraudulent transfer
fraudulenttransfer case
Wanca and his
collect
If
on the premise
the facts
that it would be paid out of Wanca's 7.6
of the Pella
24
case
supra gave rise to
conflict of
interest surely would

class
action.
At
promise to pay
multi-milliondollar judgment from the
settlement of this
minimum the trial court should have inquired into the Old National Bank
matter. Objectors should have had

quashing the subpoena
access to these
settlement documents. The trial court erred in
of Objector Austin requesting
access
to this
documentation.
CONCLUSION
The
class
requirements.
action settlement notice and objection procedures failed to satisfy due process
The
trial court erred in refusing
to
allow objectors
access
to Anderson & Wanca
time records and settlement documents in the Old National Bank matter.
WHEREFORE,
Objector-Appellant
Judd
Clayton,
Jr.
Honorable Court reverse the decision of the trial court herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Thut
516 North Milwaukee Ave.
C.

(847) 549-0600
25
respectfully
requests
this
No. 2-15
0236
IN THE APPELLATECOURTOF ILLINOIS


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.

Lake County
Case No. 14 CH 1518
)
)
METROPOLITANLIFE INSURANCE

and JOHN DOES 1-10,
)
)
)
CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE
PURSUANTTO SUPREME COURTRULE 341(c)
I certify that this Brief conforms to the requirements of Rules 341(a) and (b). The length
of this Brief, excluding the Appendix
Submitted by:
Jeffrey Thut
516 North Milwaukee Avenue
C.

(847) 549-0600
is 25
pages.
APPENDIXTO BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPFLLANT

PURSUANTTO SUPREME COURTRULE 342(a)
1.
Settlement.................................................................................................................A-1
2.
Objection of Judd Clayton,
3.
Trial Court's Order of February 27, 2015................................................................A-3
4.
Trial Court's Order of March
5.
Notice of Appeal Dated March
6.
Amended Notice of Appeal Dated March
7.
Table
Jr...................................................................................A-2
2015......................................................................A-4
6,
6,
of Contents of the Record
2015...................................................................A-5
on
16,
2015................................................A-6
Appeal............................................................A-7
SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement")
Debaun, Sabon, Inc., Sandy Rothschild
is
Associates, Inc., Christopher Lowe
.&
PLC, and Shaun Fauley (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on

class
entered into among Plaintiffs Denise
of similarly-situated persons (identified herein
as
behalf of themselves
and
Hicklin DC
settlement
"Settlement Class"), C-Mart, Inc.
the
("C-Mart"), Richard Cadenasso ("Cadenasso"), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
("lvlLIC" and collectively with its
present subsidiaries, affiliates, or any of
past or
directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives or attorneys,

Co., the Storick Group Corporation,
Storick Defendants").
its or
"MetLife"), Storick Group
(collectively, "Storick" or "the
and Scott R. Storick
The parties to this Agreement are collectively referred
"Parties." This Agreement
is
entered into
as
of the
date
it
is
their
to
the
as
signed by the last of the Parties to
sign it.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, Storick and MLIC are parties to

Fauley,
et
al
MetropolitanLife
v.
Ins. Co., et al, Case
No.
civil action entitled Shaun
CH 1518, pending in the Circuit
14
Court of Lake County, Illinois ("the Litigation"); and

WHEREAS, C-Mart
MLIC pending in
Storick and
Florida,
(the "C-Mart
the
United
No. 13-cv-80561, where
Case
Florida,
States
class
separate
case
against Scott
R.
District Court for the Southern District of
of Missouri fax recipients
certified
has been
Action"); and
WHEREAS, Cadenasso was

MLIC that
representative in
is the class
was
Case
the
plaintiff in another separate case against Storick
and
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
No. 14-cv-80519 (the "Cadenasso Action"), and which
has
been
voluntarily
dismissed; and
EXHIBIT
1
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege
and Storick
227,
and
and
putative
class
that MLIC
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C.
FCC regulations by
permission
behalf of themselves
on
of Plaintiffs
or the
WHEREAS, MetLife
faxing advertisements without the prior express invitation or

putative class members or without a valid opt-out notice.
and
Storick
deny all
liability for
the
claims made in the
Litigation, the C-Mart Action, and the Cadenasso Action; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' attorneys have investigated

the law relating to the Litigation, determining
to
numerous facsimile
during the
behalf of MetLife
advertisements were
sent
the relevant facts and researched
their satisfaction that, among other things,

-
class
period, allegedly by or on
or the Storick Defendants; and
WHEREAS, without admitting or conceding any wrongdoing or liability, and solely

to
avoid the inconvenience and expense of further litigation, MetLife and Storick have agreed
to settle all claims, demands, and liabilities that have been

asserted, in the
asserted,
or could have been
Litigation by Plaintiffs and the Class (defined below); and
WHEREAS, MLIC has agreed to make available, subject to the terms of this
Agreement,
be
total amount not to exceed $23,000,000.00 to fund the settlement, which shall
available to pay
fees
and out
class
members who submit valid claims
of pocket litigation
Plaintiffs, and to pay

settlement through
the costs
expenses
as
further defined herein, to pay
to Plaintiffs' counsel, to pay incentive awards
of notifying the
Class
to
(defined below) and administering the
third-party claims administrator (the "Settlement Fund"); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' counsel

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs
and
conditions provided in this Agreement
has
investigated the facts and the applicable law.
Class Counsel have concluded
are
that the terms and
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of tlie Class (defined below)
as
benefits the Class (defined below)
and delays
the settlement
is
receive under this settlement, (2) the fact that
MetLife
not approved, and (3) the attendant risks, costs, uncertainties,
of litigation; and
WHEREAS,
the settlement reduced to
among the Parties in good faith and
WHEREAS,
Class
will
that they will vigorously oppose the claims asserted in the
and Storick have demonstrated
Litigation if
of resolving this Litigation, after considering (1) the
means
the Parties
at
writing in this Agreement
was
negotiated
arm's length; and
stipulate and agree that the claims of Plaintiff and the entire
(defined below) should be and
hereby compromised
are
and
settled, subject to the
Court's approval, upon the followingterms and conditions:

1.
MetLife
Settlement. This Agreement

and Storick, on the one hand, and
other. The assertions, statements,

purposes of settlement only
and
is
entered into to resolve all disputes between
Plaintiffs
and the Class
(defined below) on the
agreements and representations made herein are for
the Parties expressly agree that,
approved, this Agreement is null and void and may not
be
if
the settlement
is
not
used by any of the Parties
finally
for
any
reason.
2.
The Settlement Class. For purposes of settlement only, the Parties agree to
certify the following settlement
class
(the "Class"):
All persons
in the United States who were sent a facsimile advertisement by or

on behalf of MetLife or the Storick Defendants between August 23, 2008 and
[the date of preliminary approval of this settlement], where the facsimile
advertisement was unsolicited and/or did not contain opt-out language .
compliant with the requirements of the TCPA and/or its accompanying
regulations.
Excluded from the
Class
are
(a) the
defendants and their present and former
directors, employees, and their successors,
heirs,
assigns,
officers,
and legal representatives; and (b)
further agree that Plaintiffs may
the Court and its officers. The parties
"Class Representatives,"
and
that Brian
J.
be
appointed as the
Wanca of Anderson + Wanca may be appointed
as
"Class Counsel."
Preliminary Approval. Within seven (7) days of execution of this Agreement,
3.
Plaintiffs will file
an
settlement. Plaintiffs
Class
agreed motion for entry of
will
request that the Court enter
Action Settlement and Approving
(the "Preliminary Approval Order").

Class
The Settlement Fund.
is
not paid to claiming
set
forth in Paragraph
case.
has
the Court approve
MLIC
is
as
Exhibit
"Notice of
below.
agreed to make
separate bank account.
class
"Order Preliminarily Approving
an
Notice" in the form attached hereto
Class
MLIC
$23,000,000.00 available to settle this

of the Settlement Fund into
order preliminarily approving this
Plaintiff will request that
Action and Proposed Settlement

4.
an
total amount not to exceed
not required to place all or any portion
Any portion of the Settlement Fund that
members, to the Settlement Class Representatives, to Class
Counsel, or to the third-party administrator pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall
revert to and be kept by MLIC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, MetLife does not retain any
interest in monies issued
class
days
members, and
if
5.
any settlement checks issued to
of issuance, the Settlement Administrator will pay
remaining in its account related to uneashed checks past
to Paragraph
180 days
of issuance pursuant
of the Agreement.
The
Settlement
Administrator") shall serve
will
payments to
not cashed within 180
. claimants are
sums
as
as
Administrator.
Class-settlements.com
the Settlement Administrator.
administer the Settlement Class notice,
assist
the class
(the
"Settlement
The Settlement Administrator

members in completing claim
forms and payment of claims described below, receive the claim forms, track and provide
notice to the parties
for
Settlement Administrator
purpose,
MetLife
and
correspondence to
has the
right
to
be
individual or entity opting out of the Settlement
any
is
has
empowered to respond to
class
members' inquiries
the right to review and approve
used by the Settlement Administrator
for
such
review and approve the website and content thereon
any scripts
valid and timely Proof of Claim form.
this determination.
event there
the
multiple
for
claims
single
set
parties
at the
request of any party
Settlement
the
Administrator
at any
up by the Settlement
a
Member
Class
facsimile number,
The
list of accepted and rejected claims to counsel
for the
is
time during the administration process. Upon request,
will provide
copies
of all
claim
forms
to the
The Settlement Administrator

30 days
are
valid
timely by submitting documents or information to the Settlement Administrator.
All fees
and costs
of the Settlement Administrator, including the costs associated with
paying third parties to provide notice to the

6.
by
of
Administrator to
challenge determinations of the Settlement Administrator regarding whether claims

and
is
Settlement Administrator. MetLife shall have
days from the deadline for claims to be submitted to the Settlement
60
backup
and
required to make all determinations regarding whether claims are approved within
for claims to be submitted
Settlement
the
entitled to recovery.
documentation and information to counsel for the Parties.
the deadline
has
particular facsimile number and in
Administrator will determine which individual or entity

Settlement Administrator shall provide
or template
Claimants shall have no right to appeal
Only one claimant may recover for

are
for that
purposes. MetLife also
Administrator. The Settlement Administrator shall determine whether

submitted
The
Class.
Notice. The Parties will
class,
cause
shall
be
paid out of the Settlement Fund.
the Settlement Administrator to
send the
Notice
facsimile to all unique numbers in the MegaPath and Comcast Call Detail Records (the
"Reords") produced in the C-Mart Action

Agreement have signed this Agreement.
as
of
of the Parties to this
the date the last
Notice by fax shall be
sent
of the preliminary approval order in the form attached hereto
as
within
Exhibit
21 days
Settlement Administrator shall contract for the "Publication Notice" (attached

USA Today on three (3) occasions (unless the Settlement
(the
as
Administrator for
members to
class
access
the
Payments to
7.
Notice by Fax
class
Level
1:
as
website
set
be
published
being transmitted.
will be entitled to
members. Claimants
payment for one or more claimed faxes,

a.
is
Exhibit 3) in
the settlement documents,
including the Agreement (excluding exhibits). The Publication Notice will
within the time period that
"Notice").
Administrator or Court deems
additional notice by publication necessary). The Publication Notice will refer to

up by the Settlement
of entry
one of three levels of
detailed herein:
The claim
will invite
form
members,
class
at
their
option, to attach copies of the faxes they received. Each claimant who elects to attach faxes
that the Claims Administrator determines to be valid faxes
sent
by or on
behalf of the Storick
Defendants or MetLife shall receive $250 per fax attached, up to ten faxes. Faxes eligible
recovery under this section must: (a) advertise MetLife or generic insurance, (b) be in
for
form
similar to one of the template faxes provided in discovery and advertising MetLife or generic
insurance, and (c) contain
fax header/trailer reflecting transmission
to
number owned by
the claimant.
The Claims Administrator shall be provided with the fax templates provided in
discovery
advertising MetLife or generic insurance
and
shall be reduced only
if
such
claim payments
under subparagraph 7(a) to be greater than 10%

be
paid under Paragraphs
5,
8,
and 10).
cause
as
the
examples
faxes.
This sum
recovery for claimants recovering
of the Settlement Fund
In such event, payments
of valid
(less the amounts to
to claimants who do submit
faxes eligible under Level
shall be reduced on
pro rata
per fax,
than $150 per attached fax unless payments to Level
basis, but shall not be less
claimants would exceed the amount in
the Settlement Fund less the amounts to be paid under Paragraphs
5,
8,
and
10
of this
Agreement. Any payments under this subparagraph 7(a) shall be in addition to payments the
claimant is entitled to under subparagraph 7(b) or 7(c).
Level
b.
attempts to
the amounts to be
and
10
between August
Level
To the extent
3:
to
to
the
otherwise
23,
plus the total
Settlement Administrator
has
receive
under Paragraphs
5,
received
2008 and the preliminary approval
complete form
will
of the
A claimant who
total of ten (10) Level
the claimant asking the claimant to submit
services and providing another opportunity
submitting
share
payment for that same transmission, but may still
penalty of perjury) stating that the claimant
will
to
receive Level
at
date
7(a), 7(b),
are
8,
is
unable to
will
submit faxes received. Claimants

1
send
sworn statement (under
timely
payments for valid faxes attached and
attached
as
the amounts to be paid
(less
follow-up claim form for
Exhibit
4.
If
more than 10,000
Follow-Up Claim Forms are submitted, MetLife shall have the right
is
advertising MetLife's goods or
and 10) up to $50. A copy of the
not in the Records
payments).
least one unsolicited facsimile
pro rata share of the Settlement Fund
claimants whose numbers

3
8,
claimant's facsimile number on the Records, the Settlement Administrator
follow-up letter
Level
5,
pro rata
maximum of ten (10) faxes.
payments for other transmissions (up
c.
locate
per fax,
payment for any transmission (through provision of the received facsimile)
not eligible to receive additional Level
recover Level
paid under Paragraphs
payments), up to $100 per fax, for
received a Level
is
(less
non-duplicative transmission
show
Records
the
claimant's number, that claimant shall receive
Settlement Fund
Level
If
2:
at its
election to
challenge entitlement to recovery by any
class
member submitting
follow-up claim form
before Rodney Max of Upchurch, Watson, White & Max. In the event of such arbitration,
will be
conducted
at
MetLife's expense.
Cy Pres Award.
8.
Plaintiff will request from
from checks issued to claiming

be distributed
shall
it
members
class
but not
the court that any
within
cashed
money remaining
180 days
of issuance
(1) the Lake County Bar Foundation; (2) the Juvenile Diabetes
to
Research Associatioti; (3)
Illinois District 220 Educational Foundation; (4) Hawthorne
Scholastic Academy; (5) Chicago's IndependentRadio Project; and (6) Crohn's and Colitis
Foundation of America.
50%
of such funds shall be distributed to the Lake County Bar
Foundation and the remaining 50% distributed equally among the remaining entities pursuant
]LCS 5/2-807.
to 735
Plaintiff will request court approval for
Paragraph, and MetLife takes no position on this issue

take
at
this
the payees set
forth in
this
time and reserves the right to
position in the future.

Final Approval. The preliminary approval order will
9.
fairness hearing. At the final fairness hearing, the Parties
will request
set
date
for
final
that the Court enter the
"Final Approval Order and Judgment of Classwide Settlement" in the form attached hereto
Exhibit
.
as
(the "Final Approval Order").
10.
Incentive Award
Cadenasso shall
be
paid
an
representing the Settlement
Attorneys' Fees. Each of the Plaintiffs, C-Mart, and
incentive award from the Settlement Fund of $15,000.00

Class
representative in
Counsel shall
paid one third
be
and
or serving
as
class
representative or putative
for
class
predecessor action, subject to the Court's approval. In addition, Class
of
the Settlement Fund ($7,666,666.67)
as
attorneys' fees
from the Settlement Fund plus their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, subject to the Court's
approval. Defendants
will
not object to
request
for
appeal any award of these amounts. The awarded amounts
Approval Order
&
12
Effective Date. The "Effective Date" shall
forth in
set
the
Final
with Paragraphs
be
five
days
11
(excluding weekends
holidays) after the last of the following occur: (a) the Court enters
Final Approval Order
as
Exhibit
and (b) either
5;
if
an
appeal to
the
January
5,
are
no
2015 and
shall pay to Class

the Court in its
14 days
at
is
filed, the
appeals have been
such
Class
Counsel
On the later
Fees.
10,
of
MLIC
Counsel the attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards approved by
In addition, within
Settlement Administrator, shall create
"DDA")
no appeal to
after the Effective Date, in accordance with Paragraph
Final Approval Order by wire transfer to
Account-MetLife.
(i).if
longer subject to further appeal or review.
Payment of Claims, Incentive Award and
12.
Final Approval
of final affirmance by the appellate court of last resort to which
taken and such affirmances
filed, the expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing any
is
appeal of the Final Approval Order or (ii)

date
be
shall be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance
Order, in substantially the form attached hereto

the
will
Defendants
below.
11.
and
and
will
amounts, nor
these
14
days after the
the
Anderson + Wanca Client Trust
Effective Date, MLIC, through the
non-interest bearing, demand deposit account (the
bank or trust agreed upon by the Parties and
MLIC will fund
the
DAA with the
dollar amount required under this Agreement to cover the presentments of settlement checks
by Class Members to the extent the claims are not subject to
this Agreement.
Within
45 days
arbitration
as
contemplated in
after the Effective Date, and with the express approval of
Plaintiffs' counsel and MetLife's counsel, the Settlement Administrator shall issue checks in
the
appropriate amounts to the Settlement Class members who submitted timely, valid claims
identified in the parties' submission to the Court
as
at
Final Approval hearing.
the
The
Settlement Administrator shall inform Class members that checks containing payments must
within
be cashed
180 days
of issuance or
else the
check
will
be
void and they will have no
further right or entitlement to any payment under the terms of this settlement.
remaining from checks issued to claiming

180 days
of issuance shall awarded
incur any
liability arising out of
or
as
members who
fail
of MLIC's obligation
to
their check within
to cash
cy pres pursuant to Paragraph
relating to uncashed checks.
claims with respect to the enforcement

is
class
Any money
MetLife
8.
shall not
Plaintiffs do not release
timely make the payments it
obligated to make under the Agreement.

Release. On the Effective Date, all
13.
not opt out

and
are
members, including Plaintiff, who do
of the proposed Settlement Class ("the Releasors")
in consideration
which
class
as
required in the Notice, for
of the terms and undertakings herein, the sufficiency and fairness of
acknowledged,
release and forever discharge
MetLife (and
of MetLife's
each
current and former parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, controlled companies, or any of

officers,
directors,
representatives
and
shareholders,
employees,
attorneys), Storick (and
predecessors, successors,
each
its or
assigns,
their
agents,
of the Storick Defendants' current and
former parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, controlled companies, or any of
its
or
their officers,
directors, shareholders, employees, predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, representatives

and
attorneys) or any other person or entity for whom MetLife or the Storick Defendants
could be liable from any and all claims, demands, debts, liabilities, actions,
every kind and nature, obligations, damages,
actual or
and costs,
of action of
whether known or unknown,
potential, suspected or unsuspected, direct or indirect, contingent or fixed, that have
been, could have been, or in the
losses,
causes
future might
10
be
asserted that arise out of, relate to, or are
MetLife's
otherwise in connection with
August 23, 2008
or Storick's
of facsimiles between
transmission
of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (the "Released
and the date
Claims"). All Releasors who do not opt out of the proposed Settlement Class are enjoined
from
initiating any action, suit
or other proceeding against
MetLife or the Storick Defendants
for any of the Released Claims.
If
any
of the Releasors reside in California or are otherwise subject
to
then such Releasors hereby waive all rights under Section 1542 of the
California. That section reads

the creditor does not
as
follows: "A general release
know or suspect to exist in his favor
at
does
the
California law,
Civil Code of
not extend to claims which
time of executing the release,
which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1542 or any similar law of any other state,
provide
full
and
and to
complete release of Released Parties, the Releasors expressly acknowledge
that this Agreement
is
intended to include, without limitation, in addition to the Released
Claims, all claims which the Releasors do not know or suspect to exist in their favor
at
the
time of execution of this document, and agree that the settlement agreed upon completely
extinguishes all
such
claims.
Each of the releases in this Paragraph
13
may
defense to any action, suit or other proceeding that may
be
be
pleaded
as
as
The Parties
has
fully
necessary for the purpose of enforcing this
Agreement in any court of competent jurisdiction.
11
and complete.
instituted or prosecuted (or
been instituted or prosecuted) with respect to any of the Released Claims.

agree that this Agreement may be pleaded
full
Notices.
14.
Within
the
for exclusion, objections
requests
deadline
set
forth in
the
preliminary approval order,
to the Agreement or settlement, notices
claims, and any other notice shall be
sent
regarding rejected
in writing to:
Brian J. Wanca
Anderson + Wanca
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

Frank A. Zacherl
Shutts & Bowen LLP
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33131
Howard Poznanski
4800 North Federal Highway
Suite 208A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Court Submission. Class Counsel
15.
will
hereto, along with such other supporting papers
submit this Agreement and the Exhibits
as
may be appropriate, to the Court
preliminary approval of this Agreement pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801

declines to grant preliminary approval of this Agreement and settlement
with respect
hearing
the
and to
the Court declines to grant
settlement
16.
an
will not
.
order unconditionally and
finally adjudicating that
this
If
the
Court
order notice of
final approval
foregoing after such notice and hearing, this Agreement will terminate
Court enters
an
if
to the proposed Class, or
et seq.
for
as
soon
as
to
the
Agreement and
be approved.
Conditions Precedent. This Agreement is expressly contingent on (a) entry of
order that contains the judgment giving final approval to the terms of this Agreement
which
is
no longer subject to appeal and (b) C-Mart,
hours of preliminary approval of this settlement,
12
MLIC,
and Storick
filing, within
24
motion in the C-Mart Action to decertify
the class and dismiss that action
with prejudice. In the event that one or more of the foregoing
not occur, this Agreement shall be deemed void ab initio and the Parties shall be deemed
does
position
to be in the same
quo ante rights
status
understandings
to be
as
as
existed prior to the execution of this Agreement
with the
same
existed prior to the execution of this Agreement, and all other
agreements between the Parties relating to the Settlement shall be deemed
and
null and void and of no force and effect. Neither the fact that this Agreement was made
nor any stipulation, representation, agreement or assertion made in this Agreement may be
used against any Party.
Right to Rescind. The Parties agree that any Party shall have the right, but not
17.
the
obligation, to
more than 2.5%

request
set
aside or rescind this Agreement,
of the total
modifications
any
of the following events occur:
any
objection to the settlement
timely, valid
is
sustained by
of any right to appeal and reverse the trial court's ruling; (c) there
to
(a)
identified in the Records submits
for exclusion from the settlement; (b)
the Court, regardless

any
Class Members
if
are
this Agreement made by the Court, by any other court, or by any
tribunal, agency, entity, or person that are not approved or requested by all of the Parties; (d)
in the event
before
an
order
of decertification
final approval hearing in
the
not entered in the C-Mart Action
at
least 30 days
Litigation.
With respect to Paragraph 17(d),

(i)
is
the parties agree to exercise good
faith to negotiate:
new settlement in which the Class definition would be modified to exclude the C-Mart
certified class;
total funds
and
(ii)
separate settlement
for both settlements not
exceed
for class in
the
C-Mart Action, provided that the
maximum $23 million.
right to rescind based on Paragraph 17(d) must

approval hearing in
the
be
Litigation.
13
served
Written notice of the
at least 14 days
prior to the final
Integration Clause. This Agreement contains the full, complete, and integrated
18.
statement
of
and every term and
each
supersedes any
provision agreed to by and among the Parties and
prior writings or agreements (written or oral) between or among the Parties,
which prior agreements may no longer be relied upon for any purpose other than to ascertain
the intent
of the Parties in the event of
dispute over the meaning of the terms of this
Agreement. This Agreement shall not be orally modified in any respect and
can be
modified
only by the written agreement of the Parties supported by acknowledgedwritten consideration

Headings. Headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience
19.
reference only and
are
of
not intended to alter or vary the construction and meaning.of this
Agreement.
Binding and Benefiting Others. This Agreement shall
20.
inure to the benefit or detriment of the Parties

opt out, and to
assigns,
and the
be
binding upon
and
Settlement Class Members who do not
their respective parent corporations, divisions, subsidiaries, heirs, executors,
and successors
in interest
and any
of
its or
their agents, employees, representatives,
trustees, officers, directors, shareholders.

21.
Representations and Warranties. The Parties each
and agree that, in
executing this Agreement, they do
rights that they may have
with
so
further represent, warrant,
with full knowledge of any and all
respect to the claims released in this Agreement and that they
have received independent legal counsel from their attorneys with regard to the facts involved
and the controversy herein compromised and
facts.
Each
with regard to their rights arising out of
of the individuals executing this Agreement warrants that
he or she
has
authority to enter into this Agreement and to legally bind the party for which he or
14
such
the
she is
sigrling.
Governing Law. The contractual terms of this Agreement shall
22.
and enforced in accordance

its
with the substantive law of the
interpreted
be
of Illinois, without regard
State
to
conflict of laws and/or choice of law provisions.

Mutual Interpretation. The Parties agree and stipulate that this Agreement was
23.
negotiated on
an
arm's-length
between Parties of equal bargaining power. Also,
basis
Counsel, counsel for the Storick Defendants,
and counsel for
Class
MetLife have drafted
the
Agreement jointly. Accordingly, no ambiguity shall be construed in favor of or against any of

the Parties.
Plaintiffs acknowledge, but does not concede or agree with, MetLife's or the
Storick Defendants' statements regarding the merits of the claims, and MetLife and the
Storick Defendants acknowledge, but do not concede to or agree with, Plaintiffs' statements
regarding the merits of the claims.

24.
No Admission of Liability. MetLife and Storick have agreed to the terms of
this Agreement to
end all
burden and expense
controversy
with Plaintiff and
of litigation, without in
any way
the Settlement Class and to
acknowledging fault or liability. MetLife
and Storick have denied and continue to deny all charges
MetLife or Storick or any of the Released Parties. As

construed, in whole or in part,
as
an
avoid the
admission of fault or
of liability or wrongdoing
as
to
result, this Agreement may not be
liability to
any person by
MetLife or
Storick or by any of the Released Parties, nor shall this Agreement or any part thereof
be
liability
or
offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding
as
an
admission of
wrongdoing of any kind by MetLife or Storick or any of the Released Parties.

25.
issue any
Non-Disparagement.
press
releases
Plaintiffs (and their counsel) agree that they will not
concerning
this.
case
15
or
that
are
disparaging
to
MetLife.
Notwithstanding this Paragraph, Anderson + Wanca
is
website and in future court submissions that this action

example of
TCPA
case
in which
class
action
incorporated into this Settlement Agreement
C-Mart action is
an
been certified and/or settled.
as
if
stated
fully herein.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which
27.
be
has settled and the
Incorporation of Recitals. Each of the Recitals stated above are hereby
26.
shall
has
permitted to note on its public-facing
deemed to
be an
original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the
same instrument. Facsimile
and
signatures shall bind the Parties
.pdf
to this
Agreement
as
though they are original signatures.

Severability. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this
28.
Agreement shall for any reason
be
held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect,
invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall
not affect any other
such
provisions if the Parties and
their counsel mutually elect by written stipulation to be filed with the Couit within twenty
(20)
to proceed
days
as
if
such
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provisions had never been
included in this Agreement.

29.
Continuing Jurisdiction. Witliout affecting the finality of the final judgment,
the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Litigation and the Parties,
members
of the Settlement
Class, the
administration and enforcement of this Agreement
the settlement, and the benefits to the Settlement

as
supervising
the
Class
preliminarily approving the settlement,
final judgment, hearing

and expenses, and the
and determining an
application by
Class
and
the
interpretation of this
Counsel
and
for an award of fees
distribution of settlement proceeds to the Settlement
16
and
hereunder, including for such purposes
implementation, enforcement, construction,
Agreement, the order
including all
Class.
Any dispute
or controversies arising
the Agreement shall
be
with respect
to the
interpretation, enforcement, or implementation of
presented by motion to
the
Court.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLYLEFT BLANK
17
IN WITNESS WREREOF,
on the date set fo:cth beside
DATED:.__
/
caused
this
Auctneof
to
be executed
SHAUN FAULEY,
on
bol>1f of ilmaelf
and
the
of hemelf
and
the
Settlement Class
DEDAUN,
.DETUSE
...
Settlement
DATED.........
have
signatures.,
.cosycotive
DATED:
tha
the Farties
SABOR
on
behah
Clase
TNC..
on
Laha,7f
of heelf
na
elw
settlemort
Class
By:
Te
DATED:
SANDY ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCA

of itse.U. no.d the Settlement Clas
INC,
on
beha3f
DATED:
CETRSTOPFER
ofiipelf and
ts:
17
LOWE HICKT..IN Di
the Settlement
C3.ass
&
on behe,f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
on the date set fotth
DATED:
DATEDi
DATED:
the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
beside their respeelve signatures.
behalf
of
hituself
and
the
DENISE DEBAUN, on
ettlement class
behalf
of
herself
and
the
SABON, INC ,
of
SHAUN FAULEY,
Settlement Class
on
on
behalf
itself and the Settlement
Class
By:
Its:
DATED:
SANDY ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

behalf of itself aud the Settlement Class
on
By:
Its:
DATED:
CIIRISTOPHER
of itself
LOWE HICKLIN DC PLC,
and the Settlement Chas
BV:
Its:
17
on behalf
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
on the date set
DATED:
forth
beside
the Parties
their respective
have caused this Agreement
to be
executed
signatures.
SHAUN FAULEY,
on
behalf of himself
and
the
on
behalf of herself
and
the
Settlement Class
DATED:
DENISE DEBAUN,
Settlement Class
DATED:
SABON, INC.,
on
behalf of itself
and the
Settlement
Class
DATED:

behalf of itself and the Settlement Class
on
By:
Its:
DATED:

of itself and the Settlement Class
By:
Its:
17
on
behalf
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
on the date set
DATED:
forth
beside
the
Parties
have caused
Agreement
this
to be
executed
their respective signatures.
SHAUN
FAULEY,
on
behalf of himself
and
the
behalf of herself
and
the
Settlement Class
DATED:
DENISE DEBAUN,
on
Settlement Class
DATED:
SABON. INC.,
on
behalf of itself
and the Settlement
Class
By:
Its:
DATED:

behalf of itself and the Settlemei Class
on
By:
/* g /
lts:
DATED:
.p

of itself and the Settlement Class
By:
ts:
17
on
behalf
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
on the date set
forth
beside
the Parties
their respective
DATED:
have caused this
Agreement to
be
executed
signatures.
SHAUN FAULEY,
on
behalf of himself
and
on
behalf of herself
and
the
Settlement Class
DATED:
DENISE DEBAUN,
Settlement
DATED:
the
Class
SABON, INC.,
on
behalf of itself
and the
Settlernent
Class
By:
Its;
DATED:

behalf of itself and the Settlement Class
on
By:
DATED:
CHRISTOPHER LOWE
Its:
17
HICKLIN DC
PLC, on
behalf
DATED:
C-MART, INC.
By:
DATED:
RICHARD CADENASSO
DATED:
METROPORTAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
Its:
DATED:
STORICK GROUP CO.
Its:
DATED:
THE STORICK GROUP CORPORATION
By
DATED:
SCOTT
R.
18
STORICK
DATED:
C-MART, INC.
By:
Its:
DATED:
RICHARD CADENASSO
DATED:
METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
Its:
DATED:
STORICK GROUP CO.
By:
Its:
DATED:
By:
Its:
DATED:
SCOTT
R.
19
STORICK
DATED:
C-MART, INC.
By;
Its:
DATED:
RICHARD CADENASSO
DATED:
METROPOLITAN L
By
DATED:
INSURANCE COMPANY
........
STORICK GROUP CO.
By:
Its:
DATED:
By:
Its:
DATED:
SCOTT
R.
I
19
STORICK
DATED:
C-MART, INC.
By;
Its:
DATED:
RICHARD CADENASSO
DATED:
METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
Its:
DATED:
STORICK GROUP CO.
DATED:
THE STORICK
ROUP CORPORATION
-
DATED:
SCOT
19
TO
A A
ob
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19'" JUDICIAL'STRICT

LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
SHAUN FAULEY, SABON, INC., SANDY

ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
DEBAUN DEVELOPMENT, INC. and
CHRISTOPHER LOWE HICKLIN DC
PLC, individuallyand as the
representatives of a class of similarlysituated persons,
1$
c
CASE NO.:
14
CH 1518
Plaintiffs,
V.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, STORICK GROUP CO.,
THE STORICK GROUP
CORPORATION, SCOTT R. STORICK
and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
OBJECTION OF JUDD CLAYTON, JR.
EXHIBIT
18
INTRODUCTION
This
class
action settlement in
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
case
involving alleged unsolicited fax
advertisements. Class actions in Illinois
state
court are governed by Sections 5/2-
801 et seq.
case
involves
proposed
of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which
are
Telephone
modeled after the
FederalRules of Civil Procedure. Smith v. Illinois Central R.R.,
860
N.E.2d 332,
336-37 (Ill. 2006) (citing cases).
Objector Judd Clayton,
Jr.
("Objector") resides
at
1724 Oleander Dr.,
Dickinson, Texas 77539; his current phone is 281-337-0337 and
his
fax number is
281-337-1167. Attached to this objection are Exhibits A (claim form and receipt
for same), B (direct notice of the proposedsettlementreceived by Mr. Clayton), C
(three pages of the website (www.class-settlement.com)set up in this case to
submit claims) and

Cal.App.4th
Exhibits
is
class
class
are
(Litwin
v.
iRenew
877 (Ct. App.,2d Dist. 2.014) (certified for partial publication)), which
incorporated herein by reference
as
though set forth in full. Objector
member and therefore has standingto make this objection to the proposed
settlement.
Objection is made to any procedures
this
Bio Energy Solutions, LLC, 226
case
that
are
not included in the
specifically objection
is
class
or
requirementsto object or appeal in
notice and/or
are
not satisfied herein,
made to the extent the procedures or requirements to
'
objet require information or documents other than those that are contained herein
on grounds that such requirements seek irrelevant information to the objections,
are
unnecessary, unduly burdensome, or are calculated to drive down the number
and quality of objections to the settlement. Objector incorporatesby reference all
other objections, if any, filed in opposition to this proposedsettlementthat are not

inconsistentwith this objection.
OBJECTIONS
The
class
notice
is
inadequate.
Section 5/2-803 provides "Notice in class cases. Upon

an
action may be maintained as
class
action, or
at
determinationthat
any time during the conduct of
the action, the court in its discretion may order such notice that it deems necessary
to
protect the interests of the
class
and the parties.
An order entered under
subsection (a) or Section 2-802 of this Act, determining that an action may be
maintained as
class
action, may be conditioned upon the giving of such notice as
the court deems appropriate." The adequacy of
constitutional concerns. Client Follow Up
Co.
class
notice may implicate
v Hynes, 434 N.E.2d 485, 490 (Ill.
App. I Dist. 1982).

The class notice in this case is inadequate. The notice received by Objector
directs class members to
settlement.com)to file
username and passwordprotected website (http://class-
claim, but it
does
not identify
public settlementwebsite
that 'provides information

Exhibit
documents about the proposed settlement. See
and
The notice provides "This Notice only summarizes the litigation
B.
the settlement. To see the complete file, including
copy of the settlement
agreement, you may visit the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court[.]" Id.
notice
directs class
also
members
to
class
counsel's office
information, but the provision of oral information in

counsel cannot serve
class
as a
and
to
The
obtain more
non-uniform manner by
substitutefor adequate notice of
class
settlement.
Id.
It cannot
be said
that
the
notice
is
the best notice practicable. A basic
minimal requirement of any notice campaign in 2014

opposed to
just
set up to process
public website,
claims, that provides not
class
members can make
an
informed decision about what actions to
relevant to the settlement, all relevant court documents, such
preliminary approval motion
and order, the
motion in support of attorneys'

notice
as
copy of the Settlement Agreement, but detailed information about the
settlementso
take
password-protectedsite
is
was
the
motion for final approval, and the
fees, expenses
and incentive awards.
The
class
inadequate to all members of the proposed class, but especially those
who for whatever reason did not receive a username
and
password to
few documents available at class-settlement.com.Moreover, the direct

(Exh. B)
as
was
misleading because it only directed
class
membersto
the
access the
class
notice
office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court to obtain documents

documents were
also
and did
available after you entered
class-settlement.com.Objection is made
to the
not explain that those
username and password on
inadequacy of the notice campaign
and the class notice provided in this case.
Procedures to object violate due process.

The direct notice advises
class
membersof their right to object; however it
provides that "if you want the Court to consider your objection,then you must also
appear at the final approval hearing in Room C-302." Exhibit C at para. D, 4.
Objection
specifically made
is
appeal) attendance is required

Such
2014.
to
at
the requirement that in order to object (and/or
the fairness hearing scheduled for November 14,
requirem'eilt violates Objector's
due process
rights and the
due
process rights of the unnamedmembersof the class and objection is made on that
basis.
See,
eg., iRenew,
Exhibit
hereto. Personal attendance to object (and/or
appeal) denies class members a meaningful right to be heard, especially here in
national
class
action being settled in Illinois state court.
It
is
unfair
and
unreasonable to require personal attendance. Nevertheless, Objector's counsel
listed below will
be
present at the fairness hearing scheduled for November
14,
2014.
The proponents of the settlement have failed to discharge their burden of

proof on the fairness of this settlement.
"The questionof the reasonableness of
settlementrequires a consideration
of all of the facts

which
is
fair
to
circumstances to determine whether a result has been reached
and
all concerned parties." Gowdey v. CommonwealthEdison Co, 345
N.E.2d 785, 793-94 (Ill.App.
Dist. 1976).
Associates, Inc., 713 N.E.2d 709 (Ill.App.

be
sure,
global
class
In Steinberg v.
Software
Dist. 1999), the court explained "[t]o
action settlements, state
exclusive federal claims, raise
System
court settlements that release
of fairness and.process that extend beyond
issues
those present in nonglobal settlementclass actions. These concerns include the fear
of inadequate prosecution or discovery, the presence of collusion
or
'plaintiff
shopping,' attorney inexperience, and the settlement'spotentially preclusive effect

on federal
claims." Id.
at
716.
The factors that should
be
considered in determining the fairness of
proposed class action settlement are
as
follows: "(1) the strength of the
plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the money
or
for
case
other relief offered in
settlement; (2) the defendant's ability to pay; (3) the complexity, length
and
expense of further litigation; (4) the amount of opposition to the settlement;(5) the
presence of collusion in reaching the settlement;(6) the reaction of members of the
class to the
settlement; (7) the opinion of competent counsel; and (8) the
the proceedings and amount of discovery completed."
Korshak, 565 N.E.2d
68, 70
factors, the first factor
is
(Ill. App.
stage
City of Chicago
of
v.
Dist. 1990). In evaluating these Korshak
the most important. Id
at
70-71.
'
Objection
made to the fairness
is
proponents of the settlement have

Objection is made
to the
the
of the proposed settlement; and the
burden of proof on the issue of fairness.
extent the proponentsof this settlementfail
to discharge
this burden of proof.

The proposed settlement is presented
reality it
is
not.
This
is
settlement with
process where the defendant has

there is also
be
as
$23 million settlement, but in
difficult
and
burdensome claims
reversionaryinterest in the unclaimed funds and
cy pres component. As an initial matter, this settlementshould not
approved until it
is
determinedhow many claims are made and how much of
supposed "up to" $23 million fund will actually be distributed to the class.
the
Given
the difficult claims procedure, the reversionaryinterest of the defendantand the cy
pres component and

themselves on
fees
class
counsel's negotiation of red-carpet treatment for
expenses and the large
and
incentive awards
representatives,this settlement is unfair and should not
be
to
class
approved. Moreover,
objection is made to the claims process and the propseddivision of the settlement
as
being unfair and arbitrary
and
calculatedto result in
modestpayout to the
class
relative to the substantialcivil penaltiesavailableunder the TCPA.

Proposed attorneys
Illinois courts
fees
and expenses are excessive.
can use
lodestarmethodin order
to
either the percentage of the fund methodology or the
ascertain an appropriate attorneys' fee in
class
action.
See
brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B, 659 N.E.2d 909,
914 (IH. 1995).
However, each of these methodologies has drawbacks and they should

carefully under the specific circumstances of each
Class
attorneys'
Id.
at
applied
910-14.
counsel appears to seek an award of one-third of $23 million
incentive awards
plus expenses, plus $15,000
fee,
representatives. This
of the fund
case.
be
and
is
The defendant has
settlement fund.
proceeds and there is
the
an
class
excessiye and objection is made under both the percentage
lodestar methodologies.
to
as
$23
million
is
actually a ceiling on the
reversionary interest in the unclaimed
cy pres component. The costs associated with the notice
campaign and the administration of the settlementall come out of this settlement
before class members are paid.
constitutethe lion's
also
made
to the
share
likely result in
counsel's fees and expenses will likely
of the money actuallypaid out to the
class.
Objection is
adequacy of class counsel for negotiating such red carpet
treatment for themselves on

available to the
Class
class
fees at the expense
and such
difficult
and
of and compared to
the
relief
arbitrary claims process that will
substantial reversion to the defendant. Moreover, the proposed
incentive awards
are so
objectivity of the
class
high that they serve
as
an
inappropriate influence on the
representativesin deciding whether to support the proposed
settlement.
In short, before determining attorneys' fees and expenses, the Court should
wait'to
see
the class
what the actual claims rate

(as
is,
how much will actually be distributed to
opposed reverting to defendant or. paid via cy pres), and then
determine a reasonable attorneys' fee using both the percentage of

lodestar methodologies to cross-check the fairness of the
the
fund and
fee and expense
The incentive awards should under any circumstances
be
given the risk that they will inappropriately influence the
class
award.
substantially reduced
representativesinto
supporting this settlement.

CONCLUSION
The settlement should
be be
rejected.
Alternatively, in the event the
settlementis approved, the attorneys' fee and expense award and incentive awards
should be rejected or,
at
niinimum, deferred until the claims data
comes
in and
should be based on the actual recovery of the class.

DATED: October 14, 2014
Higgin
Lipkin & Higgins
222 North LaSalle, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312 857-1710
Facsimile: (312 857-1711
Email: phiggins lipkinhiggins.com
eter F.
Attorneys for Objector/ClassMember
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this the 14th day of October, 2014, I filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court in the Circuit Court of the
District, Lake County, Illinois.
I further certify that on this date
19'"
Judicial
true and correct
copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel via U.S. Mail
and Facsimile.
Brian J. Wanca
Anderson + Wanca
Rolling Meadows,IL 60008
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
Frank A. Zacherl
Shutts & Bowen LLP
201 SouthBiscayneBlvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33131
Facsimile: (305) 381-9982
Peter F. Higgin
10
EXHIBIT
"A"
212
10/86/2614
12:17
2813371
CLAYTON ASSOCIATES
PROOPOPOLAIM
Shaun Pauley, pt aL
v. Metropolitan
iIm BE --I)Hm
Ufo insurance Comoann et at
caseNo.14 CH1618
zu MInti15
ygggggg
Numbet'294-537-fl87
Fax
Mimidomden f heftstEOURSiensto Gisiala Shmu of Ble

Sten&focialmaMaximitmahareoffhentuemenfFumi
You
1.
PA6E
SeiAgnent
tnd Yow MustAlso Compfele
Must Provida Your ontactinformatiom
Ysta
MAJ
Nameof pomonsignIngfome
-f?P
Company (Iapplicabia)
street Adamss:
carisowsecode:
A/^ J7-
r
&717
727-137-//47
(LMaintenbers onnad by pouat aft jou

2.
Fr rg
se
Contact Telephone Numbet'

Far Numbar(s):
f ornitugat23,
in M abon:
rameAedtaw
200& #nough
You Must Verify Ownershipof the Fax Numbes(slListed

Any person who knowingly presents a fraudulent oisim containing any false
may be guilty of fraud.
Augat
or misleading
?,
2014]
infonmtion
SIGN ONE OFTHE FOLLOWING UNES:

"I or my company was the subscrber
for the fax numbm(s) Identified above or attached to this claim form
throughout the entire period from August 23, 2000 througli August 7,2014.
make this statement under penaxy
of
perjury."
$g
m
or
1
try company was NOT1he subscriber for the far number(s) identified above or attached to this dainform
ihtoughout the entire period from August 23, 2008 ihmugh August 7, 20K" Ifyou choose this option, exphin on
the lines pmvided &
dining August 23, 2008 thmugh August7, 2014 you dakn to have had the far number(s).
make these statemorris under penany
of perjury."
(Sigir your n2xna here)

0,
ifYouAreSubmittindThisFonnOnBohalfefYourcomommr.YouMuttYedNThatYouAmAuthorizedtoDone.
1
am atnhorized to submb this form on behalf
of the
(Sign
4.
You Must SubmitvourClaim by Nevernber28, 2014

1.og on with yor personal Usendme and Password
(a)
Go
to: WWW.claSS-Soff!
your name
"
here)
(CHOOSRONLYONEMETHOok
OR
ident00tn
Usemame: 7329399
Password:wokindmap
5.
company listed above
(b)
Fax this claim Form to; (800) 7744323
on
(c)
M.x os
os...c.te....ne....
Chim Formto
MotLifWStook
Pt) BoxGOOD
Hiokaville,NY11824000
ttach Conies of Fadonnilomf0otionalk
if you have retained copies of any faras you believe to be advertisements sent tyor on ehalf orthe Defendants,
you shoukiattach copies of all faxesreceivedte this form. If you do not attach any faxes, your recovety under
the
Senhment wf be reduced.
05/06
Shaun Fauley,
et
al v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al
Information
Attomey information
(Attomeyloformation.aspx)
Thank you for submitting your claim. Your claim will now be verified.
About the lawsuit (About-
validate your claim, you will
Thank you. Your Claim HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
be
If
additional Information
is
required
to
contacted.
the-Lawsuit.aspx)
Important
Please print this page for your records! This

claim submission you will receive.
is the
only confirmation of
The deadline for

submitting
a
claim
is
Wednesday,
November 26,
2014
Member ID
7329399
Name of Person Signing
Judd Clayton,
Jr.
Form
Company Name
Address
Address
1724 Oleander Drive
City
Dickinson
State
TX
Zip Code
77539
Fdx Number
281-337-1167
Other Fax Numbers

Files Uploaded
3opyright
Submitted Date
10/7/2014 2:33:53 PM
You confirmed that
The fax number(s) identified was/were yours or your company's

August 23, 2008 to August 7, 2014
2014 class-settlement.com (http://www.class-settlement.com).
All
Rights
frorri
Reserved,
EXHIBIT
"B"
i
215
2.
3.
Do nothing: You will be bound by the settlement and you will release your claims regarding faxes sent by or on
behalf of the MetLife (defined in this Notice as Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its past or present
subsidiaries, affiliates, or any of its or their directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives or attorneys)
or the Storick Defendants between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014, but you will not receive any money.
You have the right to exclude yourself from both the class action and the settlement
submitting a written request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. Your request for exclusion must be
postmarked on or before October 14, 2014, it must list your name, fax number, street address, and the name
and number of this case, and itmust state that you wish to be excluded (for example, "Exclude me from the Met
Life settlement."). Mail your exclusion request to the following attomeys, postmarked by date above, who will
notify the Court of your request:
Opt out of the settlement:
by
Class Counsel:
Brian J. Wanca
Anderson+ Wanca
Meadows, IL 60008
4.
MetLife's Counsel:
Frank A. Zacheri
Shutts& Bowen LLP
201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33131
Rolling
Objoot to the settlement:If you wish to object to the settlement rather than excluding yourself, you must file a
written objection with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County, 18 N. County St., Waukegan, Illinois 60085.
Your objection must be filed by October 14, 2014, and must contain the name and number of this case (as
indicated at the top of this notice). You must also serve copies of your objection on Class Counsel and
Defendants' attorneys (identified above), postmarked by the same date. Your objection must include your
name, fax number, and street address, along with a statementof the reasons why you believe the Court should
find that the proposed settlement is not in the best interests of the Settlement Class. It is not sufficient to simply
state that you object; you must state your reasons. Additionally, if you want the Court to consider your objection,
then you must also appear at the final approval hearing in Room C-302, on November 14, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.
You are not required to attend this hearing unless you object to the settlement.
WILL THE COURTAPPROVE THE SETTLEMENT? The Court
E.
will hold a final approval hearing on November 14,

2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Room C-302 of the Circuit Court of Lake County,18 N. County St., Waukegan, Illinois 60085,
at which the Court will hear any timely and properly-filed objections and arguments about the settlement. You are
not required to attend unless you object to the settlement. The hearing may be continued to a future date without
further notice.
F.
WHERE CAN YOU GET MORE

see the complete file, including
INFORMATION?This Notice only summarizesthe litigation and

copy of the settlement agreement, you may visit the office
the settlement. To
Clerk of the
Lake County, 18 N. County St., Waukegan, lliinois 60085. The Clerk will make the files relating to
the lawsuit available to you for inspection and copying at your own expense.
Circuit Court
of the
of
questions, you can write to Class Counsel at the address listed above. Include the case
If you have specific
number, your name, your fax number, and your current street address on any correspondence. You may also call
the office of attorney Brian J. Wanca, Class Counsel, at 855-827-2329.
DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE, THE JUDGE'S STAFF, OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT BECAUSE THEY
CANNOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.
BY ORDER
OF THE COURT,
JUDGE LUIS A. BERRONES
CLAIM INSTRUCTIONS
TO FILE
Enter
YOUR CLAIM,
your unique USERNAME
&
GO TO:
http:// www.class-settlement.com
PASSWORD
below and follow the easy online instructions.
Username: ..........T329399
Password:
..........wokindmap
'
This
IN
is a
notice of
lawsuit settlement, not
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

-
THE 19TH
lawsuit against you.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHAUN FAULEY, SABON, lNC., SANDY ROTHSCHILD

ASSOCIATES,INC., DEBAUN DEVELOPMENT,INC.,
&
CHRISTOPHER LOWE HICKLIN DC PLC, RICHARD

CADENASSO and C-MART, INC., individually and as the
representativesof a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
No.
14
CH 1518
v.
METROPOLITANLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,STORICK

GROUP CO., THE STORICK GROUP CORPORATION,
SCOTT R. STORICK and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Judge Luis A. Berrones
Defendants.
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTWITH ATTACHED CLAIM FORM
TO: All personsin the UnitedStatoswhoweresentafacsimile advertisementby or on behalf of MetLife or the

StorickDefendantsbetweenAugust 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014, where the facsimile advertisoment was
unsolicited andlor did not contain optcut language compliant with the requirements of the TCPA andlor its
accompanying regulations. (the "Settlement Class")
The Courtorderedus to send you this Notice because your fax number is contained on a list of fax numbers to which
advertisements may have been sent by fax and you appear to be a member of the Settlement Class defined above.
A.
IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Storick Group Co., the Storick Group Corporation, and Scott Storick (collectively, "Defendants") alleging
that they violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited advertisements by
fax.Defendantsdeny Plaintiffs'allegations and raised defenses. The parties have agreed to settle all claims about
advertising faxes sent by or on behalf of one or more of the Defendants between August 23, 20DB and August 7,
2014. This notice informs you of your rights regarding this settlement as a member of the Settlement Class.
B.
WHAT
C.
D.
WHAT
IS THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? The Court has certified the Settlement Class defined above and
preliminarily approved a settlement, subject to a final approval hearing that will occur on November 14, 2014, at
9:00 a.m. in Room C-302, Circuit Court of Lake County, 18 N. County St., Waukegan, lilinois 60085. Defendants
have created a settlement fund of $23,000,000.00 to settle this case. If the Court finally approves the settlement,
each valid claim will be paid up to (1) $250 per fax, up to 10 faxes, for valid faxes sent in by the claimant with her
claim form; and up to (2) $100 per fax, up to 10 faxes, for the number of faxes attempted to be sent to the claimant
by the available records; or up to (3) $50 per claim if the claimant does not attach faxes and the
as shown
claimant's fax number does not appear in the available records but the claimant attests under penalty of perjury that
the claimant receivedet least one applicable fax sent by or on behalf of the Defendants during the class period. In
the event the Settlement Fund is exhausted, these amounts are subiect to reduction.
|
i
WHO REPRESENTS THE SETTLEMENTCLASSIN THIS LITIGATION?Plaintiffs Shaun Fauley, Denise Debaun,
Sabon, Inc., Sandy Rothschild & Associates, Inc., Christopher Lowe Hicklin DC PLC, Richard Cadenassoand C-Mart,
Inc.(collectively,"Plaintiffs")arethe class representatives. Theirattorney, Brian J. Wanca of Anderson + Wanca has
been appointed Class Counsel. They have litigated on belialf of the Settlement Class against Defendants on a
contingency basis. As part of the settlement, Class Counsel will request that the Court award Plaintiffs incentive
awardsof $15,000 each for serving as the class representatives and ask the Court to award attorney's fees to Class
Counselequalto one-thirdofthesettlementfundforiheir
legal services, plus their out-of-pocket litigation expenses.
You will not haveto pay any money to Class Counsel. You may retain yourown counselto representyou at your own
expense.
WHAT RE YOUR FOUR OPTIONS?

Submita Proofof Claim (attached)to receive
1.
a check: You must submit a completed Claim Form (see form

notice) to the Settlement Administrator via U.S. Mail, fax, or the settlement website. The claim
form must be submitted to the Settlement Administrator on or before November 26, 2014. If mailed the
envelope must be postmarked on or before November 26, 2014. If sent via fa or the settlement website the
form must be received by the Settlement Administrator on or before November26, 2014. If you do not submit a
claim form you will not be eligible to participate in the economic recovery under this settlement. If you submit a
timely and valid claim form you will be mailed a settlement check.
at end of this
EXHIRIT
I
I
218
I (http://www.class-settlement.info)
Log in
Welcome to Your Gass Settlement
Here
i
Username
. Password
Log
if you received a Notice about a class action lawsuit or settlement with a request for more
Information, please follow the instructions on the Notice and login to this website. You may
be eligible for a portion of the settlement funds.
Please note;
pages of the
Notite you
Court authorized the Notice and the use of this website. Please read all the
received carefully. This is NOT a solicitation from a lawyer. You are
NOT beingsued.
in
:opyright 2014 class-settlement.com (http://www.class-settlement.com).
All
Rights Reserved.
l .
LOf
Shaun Fauley, et
al v.
lfn orma ron

o
Information
(Attorneyinformation.aspx)
Contact
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al
This Notice
is
settlement
of
inlended to let people know that they may be eligible to receive money under a proposed
class action lawsuit The lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Courtof Lake County, Illinois.
Before any money is paid, the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. The
proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 7, 2014.
About the lawsuit (About-
For more information
the-Lawsuit.aspx)
clicking
Importa n t,
e
(http://www.class-settlementinfo)
The deadline for
submitting
a claim is Wednesday,
November 28, 2014
about the lawsult, please read the Notice that was sent
to
you or view this Notice by
on the "Aboutthe Lawsult" link on the left.
The deadline
for
submitting
claim
is
November 26, 2014.
or file an objection, you must also do so by October14,
November
14,
2014 at 9:00 a.m.
In
If
you wish to exclude yourself
2014. The Final Approval
Room C-302, Circuit Court of Lake County,
Hearing
18 N.
from the lawsuit,

is
scheduled for
Cunty SL,
Waukegan, Illinols 60085.

if
you are part of the settlement class, complete
claim here. NOTE:
If
and submit
vou have already submitted
30pyright2014 class-settlement.com (http:llwww.class-settlement.com).
All
claim form. Press coniinue to su6mil your
claim form via fax or mail, do not submit
second claim
Rights Reserved.
Shaun Fauley, et
al v.
Info rma tio n

contact information
(Attorneyinformation.aspx)
Submityour Claim
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al
Below are the documents for this case. Click on them to view in a new window. You will need Acrobat
Reader to view these doce (available here (http://get.adobe.com/readerl))
Notice
(Docs/CMart-v-MetLife-Notice-Draftpdf)
Settlement Agreement (Docs/Metlife-Settlement-Agreementpdf)

Preliminary Approval Order (Docs/MetLife-Preliminary-Approval.pdf)
(Loggedin.aspx)
Important!
The deadline for
submitting
a
claim
is
Wecinesday,
November26, 2014
30pyright
2014 class-settlement.com
(httpylwww.class-settlement.com).
All
Rights Reserved.
EXHIBIT
sps,
222
Filed 5/28/14
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL
PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
SERYL
LITWIN et
Plaintiffs
B248759
al.,
(Los Angeles County
and Respondents,
Super. Ct. No.
BC447114)
v.
iRENEW BIO ENERGY SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
Defendant
and
Respondent;
BERT CHAPA,
Objector
and
Appellant.
I
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of

R. Freeman, Judge.
Los Angeles
County. Kenneth
Reversed with directions.
Lang, Hanigan & Carvalho, Timoihy R. Hanigan for Objector
and
Appellant.
Kirtland & Packard, Michael Louis Kelly, Behram V. Parekh, Heather M. Baker
for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Weintraub Tobin Law Corporation, David
R.
Gabor for Defendant and
Respondent.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110,

the Discussion of this opinion is certified for publication.
only section 2 in
Plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC,
Harvest Trading Group, Inc.,
advertising
"biofield"
bracelet made by iRenew as
to
Harvest Direct, LLC (collectively defendants) for
and
improve strength
to
damages
on
behalf of all
who purchased an iRenew bracelet. Defendants agreed
States
uses the
persons
in the United
to settle the lawsuit, and
trial court approved a settlement agreement in which defendants would
reimburse
members for
class
the purchase cost
agreement, the trial court awarded $215,000

class
member, objected
awarding attorney
disagree
with
the
fees
to the settlement,
first contention but
alleging
trial court
the
class
with
agree
of the bracelet. Pursuant
create
abused its
members violated
the second.
fund
to the
attorney fees. Appellant Burt
in
afforded
and the notice
body's
Alleging the advertising claims were false,
and wellness.
plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and
the
revolutionary bracelet that
Chapa,
discretion
due process.
in
We
Therefore, we reverse.
Statement of Facts
The Lawsuit
1.
On
October
7,
2010, Seryl
Litwin filed
false and misleading advertising in
violation of
Unfair Competition Law
Code, 17500), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code,

bracelet balanced the body's
strength were false
and
action lawsuit against iRenew for
a class
the False
(Bus. &
Prof.
Trading Group
and
and
7,
misleading
to the
Harvest Direct,
and
the
body's coordination
and
and
damages.
class action
lawsuit against Harvest
marketers of the iRenew bracelet, for injunctive

misleading advertising, alleging
the
advertising
person's biofield, "a subtle human energy field" that
and
reliable scientific evidence. The
its
average consumer. Litwin sought injunctive
2011, April Garton filed
of the iRenew bracelet to improve

the
Code, 17200), and the
biofield to improve wellness, balance, flexibility,
related equitable relief for false
oversees
(Bus. & Prof.
1750),.alleging iRenew's claims that
relief, restitution, compensatory damages, and punitive

On January
Advertising Act
regulation,
cases
was
false and unsupported by competent
were subsequently consolidated.
The Proposed Settlement
2.
Prior
to class
certification,
the parties
proposedsettlement, defendants agreed

and create
settlement pool of
up to
to
reached a settlement agreenient. Under the
reform their advertising of the iRenew bracelet
$1,300,000, less
reimburse class members for the purchase price
If
handling.
from
fees, costs, and expenses,
of the bracelet, including shipping
of the claims exceeded
the aggregate value
In exchange, class
rata basis.
The settlement
iRenew Bracelet
United
re-sale, the
the
preliminary approval order, except for
the
States
from January 2009, until
members' known
address,
pro
and not
of
the date
judge presiding over (the] matter." The
settlement agreement provided for notice to class members

to any class
on
who purchased for personal use,
persons
for
in the
adjusted downward
be
agreed to release all claims against defendants.
Inembers
included "all
class
and
maximum amount available
the
settlement pool, reimbursement per claim would
the
to
publication
in three forms: mail or email
in People
Magazine,
and postings
on
settlement Web site and other related Web sites.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement,
fees and costs
incentive awards in
3.
purposes,
long,
excess
the class
agreed not to seek legal
representatives each agreed not
to seek
of $2,500.
Preliminary Approval and Notice

On
parties
of $215,000, and
in excess
plaintiffs' counsel
May
and
24,
2012, the trial court granted class certification for settlement
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement with minor
provided
the
court with exemplars of two versions of
explanatory notice,
and
short, succinct notice.
the
The .
changes.
proposed class notice:
The court approved the content and
form of the provided exemplars.

Both notices included information on the settlement agreement, the procedure to
submit a claim, the procedure for
class
members
to
exclude themselves from
settlement, and information on,objecting to the settlement.

section
entitled, "What
are
my options?,"
stated class
The
the
short notice, under
members could "Object
to the
settlement and appear in Court," and directed class members to the long notice.
notice, in
section discussing
class
members' right to object,

3
stated,
"You
The long
can object to
if you don't like some
the Settlement
Court should not approve it

Hearing
part
of it. You
must
and you must
appear and
speak at the Final
objection, in order to have standing

Court's decision
class members,
to talk
about
or
mail directly to
class
"If
the
Approval
court's fairness hearing, the
the section on the
you send
it or the
published in People Magazine

email
why you think
any objection and/or any appeal related to the
to raise
objection." In
on that
Court
to come to
reasons
section on the 'Court's Fairness Hearing' below) concerning your
(see the
notice informed
give
an
objection, you or your attorney will
Court will not consider it." The short notice

The long notice
and posted on the Internet.
members with known
addresses
was
need
was
sent by
on the Internet.
and posted
Appellant's Objections
4.
After notice of the settlement was
settlement agreement. His main objection
amount for
after attorney
the class
language in
the
was
that the settlement left
proposed attorney fee
the
the
proposed
an
insufficient
were deducted from
costs, and expenses
fees,
million fund. Appellant also objected to

and to the
appellant objected to
issued,
notice requiring objectors to attend
request
as
the $1
excessive,
the
to
have their objections heard. Appellant argued requiring objectors to appear personally
at
the final approval hearing was unreasonable and violated
class
members'
due process
rights.
On
December
class claims,
18,
2012, the court requested clarification regarding the value of the
expressing concern that
costs and class membe,rs'
submitted during
the
claims. The
at
costs, $5,000
for
administrative
amounts
follows: $692,683.44 for
class
fees,
parties
provided that 19,685
$325,000, pursuant to
administrator. Accordingly, the final

as
were insufficient funds
to
representatives' incentive payments,
for
total
of $1,237,683.44.
had been
also
contract with
to be paid by
class claims,
pay administrative
claims
claims period, totaling $692,683.44. The parties
administrative fees were capped
settlement were
there
clarified
the claims
defendants under
the
$215,000 for attorney

and
that
$325,000 for
fees and
Final Approval
5.
Plaintiffs then filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. In their
memorandum of points
authorities
incurred $246,206.25
counsel
and
and
$5,221.64 in
$215,000 in attorney
March
On
settlement,
1,
settlement agreement, plaintiffs'
to be
trial court
fair,
and adequate.
notice practicable under
the best
sufficient notice
to class members.
hearing
it
was
the lodestar
method,
requested
counsel
order granting final approval of the
issued an
reasonable,
plan constituted
because
their
stated
and costs.
fees
2013, the
finding it
support of the motion, plaintiffs
attorney fees, calculated pursuant to
in
Per the
costs.
in
the circumstances
and
Although appellant did not attend
prohibitively expensive for him
overruled his objections, finding
The court found
there
would
be
to do so, the
sufficient funds
the notice
provided
the
final approval
court considered and

members'
to pay class
claims.
The trial court ordered defendants to make $1,237,683.44 available for

settlement.
The court awarded $2,500
to each named
plaintiff
and
the
$5,221.62 in
costs
to
plaintiffs' counseL The court then determined plaintiffs' counsel's fee request of
$209,778.86 represented a negative multiplier of
which were $246,206.25. The court found
to the
.852
amount of
the fee request was
incurred,
fees
reasonable, and awarded a
total of $215,000 for attorney fees and costs.
This appeal followed.

Discussion
Attorney Fees
1.
Appellant argues the trial court

attorney
fees
and costs.
V(e review
abuse
the best
19,
discretion in awarding $215,000 in
We disagree.
trial court's determination of reasonable attorney fees under the
of discretion standard. (Lealao
Cal.App.4th
abused its
v.
Beneficial California, Inc. (2000)
25.) "We start from the proposition that
"'the experienced trial judge
judge of the value of professional services rendered in
judgment
is
of course subject to review,
it
will not
5
be
82
his court, and
disturbed unless
the
while
is
his
appellate court
is
convinced that
it is
clearly wrong."'" (Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008)
Cal.App.4th
162
43, 64.)
The United
recovers a common fond for

entitled
to
Court has recognized that "a litigant or
States Supreme
benefit of persons other than himself or
the
reasonable attorney's fee from
Gemert (1980) 444 U.S.
the
fund
as a
his
whole." (Boeing
lawyer who
client
Co.
is
Van
v.
478.) '"[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily
472,
begins with the "lodestar," i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by
the reasonable
hourly rate.
. . . The lodestar
consideration of factors specific

for
the legal
when
[the
to the case, in
services provided.'" (Ketchum
Serrano v. Priest (1977)
also
lodestar] method
figure may then
v.
order to fix
Apple Computer, Inc. (2001)
the
fair market value

see
on appeal
record need only show the court awarded fees
used, the
the
court's calculations [are]
Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
v.
at
23.) "To withstand scrutiny
using that approach"; "[njo specific findings reflecting

required." (Dunk
the fee
Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134;
20 Cal.3d 25, 49, fn.
is
be adjusted, based on
1794,
1810;
Wershba
v.
Cal.App.4th 224, 254.)
91
Here, the record indicates the trial court awarded fees using the lodestar method.
In support of the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement, plaintiffs
represented that their attorneys incurred
method. Plaintiffs'
counsel
fees
$209,778.86 in
then requested
of $215,000, pursuant to
of $246,206.25, calculated using the

fees
and
settlement agreement. In
$5,221.64 in
lodestar
costs,
final approval order,
for
the
trial court determined plaintiffs' counsel's fee request of $209,778.86 represented a
total
negative multiplier of.852

was
to the
the
amount of
attorney
fees
no merit.
equal to
31
and
trial court
abused its
Although the practice of awarding attorney fees
Beneficial Cahfornia, Inc., supra,

based on
the
discretion in awarding
percent of the value of class members' claims. This argument
percentage of the common fund had
fees
incurred under the lodestar method,
therefore reasonable.
Appellant nevertheless argues
has
fees
its
percentage of
82
been
adopted by
Cal.App.4th
some
at pp.
'common fund' recovery
based
solely on
federal courts
(see
Lealao
v.
27-31), "[t]he award of attorney

is
of questionable validity in
Califdrnia." (Dunk
courts in
value of the
the
appropriate multiplier in
supra,
Co., supra,
California have, however,
amount against
the
Ford Motor
v.
82
Cal.App.4th
at p.
adopted the practice
common fund
as a
of
(Lealao
the lodestar analysis.
whole.
checking the
cross
(See
of the
amount of attorney
Boeing Co.
v.
Van
lodestar
trial court
the
used
Beneficial Cah'fornia, Inc.,
v.
45.) To determine the percentage

the
Appellate
at p. 1809.)
recovery to determine whether
class
plaintiffs' counsel received, we consider

to the
Cal.App.4th
48
fees
class
recovery
that
awarded compared
Gemert, supra, 444 U.S.
at p.
478.)
When we cross-check the fee award against the value
find no
abuse
of the common fund,
of discretion. Here, the attorney fees constituted only
16.5
we
percent of the
total fund potentially available under the settlement agreement, well within the range of
acceptable attorney fee awards.' Even if
to the
value of class claims,
fee awards.
as
appellant urges,
percentagemethod or
around one-third of
the 10destar
the
award is in line with
fees
studies
method is
31
class action
percent
of the value
show that, regardless whether the
used, fee
awards in
class actions
average
recovery.' [Citation.]" (Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., supra,
at p. 66, fn. 11.)
awarding attorney
2.
the fee
Here, the attorney fee award of $215,000 represents
of class members' claims. "'Empirical
Cal.App.4th
were to compare the attorney fees awarded
we
The trial court was therefore well within
its
162
discretion
in
of $215,000.
Notice
Appellant
also challenges the
sufficiency of notice given
arguing the requirement that objectors

objections heard violated
class
attend the
members'
due process
rights. We
"While our review of the manner of giving notice

discretion standard, our review of
the content
to class
is
de
to
have their
agree.
governed by
of notice may be
members,
the abuse
novo. '"To
of
the extent
Appellant argues plaintiffs' counsel should not have received a percentage of the
potential recovery that was not expended, here about $62,000. Even considering solely
what defendants were required to pay under the settlement agreement, $1,300,000 less
$62,000, attorney fees represented.only 17 percent.
7
the
trial court's ruling
assertedly improper criteria or incorrect legal
based on
is
assumptions, we review those questions
Termination
(2010)
Fee Cases
question for our review
186
novo.'" (Citations.]" (Cellphone
de
Cal.App.4th
whether notice requiring
is
approval hearing to have their objections heard
"If
money
the
forum
wishes
State
or similar
damages
relief
protection." (Phillips Petroleum

omitted.) Procedural due
right to
be
heard
(2003)
Cases
class members
process
Cal.App.4th
Co.
v.
class actions,
and in
class
"notice of
explanation of the proposed settlement
objections to
the
The language of
both
the
accord with
do botl
on class actions,
"[i]t
be
provided with "the

re
Vitamin
notice provided
due process,
and
Seagate
Under the California Rules of
734, 746.)
final approval hearing must be given

The notice must contain
procedures for
proposed settlement."
class
(Cal. Rules
members to follow
settlement hearing
appear at the
their
hae
the
to the
an
in
and
of Court, rule 3.769(f).)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(f) indicates objectors
to
is
claim for
members of the terms of the proposed
the court.
file a written.objection and appear at
not required to
meaningful manner." (In
filing written objections to it and in arranging to

state any
plaintiff concerning
dissenting class members." (Cho x
Cal.App.4th
manner specified by
class members in the
final
due process.
requires that affected parties
820, 829.) To
177
with
the
Shutts (1985) 472 U.S. 797, 811-812, fn.
the options open to the
Holdings, Inc. (2009)
Court governing
an absent
members to attend
class
accords
purely legal
the
law, it must provide minimal procedural due process
"must fairly apprise the
compromise and of
Tech.
at
meaningfal time
at a
107
bind
to
Here,
1380, 1390.)
may
final approval hearing, although they
objections
heard.
unnecessary for objectors to
As
explained by
appear
personally
leading
at the
are
treatise
settlement
hearing in order to have their written objections considered by the court." (Newberg,
Class
Actions (4th
ed.
2013)
Here, the notice

you or your attorney
appear
at the
11:56.)
explicitly informed
will
consider it." Requiring
cl
Court to talk
need to come to
ss
members
in
class members
final approval hearing or hire
nationwide
an
"[i]f you
send an
about it or the
class
or
objection,
Court will not
even a statewide class
attorney to have their objections heard
to
to
works
so
hardship on objectors,
low that
one's rights
indicated
him to
would
it
at a
unable
he was
do so as an
to the
objector from
hearing because
to attend the
be
therefore violates
class
Adherence to
considered, the burden on
does not
offer
principles directly impacts
(see
Cellphone Termination
trial court
cannot
Fee Cases,
the
members
whose
supra,
associated
with
granting final approval of the settlement
is
heard, and
the
trial court
186
to the
Cal.App.4th
several
balance
proposed settlement
at p. 1389),
which
the
final approval hearing. Although
to be
the
heard does not fairly
settlement. For
must be
such that they are

apprise
class
these reasons, the
order
reversed.
Unpaid Residual Funds

We sent
letter
to the
parties requesting supplemental briefing on the distribution
of unpaid residual funds. According

appears to
be
to the facts set
forth
in the
supplemental briefs, there
approximately $27,000 in unpaid residual funds remaining after distribution
claims.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
court should make appropriate findings
as
to the
I
i
to be
objections were chilled. Misstating objectors' rights
members of their options
of class
to
heard, there may have been many class
to be
dissuaded from exercising their opportunity
3.
permitted
accurately evaluate when members' objections may have been stified
afforded the opportunity
was
is
trial court's role in determining
member reactions
by the onerous requirement that they attend the
appellant
objector
Requiring any objector to attend
if the settlement is fair. That determination requires that

class
appellant
court to review them
the
assert
rights.
due process
factors, which include, among others,
an
meaningful opportunity
here
be
prohibitively expensive for
it was
In contrast, if
class member.
members'
these
action may
the class
potentially distant location. For example,
and the cost to the parties remains the same.
minimal
the
out-of-state
file written objections to
benefit
the
prohibitive or physically challenging to personally
be cost
hearing in
as
distribution of those
384, the
funds.
trial
Disposition
The order granting final approval of the settlement
remanded for further proceedings in accordance with
Appellant is
to
recover
the
is
reversed, and
views
expressed
the case
is
herein.
his costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, Acting P.
J.
MILLER, J.'
of the Los AngeleiStiperior Court, assigned by

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Judge
to
the
Chief
Justice pursuant
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTHJUDICIgL CIRCUIT

LAKE
COUNTY, ILLINOI$
SHAUN FAULEY, SABON, INC., SANDY ROTHCHILD
DEVELOPOMENT,
AND CHRISTOPHER LOWE HICKLIN DC PLC,
ClacurrCLERK
)
INC.,
class
of
No.
Plaintiffs,
d .
& ASSOCIATES, INC., DEBAUN
Individually and as the representatives of

similarly situated persons,
FEB 2 7 2015
14CH1518
v.
METROPOLITAN LIVE INSURNACECOMPANY,

STORICK GROUP CO., THE STORICK GROUP
CORPORATION,SCOH
R.
STORICK and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER
This
case
is
before the court for final approval of
class
action settlement, due notice
having been given, the Court having considered the interveners' objections, and being
advised
the premises; the Court hereby overrules the objections
in
objections
in
part and enters the
Plaintiffs filed their
class
part and sustains the
following order.
I. CASE
1.
in
fully
SUMMARY
action lawsuit pursuant to 735
ILCS
5/2-801etseq. alleging
violation of 227(b)(1)(C) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47

I
U.S.C.A. 227 (West 2014).

2.
Section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA provides for
who engages
in
private right of action against
person
conduct prohibited by the Act.
EXHIBIT
Section 227(b)(3)(B) of the TCPA provides that
3.
monetary
for each violation or receive $500 dollars
loss
whichever
is
in
greater. If the Court finds that the defendant
Act the Court may
in
person may recover their actual

damages for each violation,
willfully or knowingly violated the
treble the damage's award.

fee shifting provision.
4.
Section 227 of the TCPA does not contain
5.
Plaintiffs and defendants agreed to settle this matter and created
the amount of
6.
settlement fund
$23,000,000.00.1
There are 2,792,213
class
member fax numbers available to the
administrator and 1,832,782 faxes were successfully transmitted to
class
class
settlement
members notifying
them of this settlement.

7.
claims
There are 49,955 confirmed valid claims submitted along with
an
additional 226
that require additional proof of their claim.

8.
The proposed settlement requires, among other things,
distributed
as
that the settlement fund
be
follows:
named representative plaintiff, Shaun Fauley, Debaun Development,
A. Pay each
Inc., Sabon, Inc., Sandy Rothchild & Associates, Inc., and Christopher Lowe Hicklin DC PLC an
incentive award of $15,000.00;

B.
Pay
C-Mart,
lawsuits that were dismissed

C.
1The
settlernent
is
Pay class
the result
other similar cases prosecuted

dismissed.
were
Inc. and
an
Richard Cadenasso who served
in
plaintiffs
in
other
incentive award of $15,000.00;
counsel attorney's fees
of the
as
parties engaging
other jurisdictions
in
with
in
the amount of $7,666,666.67;
mediation
during the pendency
different class representative
of this
case and several
plaintiffs that ultimately
Reimburse
D.
counsel litigation costs and expenses
class
in
the amount of
$592,094.47;
Pay
E.
whether the
but not cashed
members the sum of $250.00, $85.00, or $42.50 depending on
class
member's claim
class
F.
the
Pay
is a
Level
cy pres award equal to
class
by such
members to the
claim, Level
claim or Level
class
members
following organizations:
50% to the Lake county Bar Foundation; and
2.
50%
be
claim.
the amount of issued checks to
1.
to
distributed equally to the Juvenile Diabetes Research
Association, the Illinois District 220 Educational Foundation, the Hawthorne Scholastic
Academy, Chicago's Independent Radio Project, and the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of
America.
9.
The objectors object to:
representatives;
A.
The plaintiffs being
B.
Anderson+Wanca being class counsel;
C.
The amount of information provided relating to the proposed settlement;
D.
The
class
amount of the settlement;
E.
The excessiveness of the attorney's fees; and
F.
The cy pres award.

II. DISCUSSION
Before the Court approves
whether the proposed settlement

members] that will
be
affected
by
is
proposed class settlement, the Court must determine

"fair and reasonable and
it." People ex
rel.
Wilcox
v.
in
the best interest of
Equity Funding Life
all [class
Ins. Co., 61 Ill.
2d
303, 316, 335 N.E.2d 448, 455 (1975); Waters
N.E.2d 599, 603

approved.
(16
Waters
Dist. 1981). A
v.
settlement that
of Chicago, 95
City
v.
Ill.
City
is
of Chicago,
unfair to any
95 Ill.
class
App.3d at 924, 420 N.E.2d
App.3d 919, 924, 420
member should not be

at 603.
The Court cannot
delete unfair provisions, but may only approve or disapprove the entire agreement. Waters
City of Chicago,
agreement
is
95
III.
App.3d at 925, 420 N.E.2d at 604.
fair, reasonable and
consider the following factors:
amount of the settlement;

expense of
of collusion
in
reaching
evaluating whether the settlement
all class
the strength of plaintiff's
case
the defendant's ability to pay;
(2)
further litigation;
(1)
in
In
(4)
v.
(3)
members, the Court should

balanced against the money
the complexity, length and
the amount of opposition to the settlement; (5) the presence
settlement; (6) the reaction of
class
members to the
settlement; (7)
the opinion of competent counsel; and (8) the stage of proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed.
(16
City of Chicago
v.
Korshak, 206
Ill.
App.3d 968, 972, 565 N.E.2d 68, 70-71
Dist. 1991).
The objectors raise
six
objections as to why the Court should not approve the proposed
settlement agreement. The objections will
be
addressed
in
the context of the Court applying
the eight Korshak factors to determine whether the proposed settlement

in
the best interest of the
A. The
class
is
members.
Strength of the Plaintiffs' case Balanced Against the Amount of the Settlement.
Application of this factor addresses two of the objections: the insufficiency of
information relating to the proposed settlement; and the inadequacy of the settlement
amount. At the time that the Court considered the parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class
Action Settlement and Notice to the settlement
Class,
the parties provided the Court with
substantial amount of information regarding the litigation of the
case and each
side's
perceived strengths and weaknesses. The Court was provided with the confidential mediation
submissions that
Based
on
ultimately led to settling this
case and
the information provided to the Court
some strong defenses that would result

successful outcome
in
it
later with
substantial additional litigation and pose
has
real risk
for plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and the defendants also advised the Court
at
the preliminary approval hearing that the settlement amount
amount negotiated-in a TCPA

a
records.2
counsel's time
appears that defendant Metropolitan Life
to
settled for
class
case and
is
the highest settlement
later advised the Court that there was
TCPA case
that
higher amount after the preliminary approval hearing making this settlement the
second highest settlement amount for
TCPA case.
2,792,213 members, or even the 1,892,782
While the potential damages for
of
class
members contacted,.are substantially more
class
than the settlement amount; balanced against the strength of defendant's possible defenses
this factor weighs
B.
in
The Defendant's
favor of settlement. Thus, the objectors' objections are overruled.
Ability to
Pay.
The defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

one
has
raised
an issue
is
an
established insurer and no
regarding defendant's ability to pay. Thus, this
is
not
an issue
in
the
approval of the proposed settlement. This factor therefore, favors approval of the settlement.
C.
The Complexity, Length and Expense of Further Litigation.

As
set-forth
in
Section
raise complex issues and
2The
A,
defendant Metropolitan Life
has
asserted several defenses
that
would require extensive additional litigation to resolve, thus requiring
mediation submissions and class counsel's billing records were reviewed by the Court in camera
and were not made a part of the court file. The Court however, will order the parties to file these documents
complete record before it.
under seal so if an appeal is taken the reviewing court has
confidential
the parties to incur additional expenses and expend substantial time, effort and resources. This
factor
D.
also
weighs
favor of approving the settlement.
in
The Amount of Opposition to the Settlement and The Reaction of class Members to the
Settlement.
The amount of opposition
sent out to
class
filed. This factor

E.
can be
characterized
as
de
minimus.
Out of 1,892,782 faxes
members with close to 50,000 claims being rnade, only two objections were
also
weighs
in
The Presence of Collusion in Reaching
Settlement Agreement.
This factor addresses the objection regarding the adequacy of Anderson+Wanca to act
as class
counsel. The parties have stated
that the settlement proposal was arrived
extensive negotiations that included multiple

have provided no evidence
third-party mediation sessions. The objectors
As
previously stated, the settlement amount
second highest settlement amount negotiated for
with the adequacy of Anderson+Wanca

has
in
of
class
class
TCPA case.
as
is
the
While the objectors take
issue
counsel, they fail to provide any evidence that
as class
any way breached its fiduciary
objectors point to the cy pres award

fiduciary duty to the
after
that the settlement amount and agreement is not the product of
good faith, arm's-length negotiations.
Anderson+Wanca
at
duty to any of the
class
members.
The
additional evidence that Anderson+Wanca breached
its
members by putting third party, non-class members' interests ahead
members' interests. The objectors however ignore the fact
that the
Class
Action Act
conflict between the Anderson+Wanca firm and the class members by

The objectors attempt to create
submitting evidence of an unrelated lawsuit against Anderson+Wanca and the multi-million dollar payment
obligation that Andeson+Wanca has in that case. The objectors then ask the Court to conclude that because the
payment obligation and the amount of attorney's fees requested in this case are comparable amounts that
Anderson+Wanca breached its fiduciary duty to the class members by entering into the proposed settlement. The
a
objectors however, fall to provide any evidence that this multi-million dollar payment obligation influenced any
action taken by Anderson+Wanca in this case. Absent additional evidence from the objectors the Court has no
basis upon which it can reach this conclusion.
6
authorizes the awarding of "Residual Funds", which includes uncashed checks that remain
the common fund, to eligible organizations. 735
ILCS
in
5/2-807 (West 2014). The proposed
settlement provides for the payment of issued but uncashed checks to the
Lake
County
Bar
Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Association, the Illinois District 220 Educational
Foundation, the Hawthorne Scholastic Academy, Chicago's Independent Radio Project, and the
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America. All of these organization are either eligible for
funding under the Illinois Equal Justice Act or are nonprofit, charitable organizations that serve
the public good. Payment of the residual funds to these organizations
no way deprives the
in
the funds being distributed
members of any funds available for distribution to the
class
as
to the eligible organizations are already allocated to certain
class
members who
class
reason failed to
cause
cash
the checks issued to them. The Court therefore, finds that there
for these organizations to receive
distribution of the residual funds
settlement. For these reasons, this factor also weighs

F.
for some
in
as
is
good
part of the
The Opinion of competent Counsel.

Class
counsel
has
extensive experience
counsel's opinion that the proposed settlement

class
members.
Terrence
J.
Class
counsel's opinion
is
the prosecution of TCPA
in
is
further supported
by the
in
cases and
Anderson+Wanca the attorney's fees
it
requests. This factor
the settlement.
also
is
class
all
statement of retired Judge
Brady who sets-forth the extensive experience and competency of
Brian Wanca, David Oppenheim and the Anderson+Wanca law firm
it
in
class
counsel
support of awarding
weighs
in
favor of approving
The Stage of the Proceedings and the
G.
Viewed
28,
in
vacuum, this
case
is
in
Amount of Discovery Completed.

the early stages of litigation having been filed
2014. However, substantial discovery and motion practice
mediation of
filed
cases
in
other forums that sought
members based on the same factual circumstances

these other forums
is
completed
well
as
certification for the same
class
as
was
this
as
July
the
class
The discovery obtained
case.
on
in
sufficient to provide the parties with the information needed to evaluate
the merits of their respective positions. Thus, this factor weighs
in
favor of approving the
settlement.
H.
The
Amount of Attorney's Fees.

Absent a statutory fee shifting provision under which
of fees, Illinois courts award attorney's fees
in class
doctrine when the litigation's outcome creates
class
counsel may
seek
an
award
action litigation under the common fund
common fund. Brundidge
Bank, F.S.B., 168 Ill.2d 235, 238, 659 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1995).
An
v.
Glendale Federal
award of fees under the
common fund doctrine may be determined by the percentage-of-the-award method or by the
loadstar method
at
the court's discretion. Id., 168 Ill.2d at 244, 659 N.E.2d at 914.
The objectors claim that the amount of attorney's fees awarded under the proposed
settlement
is
excessive. The objection
not spend much time prosecuting this

of time; and the belief that the
provided for
in
class
is
based on the objectors' belief that
case
because
it has
counsel did
class
only been pending for
short period
members should receive more compensation than what
is
the settlement order. The objections however are not well founded. Under
Brundidge, the Court
has
the discretion to avvard attorney's fees either under the percentage-
of-the-award method or the loadstar method whenever the litigation's outcome creates
common fund. Here, the settlement

counsel
seeks
its
in
defense of the
the creation of
in
prosecuting this
case and
common fund and
attorney's fees.
as its
Class
class
counsel
billing records that show the substantial amount of time, expense
effort expended in litigating this
substantial risk
resulted
award of one-third of the common fund
an
provided the Court with

and
has
The evidence reflects that
case.
case
under
counsel accepted
class
contingency fee agreement given the vigorous
defenses asserted by defendant Metropolitan Life. Moreover, the
settlement amounts to be paid to
class
members are fair and reasonable and there
is
no reason
to award fees under the loadstar method instead of the agreed upon percentage-of-the-award
method. Therefore, this objection of the objectors
I.
is
overruled.
The Overall Fairness and Reasonableness of the Settlementwith Respect to All of the class
Members.
The application of the Korshak factors does not end the Court's inquiry
While the Korshak factors

there
is
weigh
in
case.
favor of approving the proposed settlement agreement,
one aspect of the agreement that troubles the Court. The settlement agreement
provides for
served
all
this
in
incentive award of $15,000.00 to C-Mart, Inc and Richard Cadenasso who
an
representative plaintiffs
as class
defendants.
These
cases
in
lawsuits filed
however, were dismissed.
has
not been provided with any evidence
representative
in
the other litigation or why
Providing these two persons, who

award that
is
60
is
at best may be class
not
in
as
case,
the
class
representative.
to why Cadenasso was

an
members
all
an
in
this lawsuit,
is
not
of the other
In
addition,
adequate class
incentive award
member who

9
the federal district court
class
should receive
he
to 353 times greater than what
representative stands to receive
as
other forums against these
one
In
questioned the adequacy of plaintiff C-Mart, Inc. to act

the court
in
in
an
this
case.
incentive
class
class
members.
delete any unfair provisions, but may only approve or disapprove the
Since the Court cannot
entire agreement, Waters
v.
City of Chicago,
App.3d
95 Ill.
cannot approve the proposed settlement that
has
at
925, 420 N.E.2d
at
604, the Court
been submitted by plaintiffs.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
The objectors' objections to the final approval of the settlement agreement are
overruled except for the objection relating to the adequacy of the settlement as
payment of
2.
an
it
relates to the
incentive award to C-Mart, Inc. and Richard Cadenasso.
The Court will
motion to approve the
withhold, for
class
14 days,
the entry of
an
order relating to the plaintiffs'
settlement to provide the plaintiffs and defendants
an
opportunity
to determine whether they wish to revise their agreement to conform to the Court's findings
and ruling; and to adjust the payment amounts paid to the claimants to account for the
additional $30,000.00 available for distribution to the

3.
The
4.
If
case
is
continued to March
13,
2015
at
the parties fail to provide the Court with
class
memebers.
courtroom C-301for status.
9:00 a.m.
in
revised
class
conforms to the Court's findings and ruling, the Court will enter
an
settlement order that

order on March
denying plaintiffs' motion for final approval of settlement.
Entered this
27th
day of February, 2015.
ENTER:
Judge
10
13,
2015
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MAR 0 6 2015
SHAUN FAULEY, SABON, INC., SANDY
ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
DEBAUN DEVELOPMENT, INC. and
MN
Cincurr CLERK
)
)

individually and as the representatives of a class
of similarly-situated persons,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
CH
No.
Judge Luis A. Berrones
14
1518
METROPOLITAN LIFE 1NSURANCE

)
)
STORICK GROUP CORPORATION, SCOTT

R. STORICK and JOHN DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

The matter coming before
action settlement,
advised in
due
the premises,
notice given,
IT
On August
A.
the
IS
7,
Court
the Parties
2014,
the
Court
B.
(the
(as
entered
order
an
counsel,
and the
Court
fully
and,
(the
"Preliminary Approval
settlement reached between Metropolitan Life
the
the Storick Group Corporation, and Scott Storick
Fauley, Denise Debaun,
Shaun
defined below)
to
Co.,
Inc., and Christopher Lowe
Settlement Class
Court
this
Insurance Company, Storick Group
Associates,
appearing through
class
HEREBY ORDERED:
Order") granting preliminary approval
(collectively, "Defendants"),
request for final approval of the
on the Parties'
Sabon,
Inc., Sandy Rothschild
&
Hicklin DC PLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and the

as
memorialized in
the Settlement
Agreement filed with
"Settlement Agreement").
On January
16,
2015,
the
Court held
fairness hearing (the "Fairness
for which members of the Settlement Class were given appropriate prior notice
Hearing"),
and were
invited,
EXHIBIT
including
those
requesting
to be
with
objections.
any
An opportunity
heard in accordancewith
the
to be heard was
all persons
to
Preliminary Approval Order.
Having considered fhe Settlement Agreement,
C.
given
the other
materials tendered by
the
Parties, and hearing argument of counsel regarding the proposed settlement,
IT
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
IS
This Court
1.
and the claims
asserted
has
in this
jurisdiction over the Parties, the members of

lawsuit.
The Court finds that
2.
the
Settlement Agreement
following arm's-length negotiations and

The Court
3.
limited
and in
to, the releases
been considered and

opted out
are
are
bound by
final approval of
grants
of all
those
capitalized terms
set
as
Class
as
and August
7,
735
on
good faith
is
it.
Settlement Agreement, including, but not
in all respects
fair, reasonable and adequate,
Any timely objections that were filed have

who have not
the Settlement Class
is
incorporated by reference into this Order (with
ILCS 5/2-801 and 2-802,
"All
the
persons
the
Court finally certifies
in the United States
facsimile advertisement
opt-out language compliant with

Parties
Certification
the
who were sent
Settlement
behalf of MetLife or the Storick Defendants between August
2014, where
regulations." The
in
forth in the Settlement Agreement).
follows:
advertisement by or
entered into
Final Judgment and Order.
this
Pursuant to
defined
the
overruled. Therefore, all members of
Class
5.
it
affected by
The Settlement Agreement
4.
has been
non-collusive.
is
therein, and finds that
the best interests
the Settlement Class,
the
expressly
requirements of
agreed
to this
was
the
facsimile
23,
2008
unsolicited and/or did not contain

TCPA and/or
Settlement
Class
its
accompanying
defmition for settlement
purposes.
MetLife
is
defmed
subsidiaries, affiliates,
or attorneys.
former
Excluded from
ofScers,
directors,
representatives; and (b)
and its
as the
if
the
Class is
provided in
as
heirs,
their present
assigns,
Representatives" for
"Class
Agreement
Settlement
Settlement do not become effective
successors,
representatives
agents,
the defendants and
(a)
of Anderson + Wanca
The certification of the Settlement
Defendants' rights
are
present
and
legal
and
officers.
Wanca
J.
Class
and their
employees,
appoints attorney Brian
7.
to
the Settlement
Court
the
and its past or
their directors, officers, employees,
its or
The Court appoints Plaintiffs
6.
Class and
of
or any
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
as
the
non-precedential
this
and
Settlement
Counsel."
"Class
as
the
without prejudice
and
Finally approving the
Order
Settlement Agreement.
Class Notice
Based upon the Declaration
8.
Class
Action
and Proposed
Court finds that the Notice

requirements of
Settlement With Attached Claim Form"

and
the
by which
process
ILCS 5/2-803
735
of Andrew Barnett, demonstrating that
due
and
process
it
under
the
Illinois
the best
notice practicable under the circumstances,
sufficient notice
persons
entitled
to
all
given by facsimile
to each
Settlement
reasonable effort.
Notice
to
Class
Member whose identity could
members
August
14,
19, and 21,
(without exhibits)
and
settlement.com/Metlife.
ILCS 5/2-803
2014. The
Class
and due process
States
provided due
identified through
be
identified took
Administrator also posted the Settlement Agreement
forms of
Class
under
Illinois
the
the
USA Today on three occasions
Fax Notice (excluding the claim form) on

These
be
whose fax numbers could not
place by Publication Notice. Publication Notice was published in

on
and
the
notice of the settlement of this lawsuit. Notice was
to
Class
ordered,
United
and
Constitutions, constituted
and
as
"Notice of
fully complied with
sent
was
sent
was
the
its
Notice fully comply with

and
United
States
website,
the
www.class-
requirement of
735
Constitutions, constituted the
best
notice practicable under the
Plaintiffs' request for

the class members is
an
incentive payment to
required
Although
circumstances.
because
this
individual and
one
Parties agreed
the
one
to
withdraw
entity, no further notice
modification will increase the amount payable to
to
the
class members.
Objections, Opt-Outs, Dismissal, and
A total of
9.
overruled for
the reasons
February
2015.
27,
10.
exclusion
Exhibit
165
and are
persons
filed timely objections
stated in open
court
A list of
Class.
All
claims of all potential members of
opt out
of the proposed Settlement
these persons
entities
are
enjoined from initiating any action,
suit or
Class
as
$23,000,000,
to pay all claims
fees and costs, and to pay the Class
Class
with prejudice,
dated
is
attached
as
and such
defined
in
Agreement.
Each
Checks
be
the
has
been created by the defendants, not
by Settlement Class members, to pay Class Counsel's
paid
as
and one was
19
described in Paragraph
claiming Settlement
Two other objections were withdrawn
and
Compensation
Representative's incentive award. Defendants
valid claim will

issued to the
individuals
the Settlement Agreement.
payments required under the Settlement Agreement, subject to Paragraph

13.
who did not properly
other proceeding against MetLife or
A settlement fund (the "Settlement Fund")
12
Settlement
the
Class are dismissed
Storick Defendants for any of the Released Claims
Court's Order
forth in paragraph 5 above), requested
those set
the Settlement
and in the
are
hereto.
11.
to exceed
the settlement.I All objections
January 16, 2015
on
additional persons (other than

excluded from
to
Injunction
Class
stricken.
members will
be
shall
make all
below.
7
of
void
the
Settlement
181 days
after
shall
issuance
and
claiming
class
state that fact on
members but not
their face.
within
cashed
Lake County Bar Foundation; (2)
the
Any money remaining from

of
180 days
issuance
distributed
shall be
distributed
Lake County Bar Foundation
to the
equally among the remaining entities pursuant
to 735
any claims arising out of or relating
checks.
to uncashed
As agreed between the Parties
Court approves
Class
and subject
Counsel's request for
Debaun Development, Inc.,

Lowe Hicklin DC PLC, in
Sabon,
the
an
As agreed between the Parties
15.
Paragraph
19
attorneys'
fees
of this Order,
each.
10 and 12
in the
Court approves
the
to
Paragraph
Paragraphs 10
and 12
amounts shall
be
paid from
Settlement
Upon the Effective

Class
such
distributed
not
is
of
liable for
19
of
Order,
this
Fauley,
Shaun
Christopher
and
will be
the
paid from the
Counsel's request for
Additionally,
the
Court
and expenses
subject
and
an
to
award of
grants
Class
in the amount
Settlement Fund in accordance
of
with
of the Settlement Agreement.

Releases
16.
Illinois
of the Settlement Agreement.
Class
the
50%
50%
Plaintiffs
That amount
Counsel's request for reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs

Such
to
the
Costs
in the total amount of $7,666,666.67.
$592,094.47.
and
& Associates, Inc.,
Inc., Sandy Rothschild
Settlement Fund in accordance with Paragraphs
Fees
incentive award
amount of $15,000.00
remaining
ILCS 5/2-807. MetLife
Awards of Incentive Fee and Attorneys'

14.
and the
(1)
Academy; (5) Chicago's
Independent Radio Project; and (6) Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America.
shall be
to
Juvenile Diabetes Research Association; (3)
District 220 Educational Foundation; (4) Hawthorne Scholastic
funds
issued to
checks
member who
to have granted the releases
has
set
Date
and Dismissal
defined in
(as
the
Settlement Agreement)
not been excluded from the Settlement Class, shall
forth in Paragraph
5
13
of
the
be
each
deemed
Settlement Agreement. Upon the
Effective Date, all

are dismissed
of all Settlement
clairns
members who have
Class
not
excluded themselves
with prejudice.
Other Provisions
The Court adopts and incorporates all of the terms
17.
of
the
by reference here.
The Parties
18.
to
the
Agreement shall carry out their respective
Settlement
obligations thereunder.
Without
19.
jurisdiction
in any
determine
to
all
Preliminary Approval Order,
way limiting
the
fmality of this order, the Court retains continuing
matters relating in any way

and the
to this
Final Approval Order,
the
Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, their
administration, implementation, interpretation, or enforcement.

20.
If (a)
the Settlement
Agreement
Settlement Agreement or Final Approval Order

effective,
or (c) the
vacated, or modified, then

be
any and
all
or
orders
terminated pursuant
is
and
Judgment
do

entered pursuant to
the
to
its terms,
or (b)
not for any reason become

and
Judgment
are
reversed,
Settlement Agreement shall
deemed vacated. If the settlement does not become fmal in accordance with the terms
Settlement Agreement,
this
and
Judgment
the
shall
be
void
and
of the
shall
deemed vacated
The Honorable Judge Luis A. Berrones
be
APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT

FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT
SHAUN FAULEY, SABON, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER LOWE HICKLINDC PLC,
individuallyand as the representatives of a
lLE
)
)
)
MAR0 6 2015
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No.
14
CH 1518

and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
NOTICEOF APPEAL
Objector, JUDD
appeals
to the
CLAYTON,
JR., by his
attorneys ROACH, JOHNSTON
& THUT,
Appellate Court of the Second Judicial District from the final judgment entered in
this case by the
Honorable Luis Berrones, Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois on March
By this appeal, Objector
seeks
final judgment
reverse and remand the
the
Appellate Court to reverse,
entered in this case on
relief as the Appellate Court deems just on
March
6,
or,
6,
2015.
in the alternative,
to
2015, and for other such
this appeal.
ROACH, JOHNSTON &
By:
C.
THUT,
JEFFRY
JEFFREY THUT, Attorney No. 6188219
& Thut
516 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Libertyville, IL 60048
Roach, Johnston
(847) 549-060
EXHIBIT
RS.PoptliSvp
CERTJFlED MAILG BECElPT
Donksanonlyibin$ninci virig
oida
Lfl
Postage
ITl
Cerlified
Fee
Postmark
Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Return
Restricted Delivery Fee

(Endorsement Required)
Here
APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT

FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE N1NETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
LAKE COUNTY,ILLINOIS
bg
IRCUSTCLERK
SHAUN FAULEY, SABON, INC.,

CHRISTOPHER LOWE HICKLINDC PLC,
individually and as the representatives of a
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No.
STORlCK GROUP, SCOTT R. STORICK
and JOHN DOES 1-10,
14
CH 1518
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
Lake County,
Illinois
Defendants.
Judge Luis Berrones Presiding
AMENDEDNOTICE OF APPEAL
Objector, JUDD
CLAYTON,
appeals to the Appellate Court

27,
& THUT,
of the Second Judicial District from the Order entered on February
2015 and final judgment entered in this
Lake County,
ROACH, JOHNSTON
JR., by his attorneys
case
by the Honorable Luis Berrones, Circuit Court of
Illinois on March 6, 2015.
By this appeal, Objector
seeks
the
Appellate Court
reverse and remand the final judgrnent entered in this
relief as the Appellate Court
deems
just on
to
case on
reverse,
March
6,
or,
in the alternative, to
2015, and for other such
this appeal.
By:
C.
JEFFREX-T
JEFFREY THUT, Attorney No. 6188219

Roach, Johnston & Thut
C.
516 N. Milwaukee Ave.

Libertyville, IL 60048
(847) 549-0600
EX
BIT
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Under penalties of perjury as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that they served this Notice by mailing a copy to each
person to whom it is directed, postage prepaid, in a U.S. Mail Box in Libertyville, Illinois, at or
about the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 16th, day of March, 2015.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14 CH 1518
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed July
CERTIFICATE OF ATTORNEY filed
2014................
28,
2014...................
July 28,
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTlFICATION filed

NOTICE OF MOTION filed July
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

THE SETTLEMENT CLASS filed July
APPEARANCE filed
JURY DEMAND
July 31,
filed July 31,
...............
C-0010
C-0012
.................
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND NOTICE TO
2014..................
.......-........
C-0014
2014.................
.................C-0079
2014.................
RULE 707 STATEMENT filed August

filed
2014............... .
. ................C-0078
ATE OF SERWCE filed August
ORDER entered and
July 28,
2014..................
APPEARANCE filed August 01,

E
30,
OF CLASS
C-0009
................
2014...............
30,
C-0001
..................
August
NOTICE OF FILING filed August
01,
NOTICE OF MOTION filed August
...
..
..............
C-0086
................
..
2014................
C-0081
C-0082
.................
.................
2014...................
07,
2014................ .
2014..................
01,
07,
2014................
01,
C-0080
..................
................
C-0087
C-0090
DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL filed August 07,
2014..................
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION OCMPLAINT filed August 07,
2014..................
C-0092
..................
C-0094
..................
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFYlNG SETTLEMENT CLASS

filed August 07,
ORDER entered
2014.....................
and filed
August
07,
C-0102
...................
2014.....................
................
C-0106
SEALED DOCUMENT: DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT received August
NOTICE OF FILING filed August
13,
2014........ C-0107
07,
2014................ .
.................
C-0112
SEALED DOCUMENT: DEFENDANT, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION STATEMENT
LETTER filed August
19,
filed
2014..................
August
13,
2014...................
.
.
...................
................
C-0114
C-0121
EXHIBIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14 CH
LETTER filed August
19,
1518
2014.................
September 04,
2014..................
LETTER
filed
NOTICE
OF CLASS MEMEBERS:
NOTICE
AUTOMATED HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS,
LLC;
OPTING OUT
OF
ACTION LAWSUlT filed September 08, 2014..................

APPEARANCE filed October
OF
TO
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
filed October
14,
2014................
..
filed
October
14,
2014.....
LETTER
filed
October
15,
2014..................
.....
NOTICE
OF
MOTlON
FOR LEAVE
16,
OF
2014....................
16,
JUDD CLAYTON,
JR. filed
OF
..
JUDD CLAYTON, JR
October 24,
24,
2014...................
FILING AND PROOF
OF
SERVICE filed November 04,
NOTICE
OF
MOTION
FOR
filed
filed
October
16,
C-0159
C-0160
..............
C-0161
2014............ C-0162
2014...................
October
ORDER entered and
...............
.................
2014..................
TO FILE OBJECTION
C-0154
...................
2014...................
MOTION filed October
OBJECTION
2014..................
C-0150
C-0151
.................
OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed October 15,
APPEARANCE filed October
C-0141
.................
LETTER
15,
C-0139
................
OBJECTION
LETTER filed October
C-0132
.................
2014..................
14,
C-0130
...............
PRESCRIPTION PARTNERS, LLC; ASSURANCE FINANCIAL PARTNERS, LLC

OF CLASS
C-0122
..................
..................
C-0202
C-0233
..................
2014...................
C-0234
..................
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION AND RELATED RELIEF
filed November 04,.2014................. . .

SUPPLEMENTAL APPEARANCE filed November 04, 2014.................. .
NOTICE
OF
MOTION filed November
MOTION
TO QUASH
NOTICE
OF
05,
C-0236
...................
C-0252
.................
2014...................
C-0253
.................
DEPOSITIONS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER filed November 05, 2014...... C-0254
05,
2014..................
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS' MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITIONS AND

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF filed November 05,
C-0268
.................
2014...................
...................
FOR
C-0270
TABLE-OFCONTENTS
14 CH 1518
ORDER entered and

NOTICE
OF
filed
November
2014..................
07,
14,
C-0293
...............
2014.................
C-0294
.................
PLAINTlFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST A7 RELTY D/B/A AUSTIN DISTRIBUTING

filed November
NOTICE
OF
2014................
14,
14,
2014...................
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS OF

AND ROBERT JENNINGS filed November
NOTICE
OF
C-0296
...............
14,
14,
A7
C-0343
..............
RELATV D/B/A AUSTIN DISTRIBUTING
2014....................
..
C-0345
................
2014......................
C-0376
................
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING OUT-OT-STATE

DEPOSITION
filed
November 14,
2014................. .
AGREED ORDER entered and filed November 21,
filed
November 21,
2014...................
ORDER entered and
filed
November 21,
2014...................
TO
ADDITIONAL APPEARANCE filed December 02,

NOTICE
OF
FILNG filed December 02,
C-0382
..................
.............
....
................
STRIKE OBJECTIONS OF
DISTRIBUTING AND ROBERT JENNINGS" filed November 24,
C-0378
....................
2014....................
ORDER entered and
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS "MOTION
A7
C-0383
C-0384
REALTY D/B/A AUSTIN
2014..................
C-0385
..................
2014......................
C-0387
.................
2014..................
..
C-0388
..................
OBJECTOR JUDD CLAYTON, JR'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS'

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OTHER RELlEF
filed December 02,
NOTICE
OF
2014....................
FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE filed December 02,
..
.................
2014...................
C-0390
C-0396
..................
CLASS MEMBER AUSTIN DISTRIBUTING'S RESPONSE TO CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTION TO

STRIKE OBJECTION filed December
02,
014....................
...............
C-0398
CLASS MEMBER AUSTIN DISTRIBUTING'S RESPONSE TO CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTION AND

FOR SANCTIONS filed December 02,
2014................. .
................
C-0412
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14 CH 1518
REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEPOSTION
AND RELATED RELIEF filed December 02, 2014...............

LETTER filed December 08, 2014................ .
.................C-0419
2014..................
11,
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ON
ITS
11,
.........
2014.................
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS filed December
11,
C-0421
...............
LETTER filed December 11, 2014............... .

NOTICE OF FlLING filed December
C-0418
...............
NOTICE OF FILING filed December 11, 2014...............

LETTER filed December
C-0414
................
................
.....
C-0422
C-0423
2014.........................C-0425
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTION OF A7 REALW D/B/A

AUSTIN DISTRIBUTING filed December
11,
2014...............
..
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE filed December 19,

NOTICE OF MOTION filed December
19,
C-0427
..................
2014...................
..
2014...................
...............
.................
C-0435
C-0437

DEPOSITION filed December 19,
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR
2014................
.................
C-0439
COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING OUT-OF-STATE
2014...................
.................
C-0443

ORDER entered and
filed
2014.................
December
19,
NOTICE OF MOTION filed December 29,
................
2014...................
&
2014..................
OF
C-0451
DIAL
C-0453
...................
...............
C-0455
COMMUNITITES, INC.
2014..................
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
................
2014..................
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS OF

December 29,
..
WANCA'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENAS filed December 29,
filed
C-0449
....................
2014.................
PLAfNTIFFS, BRIAN J. WANCA AND ANDERSON
NOTICE OF MOTION filed December 29,
. .
C-0446
MOTIONS filed December 29,
C-0457
..................
2014...................
..
.................
C-0570
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14 CH 1518
PLAINTIFFS, BRIAN
OF
J.
WANCA AND ANDERSON & WANCA'S MEMORANDUM
SUPPORT
IN
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
received December 29, 2014.................
...............
C-0573
RESPONSE TO CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM filed January 02, 2015................ .
ORDER entered and
January 02, 2015...............
filed
...............
..
..............
C-0699
C-0703
AMENDED OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

filed
January 05,
2015..................
..
...............
NOTICE OF MOTION filed January 06, 2015................
..
................
C-0704
C-0714
AMENDED OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

filed January 06,
2015...................
MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF SHAUN FAULEY filed January

ORDER entered and
filed
January 09,
C-0716
..................
06,
2015....................
2015............ C-0726
C-0932
................
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION filed January 09, 2015.................. C-0933
PLAINTlFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
received January 09, 2015.................
C-0938
...................
NOTICE OF FILING filed January 12, 2015..................
..............
C-1257
DEFENDANT MLIC'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT filed January 12,
EXHlBlTS
IN
2015....................
.................
C-1260
SUPPORT OF DEFENDNAT MLIC'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT filed January 12,

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
OF
IN
MOTION filed January
14,
2015..................
2015..................
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
C-1275
..................
................
C-1425
OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND REPLIES TO ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AT OBJECTOR .

received January 14,
2015...................
ORDER entered and
filed
January
16,
2015...................
C-1428
..................
................
C-1492
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14 CH 1518
I
ORDER entered and
filed
February 27, 2015.................
NOTICE OF FILING filed March
2015............... .
02,
NOTICE
OF
RENEWED OBJECTION
NOTlCE
OF
MOTION filed March
2015..............
03,
C-1503
................
JUDD CLAYTON, JR filed March
OF
C-1493
...............
02,
2015.......................C-1505
..
C-1538
.................
PLAINTIFFS' AGREED MOTION TO MODIFY FINAL APPROVAL ORDER IN ACCORDANCE

WITH
COURT'S FEBRURAY 27,
THE
NOTICE
OF
ORDER filed March
2015
FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE filed March
05,
03,
2015.............. .
2015.................. .
C-1540
................
C-1566
..................
RENEWED AND RESTATED OBJECTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS OF AUSTIN

DISTRIBUTING COMPANY filed March
NOTICE OF FILING filed March
2015...................
05,
2015......
06,
C-1567
...............
. C-1570
OBJECTOR'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S AGREED MOTION TO MODIFY FINAL APPROVAL

ORDER
IN
filed March
ACCORDANCE WlTH THE COURT'S FEBRUARY 27, 2015 ORDER

06,
2015.................. .
.................
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER entered and

OF
NOTICE
OF APPEAL filed March 06,
NOTICE
OF
FILING filed March
06,
16,
.................
16,
CERTIFlED MAIL (GREEN CARD) filed March

19,
16,
2015.....,..............
2015...................
24,
................
NOTICE
OF
filed April 02,
NOTICE
OF APPEAL filed April 02,
FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL
2015................ .
2015...................
17,
.................
13,
.................
2015......................
C-1591
C-1597
C-1598
...................
2015....................
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL filed April
C-1587
C-1596
.....................
2015....................
26,
C-1585
C-1590
....................
................
2015...................
APPELLATE COURT ORDER filed March
APPELLATE COURT ORDER filed April
..
................
2015................
CER IFIED MAIL (GREEN CARD) filed March
C-1583
..................
2015.................
C-1574
C-1580
..................
2015.................. .
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL filed March
LETTER OF REQUEST filed March
2015...................
NOTICE
FILING filed March
2015..................
filed March 06,
C-1572
................
.................
C-1601
C-1603
C-1608

Clayton Appeal Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clayton Appeal Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

IN THE APPELLATECOURTOF ILLINOIS

Appeal from the Circuit Court of

Judge Luis A. Berrones, Presiding

COMPANY, STORICK GROUP CO., THE

Attached Service List.

ROACH, JOHNSTON & THUT

Atty. No. 6188219

Algonquin Road, Suite 760

Ph: (847) 368-1500

for Objector/AppellantAustin Distributing

Counsel for Objector/AppellantAustin Distributing

Michigan Ave., Suite 3300

IN THE APPELLATECOURTOF ILLINIS

SHUAN FAULEY, SADON, INC.,

Appeal from the Circuit Court of

Judge Luis A. Berrones, Presiding

COMPANY, STORICK GROUP CO., THE

Libertyville, Illinois 60048

THE CLASS NOTICE VIOLATED THE CLASS MEMBERS'

v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America

Schroeder v. City of New York

Mullanev. Central HanoverBank & Trust

Eisen v Carlisle & Jacquelin

417 U.S. 156

The Publication Notice Failed To Inform Potential Class Members Of Their

Mullanev. Central Hanover Bank & Trust

2013 U.S. Dist.

Gooch Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am.

Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp.

Fox v. NorthwestIns. Brokers, Inc.

Ill.App.3 255, 258

GMAC Mortgage Corp. of PA. v. Stapleton

Health Care Service Corp.

Ill.App.3d 417, 429

Insurance & AnnuityAssociation of America

REQUIRING THE NATIONWIDE CLASS MEMBERS TO APPEAR AT THE

472 U.S. 797, 811-12

Litwin v. iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC

v. IIealth Care Service Corp.

Vought v. Bank of Am.

Freebird, Inc. v. Merit Energy Co.

In Re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litig.

F.3d 242, 266 (2d Cir.

2012 U.S. Dist.

Kan. City Landsmen, LLC

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSINGTO ALLOW THE OBJECTOR'S

The Trial Court Erred In Denying Objector's Acces's To Time Records

Brundridge v. Glendale Federal Bank

Ill.2d 235 (1995)...............................................................21

Americana Art China Co. v. Fox Fire Printing & Packaging

424, 103 Supreme Court 1933 (1983)..............................22

The Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Order The Disclosure Of

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPROVING A SETTLEMENTTHAT

final approval order entered by

trial court on March

A timely notice of appeal was filed by Objector-Appellant Judd Clayton,

2015 and filed

amended notice of appeal on March

2015. (C.1583-87). Jurisdiction

Illinois Const. Art. I,

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

without due process of law nor