Case No.: 12-cv-01997-BAS-WVG · kazerounian decl. in supp. of mtn. for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive award 1 case no.: 12-cv-01997-bas

KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203) [email protected] Jason A. Ibey Esq. (SBN: 284607) [email protected] 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Settlement Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 12-cv-01997-BAS-WVG DECLARATION OF ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE PAYMENT DATE: November 7, 2016 TIME: 10:30 a.m. CRTRM: 4B JUDGE: Hon. Cynthia Bashant

PAUL STEMPLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, V. QC HOLDINGS, INC., DEFENDANT.

KAZEROUNIAN DECL. IN SUPP. OF MTN. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND INCENTIVE AWARD 1 CASE NO.: 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

DECLARATION OF ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN

I, ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN, declare:

1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiff Paul Stemple (“Plaintiff”) in this

action filed against defendant QC Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant” or “QC

Holdings”). I am over the age of 18 and am fully competent to make this

declaration. I was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2007 and have

been a member in good standing ever since that time. I have litigated cases

in both state and federal courts in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona,

Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Tennessee, Ohio, Florida,

Illinois and Texas. I am admitted in every federal district in California and

have handled federal litigation in the federal districts of California. I am

also admitted to the state bar of Texas, Illinois, Washington, Michigan,

District of Columbia, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme

Court of the United States.

2. If called as a witness, I would competently testify to the matters herein from

personal knowledge. The declaration is based upon my personal knowledge,

except where expressly noted otherwise.

3. In this action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), I

submit this declaration in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, Costs and Incentive Payment.

4. I have been preliminarily approved as Class Counsel for the proposed

settlement class.

5. In this action, which was taken on a contingency fee basis, the Parties

participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management

Conference. The Parties also attended one full-day mediation session with

the Honorable Judge Leo S. Wagner (Ret.), and one half-day mediation

session with the Honorable Judge Leo S. Papas (Ret.), which ultimately

culminated in a class action settlement agreement after months of further


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

negotiations (“Settlement Agreement”), which calls for a substantial

settlement fund of $1,500,000.

6. Plaintiff’s attorneys have vigorously litigated this action since it was filed

on August 13, 2012. Plaintiff conducted a considerable amount of written

discovery, including confirmatory discovery following the half-day

mediation with Judge Papas. Plaintiff engaged third party experts to analyze

data obtained from Defendant through discovery, and received from

Defendant a confirmatory declaration. Plaintiff also conducted post-

certification discovery.

7. I have incurred 109 hours in connection with this action, which time records

were carefully reviewed. Specifically, I have incurred approximately 3.4

hours investigating and preparing the pleadings, approximately 15 hours on

discovery matters, approximately 11.3 hours in connection with the Early

Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference, approximately 1.7

hours for the Rule 26(f) conference of counsel, approximately 1.4 hours

concerning the stipulated protective order, approximately 0.1 hours

reviewing opposition to motion to strike Plaintiff’s notice of errata,

approximately 0.8 hours on the joint motion for extension to complete

discovery, approximately 18.8 hours preparing the motion for class

certification, approximately 10.3 hours on the opposition to motion to strike

Plaintiff’s expert testimony, approximately, 4.1 hours on the opposition to

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the class certification order,

approximately 0.3 hours on the ex parte motion to delay mailing class

notice, approximately 2.8 hours on the opposition to Defendant’s ex parte

motion for leave to file supplemental briefing, approximately 0.3 hours on

the joint motion to stay proceedings, approximately 1.2 hours preparing to

take or defend depositions, approximately 3.9 hours on the motion for

preliminary approval of settlement, approximately 0.6 hours on the motion


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

for leave to file documents under seal, approximately 0.9 hours preparing

for and attending hearings, approximately 16.5 hours on mediation and

settlement discussions, approximately 15.76 hours on communications with

co-counsel, opposing counsel, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s experts, and

calendaring deadlines.

8. I anticipate incurring 20 additional hours through final approval.

9. As of August 1, 2016, Class Counsel have incurred over $50,000 in costs,

with $18,013.14 of those costs having been incurred by my office, and

spent 509 hours litigating this action, resulting in a lodestar of $270,012.50

10. As reported by the claims administrator, the costs of notice and claims

administration are approximately $185,000 to date, which are expected to

increase through final approval.

11. The claims administrator reports that 1,291 claims have been received as of

approximately July 29, 2016. No objections to the settlement have been

received to date.

12. Plaintiff assisted in the case by, amongst other things, having reviewed the

pleadings, communicated regularly with counsel, assisted with discovery

responses, appeared for his deposition in Los Angeles, California, made

himself available telephonically for mediations in the event he was needed,

and reviewed the proposed settlement.

13. I believe that the Parties are fully apprised of the relative strengths and

weaknesses of each other’s claims and defenses and the potential risks to

each party of pursuing further litigation in this matter, especially following

one full day mediation before Judge Wagner, and one half-day mediation

before Judge Papas. Furthermore, I participated in several conference calls

with my co-counsel and counsel for Defendant, where we analyzed and

discussed methodology, databases used, technical details of database

searches and other questions related to the parameters of the Settlement


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

Class, and how the number of cell phones called on a nationwide basis was

determined.

14. I continue to be unaware of any conflict of interest between Plaintiff and

any settlement class member or between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys.

RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION

15. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v.

Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), may TCPA defendants have filed motions to

dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue

their claims absent some injury beyond receiving unwanted and allegedly

unlawful calls or text messages to their cell phones.

16. Taking into account the burdens, uncertainty and risks inherent in this

litigation, Plaintiff’s counsel concluded that further prosecution of this

action could be protracted, unduly burdensome, and expensive, and that it is

desirable, fair, and beneficial to the class that the action now be settled and

terminated in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the

Settlement Agreement.

17. Class Counsel believe the terms and conditions of the Agreement provide a

benefit that is fair, reasonable and adequate to the proposed class.

18. It is my understanding that Defendant does not intend to oppose the motion

for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive payment.

CLASS COUNSEL’S EXPERIENCE

19. Since my admission to the California bar in 2007, I have been engaged

exclusively in the area of consumer rights litigation, primarily in the area of

fair debt collections, the defense of debt collection lawsuits, and class action

litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, California’s

invasion of privacy statutes, under Penal Code § 630 et seq., and false

advertising actions concerning consumer products.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

20. The hourly rate that I am seeking in this action is $605, which I believe is

reasonable.

21. Earlier this year, I was approved for an hourly rate of $595 in Mount v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. B260585 (Court of Appeal of the State

of California, Second Appellate District; Feb. 10, 2016).

22. I was previously approved for an hourly rate of $565 in Sherman v. Kaiser

Foundation Health Plan, Inc. 3:13-cv-00981-JAH-JMA, Dkt. No. 58 (May

12, 2015) and Macias v. Water & Power Community Credit Union, Case

No. BC515936 (Los Angeles Superior Court, April 21, 2016), and

impliedly so in Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM

(C.D. Cal. July 1, 2016).

23. My firm, Kazerouni Law Group, APC, in which I am a principal, has

litigated over 1000 cases in the past eight years. My firm has six offices in

Orange County, California, Oakland, California, San Luis Obispo,

California, Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Dallas, Texas.

Kazerouni Law Group, APC has extensive experience in consumer class

actions and other complex litigation. My firm has a history of aggressive,

successful prosecution of consumer class actions, specifically under

California’s invasion of privacy statutes and Telephone Consumer

Protection Act. Approximately 95% percent of my practice concerns

consumer litigation in general, and approximately 50% percent of my class

action practice involves litigating claims under the TCPA.

EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

24. I have filed and litigated numerous other class actions based on the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the past four years. The following is

a non-exhaustive list of other TCPA class actions which I am or have been

personally involved in:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

a. Lemieux v. EZ Lube, LLC, et al., 12-CV-01791-JLS-WYG (S.D. Cal.)

(Served as co-lead counsel; finally approved on December 8, 2014);

b. Malta, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al., 10-CV-1290-IEG

(BLM) (Served as co-lead counsel for a settlement class of borrowers in

connection with residential or automotive loans and violations of the

TCPA in attempts to collect on those accounts; obtained a common

settlement fund in the amount of $17,100,000; final approval granted in

2013);

c. Conner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., 10-CV-1284 DMS (BGS) (S.D.

Cal.) (finally approved $11,973,558);

d. In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer

Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD) (S.D. Cal.)

(Counsel for a Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being

recategorized through the multi-district litigation process; preliminarily

approved for $18,000,000);

e. In Re: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer

Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-02295-JAH (BGS) (Counsel for a

Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being recategorized through

the multi-district litigation process; preliminarily approved);

f. Arthur v. SLM Corporation, 10-CV-00198 JLR (W.D. Wash.)

(Nationwide settlement achieving the then-largest monetary settlement in

the history of the TCPA concerning calls to cellular telephone at the time:

$24.15 million; final approval granted in 2012);

g. Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, et al., 11-CV-1009-JLS-MDD

(S.D. Cal.) (Achieving one of the highest class member payouts in a

TCPA action of $1,331.25 per claimant; final approval granted in 2012);

h. Sarabri v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 10-01777-AJB-NLS

(S.D. Cal.) (Approved as co-lead counsel and worked to obtain a national


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

TCPA class settlement where claiming class members each received

payment in the amount of $70.00 per claimant; final approval granted in

2013);

i. Barani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-02999-GPC (KSC) (S.D. Cal.)

(Co-lead class counsel in a settlement under the TCPA for the sending of

unauthorized text messages to non-account holders in connection to wire

transfers; finally approved on March 6, 2015 for over $1,000,000);

j. Mills v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Case No. 12-CV-04010-SI (N.D.

Cal.) (Finally approved for $39,975,000);

k. Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-06030-SI (N.D. Cal.);

l. Heinrichs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 13-CV-05434-WHA (N.D. Cal.);

m. Newman v. ER Solutions, Inc., 11-CV-0592H (BGS);

n. In Re Jiffy Lube International, Inc., MDL No. 2261 (Finally approved for

$47,000,000.00);

o. Jaber v. NASCAR, 11-CV-1783 DMS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.);

p. Ridley v. Union Bank, N.A., 11-CV-1773 DMS (NLS) (S.D. Cal.);

q. Ryabyshchuk v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., et al, 11-CV-1236-IEG

(WVG);

r. Sherman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 13-CV-0981-JAH

(JMA) (S.D. Cal.) (Settled for $5,350,000 and finally approved on May

12, 2015; served as co-lead counsel);

s. Rivera v. Nuvell Credit Company LLC, 13-CV-00164-TJH-OP (E.D.

Cal.);

t. Karayan v. Gamestop Corp., 3:12-CV-01555-P (N.D. Texas);

u. Foote v. Credit One Bank, N.A. et al., 13-cv-00512-MWF-PLA (C.D.

Cal.);

v. Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, 13-cv-00737–RS (N.D.

Cal.);


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

w. Couser v. Comenity Bank, 12-cv-02484-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Oc. 2,

2014) (Finally approved for $8,475,000 on May 27, 2015 as served as co-

lead counsel);

x. Couser v. Apria Healthcare, Inc. et al., 13-cv-00035-JVS-RNB (C.D.

Cal. Oct. 27, 2014) (Finally approved on March 9, 2015 and served as

co-lead counsel);

y. Rose v. Bank of America Corporation et al., 12-cv-04009-EJD (N.D.

Cal.) (Finally approved for $32,000,000 in 2014);

z. Newman v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, 11-cv-03041-DMS-BLM

(S.D. Cal.) (finally approving TCPA settlement for over $6,500,000 on

March 28, 2016);

aa. Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 14-cv-00734-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. July 1,

2016) (finally approved TCPA class action for $1,000,000; $200,000

cash and $800,000 debt relief);

bb. Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank, 12-cv-02078−JAH−MDD (S.D. al.)

(Class Certification granted and preliminarily approved for $7,000,000);

cc. Barrett v. Wesley Financial Group, LLC, 13-cv-00554-LAB-KSC (S.D.

Cal.) (Class certification granted); and,

dd. Gehrich v. Chase Bank, N.A., 12-cv-5510 (N.D. Cal.) (finally approved

for $34,000,000).

25. Many of the cases listed above, which have settled, have resulted in the

creation of combined common funds and/or distribution to class member in

the tens of millions of dollars. The outstanding results mentioned above are

a direct result of the diligence and tenacity shown by both myself and

Kazerouni Law Group, APC, in successfully prosecuting complex class

actions.

26. I argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the TCPA

case of Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio, No. 12-56120 (9th Cir. 2014) as co-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

lead counsel, which resulted in an order in favor of my client.

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC’S OTHER CONSUMER RELATED EXPERIENCE AND RESULTS

27. Kazerouni Law Group, APC has extensive experience in other consumer

related issues, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act and other related consumer statutes. A brief

summary of a non-inclusive list of notable published decisions are as

follows:

a. Knell, et al. v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 13-CV-01653-AJB-WVG (S.D.

Cal.) (California class action settlement under Penal Code 632 et seq., for

claims of invasion of privacy. Settlement resulted in a common fund in

the amount of $2,750,000; finally approved in August 15, 2014);

b. Hoffman v. Bank of America Corporation, 12-CV-00539-JAH-DHB

(S.D. Cal.) (California class action settlement under Penal Code 632 et

seq., for claims of invasion of privacy. Settlement resulted in a common

fund in the amount of $2,600,000; finally approved on November 6, 2014

and served as co-lead counsel);

c. Sherman v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13286; 13-CV-0041-

GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (TCPA class action where Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment was denied holding that a single call or text

message with the use of an ATDS may be actionable under the TCPA);

d. Olney v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 13-CV-2058-GPC-

NLS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9146 (S.D. Cal.) (Defendant’s motion to

dismiss or in the alternative to strike the class allegations was denied

finding that debt collection calls were not exempt from coverage under

the TCPA);

e. Iniguez v. The CBE Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127066 (E.D.

Cal.); 13-CV-00843-JAM-AC (The court denied Defendant’s motion to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

dismiss and to strike class allegations holding that the TCPA applies to

any call made to a cellular telephone with an ATDS);

f. Macias v. Water & Power Community Credit Union, BC515936 (Los

Angeles Superior Court) (Class certification granted under the Rosenthal

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; class action settlement preliminarily

approved on November 10, 2015); and,

g. Mount v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., BC395959 (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles)

(finally approved for $5,600,000).

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT TRAINING, SPEAKING/TEACHING ENGAGEMENTS AND ASSOCIATIONS

28. I have undergone extensive training in the area of consumer law and the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The following is a list of recent

training conferences I attended:

a. Four-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Nashville, TN –

2008;

b. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Portland, OR -

2008;

c. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; San Diego, CA -

2009;

d. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Seattle, WA -

2011;

e. Three-day CAALA Conference; Las Vegas, NV – 2009;

f. Three-day CAALA Conference; Las Vegas, NV – 2013;

g. Three-day CAALA Conference; Las Vegas, NV – 2015;

h. Three-day COAC Conference – 2014 and 2015

i. Speaker at ABA National Conference, Business Litigation Section;

Trends in Consumer Litigation; San Francisco, CA – 2013; and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

j. Speaker at the ABA TCPA National Webinar (Consumer Protection,

Privacy & Information Security, Private Advertising Litigation, and

Media & Technology Committees) – September 2013.

k. Spoke at the 2014 ACA Conference in November 2014.

29. As one of the main plaintiff litigators of consumer rights cases in the

Central District of California, I have been requested to and have made

regular presentations to community organizations regarding debt collection

laws and consumer rights, including the Telephone Consumer Protection

Act (“TCPA”). These organizations include Whittier Law School, Iranian

American Bar Association, Trinity School of Law and Chapman Law

School, University of California, Irvine, and California Western School of

Law.

30. I was the principle anchor on Time Television Broadcasting every Thursday

night as an expert on consumer law generally, and the TCPA specifically,

between 2012 and 2013.

31. I am an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law where I teach

a three credit course in consumer law.

32. I have been named Rising Star by San Diego Daily Tribune in 2012, and

Rising Star in Super Lawyers Magazine in 2013, 2014 and 2015. I was

named a Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine in 2016.

33. I lectured in Class Action Trends at the CAOC 2015 Conference in San

Francisco.

34. I was selected for membership into The National Trial Lawyers: Top 40

Under 40 in 2016.

35. I was a panelist in a webinar, ABA Telephonic Brown Bag re: TCPA, on

August 25, 2015.

36. I lectured in Class Action Trends at the CAOC 2015 Conference in San

Francisco, California.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

37. In January of 2016, I spoke on the impact of the Federal Communications

Comission’s 2015 Declaratory Ruling on TCPA litigation at the ABA

National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah.

38. In May of 2016, I spoke on Class Action Trends at the CAOC seminar in

Palm Springs, California.

39. I lectured on the TCPA before the ABA Business Law Section, Consumer

Financial Services Committee in January 2016 at an event in Utah entitled,

“Impact of the FCC’s 2015 Rulings on TCPA Litigation .”

40. I am often called upon to give legal analysis on popular television and radio

shows such as Dr. Drew Midday Live and Fox 5.

41. I am a member in good standing of the following local and national

associations:

a. Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles;

b. The Orange County Bar Association;

c. Twice served as former President of the Orange County Chapter of

the Iranian American Bar Association;

d. Member in good standing of National Association of Consumer

Advocates;

e. Member of Consumer Attorneys of California;

f. Member of the Federal Bar Association; and

g. Member of the Leading Forum of the American Association of

Justice.

42. I have been appointed class counsel in several class actions brought under

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA).

My practice involves significant TCPA litigation and I am or have been

counsel in significant national TCPA class actions including, but not limited

to, class actions against Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and Comenity

Bank, to mention a few.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

43. In addition to my class action experience, I have experience in commercial

litigation and large-scale products liability litigation including a $2.5 million

dollar settlement in Mei Lu Hwei, et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,

et al. (Case No. BC401211 in Superior Court of California for County of

Los Angeles). I have regularly litigated cases in state and federal courts, and

have reached numerous confidential seven-figure settlements against

internationally known companies.

EXHIBITS

44. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the TCPA matrix filed in

the matter of Wilkins v. HSBC Bank, No. 14-cv-190 (N.D. Ill.) (Dkt. No.

109-1 in that case)), which was downloaded from PACER on August 1,

2016.

45. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the final approval order

in In Re Jiffy Lube International, Inc. Text Spam Litigation, 3:11-MD-2261-

JM (JMA) (Feb. 20, 2013).

46. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the order finally

approving the settlement and the fee petition in the matter of Adams v.

AllianceOne, Inc., 08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012).

47. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the final judgment and

order of dismissal in Wojcik v. Buffalo Bills, Inc., 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM

(M.D. Florida August 25, 2014).

48. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the final approval order

in Knutson v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. et al., 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB

(S.D.Cal. April 1, 2015).

49. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Order Granting Final

Approval of Class Action Settlement and Judgment in the matter of Fox v.

Asset Acceptance, LLC, 14-cv-00734-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2016).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaz

erou

ni L

aw G

roup

, APC

C

osta

Mes

a, C

alifo

rnia

50. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the 2012 National Law

Journal Billing Survey obtained online.

51. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the 2013 National Law

Journal Billing Survey obtained online.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and the

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this

declaration was executed on August 1, 2016.

By:/s/ Abbas Kazerounian Abbas Kazerounian

EXHIBIT A

5th Circuit Cases

Case: 1:14-cv-00190 Document #: 109-1 Filed: 12/08/14 Page 8 of 88 PageID #:2453

Exhibit A 01

Spillman v. RPM Pizza, LLCCase No. 3:10-cv-00349

(M.D. Louisiana)Settlement Details

Item AmountFund Information

Total Fund(The defendant made $9,750,000 available to the class.)

$3,058,056

Administrative Costs $ 519,261Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 2,538,795Fee Award $ 2,535,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres99.8%

Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 27.4%

Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 891,960Lodestar Hours 2,871.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 310.64Lodestar Multiplier 2.84

Class InformationClass Members 1,400,000Claimants 253Claim Rate 0.018%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 15Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 15


Exhibit A 02

7th Circuit Cases


Exhibit A 03

Able Home Health v. Oxygen Qualifying Servs., Inc.Case No. 3:09-cv-50128

(N.D. Illinois)Settlement Details

Item Amount

Fund InformationTotal Fund $ 270,000Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 91,500Fund Less Cy Pres

(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 178,500

Fee Award $ 81,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres

(Admin costs not publicly available.)45.4%

Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 30%

Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly Available Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available

Class InformationClass Members 20,936Claimants 191Claim Rate 0.9%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 500


Exhibit A 04

Addison Automatics, Inc. v. Precision Electronic Class, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:10-cv-06903



Total Fund(This is the amount the defendant made available to the class. A $15,875,500 judgment was entered and was to be pursued through defendant’s insurance policies.)

$ 85,000

Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award 1/3 of future recoveryFee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

PresNot Publicly Available

Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 33% of future recovery


Class InformationClass Members 31,751 faxesClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 05

Balbarin v. North Star Capital Acquisition, LLC, et al.Case No. 1:10-cv-01846



Total Fund $ 500,000Administrative Costs $ 8,719Cy Pres Award $ 93,747Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 397,534Fee Award $ 166,667Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres41.9%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 183,438Lodestar Hours 561.8Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 327Lodestar Multiplier 0.91

Class InformationClass Members 1,395Claimants 1,395Claim Rate 100%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 211Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 211


Exhibit A 06

Brian J. Wanca, J.D., P.C. v. L.A. Fitness International, LLCCase No. 11-cv-4311

(Cir. Ct. Lake County, Illinois)Settlement Details


Total Fund(The defendant made $1,089,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)

Not Publicly Available

Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres

(Admin costs and cy pres award not publicly available.)


Fee Award $ 359,370Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy



Lodestar InformationLodestar Total Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available

Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 07

Cain v. Consumer Portfolio Servs., Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-02697



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants andthe fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $1,100,000.)

$ 447,448

Administrative Costs(Defendant made $5,000 available for admin costs. This amount was excluded from the Total Fund amount per the settlement agreement.)

Not Included in Fund

Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres

(Admin costs were excluded from the Total Fund amount per the settlement agreement.)

$ 447,448


Pres81.1%





Exhibit A 08

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy’s Crab House North, Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-05456



Total Fund(The total judgment issued by the Court was $3,647,500. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)


Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,215,833Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 4,258Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 09

CE Design, Ltd. v. Exterior Sys., Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-00066


Item Amount

Fund InformationTotal Fund

(The defendant made $315,334 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)


Administrative Costs $ 250Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 105,110Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 1,892Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 400Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 10

Clearbrook v. RoofLifters, LLCCase No. 1:08-cv-03276



Total Fund $ 1,400,000Administrative Costs $ 4,314Cy Pres Award $ 20,049Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 1,375,636Fee Award $ 420,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres30.5%



Class InformationClass Members 15,091Claimants 565Claim Rate 3.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 1,603Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 1,603


Exhibit A 11

Cummings v. Sallie Mae, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-09984



Total Fund $ 9,250,000Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 3,052,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 251,000Claimants 31,589Claim Rate 12.6Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 179Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 12

Desai v. ADT Security SystemsCase No. 1:11-cv-01925



Total Fund(This is a lump-sum, non-reversionary, common fund.)

$ 15,000,000

Administrative Costs $ 3,400,000Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin

(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 11,600,000

Fee Award $ 5,000,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres43.1%



Class InformationClass Members 1,280,221Claimants 136,440Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 47Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 13

Fike v. The Bureaus, Inc.Case No. 1:09-cv-02558



Total Fund(This is a lump-sum, non-reversionary, common fund.)

$800,000

Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award

(The cy pres award consisted of uncashed checks only.)

$ 21,103

Fund Less Cy Pres(Admin costs not publicly available.)

$ 778,897


Pres25.7%





Exhibit A 14

Garret, et al. v. Sharps Compliance, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-04030




Pres35.3%



Class InformationClass Members 60,920Claimants 6,767Claim Rate 11%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 27-$ 29Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 28.13


Exhibit A 15

Garrett et al. v. Ragle Dental Laboratory, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:10-cv-01315




Pres32.4%



Class InformationClass Members 2,063Claimants 1,981Claim Rate 96%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 163


Exhibit A 16

Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.Case No. 1:09-cv-05114





Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 566,700Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 3,736Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 17

G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Finish Thompson, Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-05953









Class InformationClass Members 10,797Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 184Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 184


Exhibit A 18

Hanley v. Fifth Third BankCase No. 1:12-cv-01612



Total Fund $ 4,500,000Administrative Costs $ 418,160Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,081,840Fee Award $ 1,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres36.7%



Class InformationClass Members 216,498Claimants 16,241Claim Rate 7.5%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 200Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 157


Exhibit A 19

Hinman v. M and M Rental Center, Inc.Case No. 1:06-cv-01156





Administrative Costs $ 6,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,939,050Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 5,015Claimants 190Claim Rate 3.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 534Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 20

Holtzman v. CCH Inc.Case No. 1:07-cv-07033



Total Fund(The defendant made $397,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)


Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 132,333Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 90Claimants 36Claim Rate 40%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 500


Exhibit A 21

Lockett v. Mogreet, Inc.Case No. 2013-CH-21352

(Cir. Ct. Cook County, Illinois)Settlement Details








Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 105Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 22

Locklear Elec., Inc. v. Norma L. LayCase No. 3:09-cv-00531

(S.D. Illinois)Settlement Details


Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the admin costs, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $1,753,161.)

$ 1,665,437

Administrative Costs $ 2,369Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin $ 1,663,068Fee Award $ 584,387Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres35.1%





Exhibit A 23

Lozano v. Twentieth Century FoxCase No. 1:09-cv-06344


Item Amount


(The defendant made $16,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)





Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,128,112Lodestar Hours 3,094.7Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 365Lodestar Multiplier 2.9



Exhibit A 24

Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-00215



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin, costs, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $7,500,000.)

$ 4,900,000

Administrative Costs $ 129,000Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres


Fee Award $ 1,666,666Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres34.9%



Class InformationClass Members 65,334Claimants 4,857Claim Rate 7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 635Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 25

Martin v. CCH, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-03494



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin costs, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $2,000,000.)

$ 1,224,182

Administrative Costs $ 51,782Cy Pres Award $ 250,000Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 1,031,964Fee Award $ 600,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres58%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 571,697Lodestar Hours 1,112Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 514Lodestar Multiplier 1.05



Exhibit A 26

Martin v. TaxWorks, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-05485



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin, costs, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $225,000.)

$ 174,398

Administrative Costs $ 4,751Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres

(Cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 169,647


Pres44.2%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 36,850Lodestar Hours 73.7Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 500Lodestar Multiplier 2

Class InformationClass Members 906Claimants 189Claim Rate 21%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 395Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 395


Exhibit A 27

Miller v. Red Bull North America, Inc.Case No. 1:12-cv-04961





Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award

(This amount includes fees and costs.)$ 1,275,000

Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres






Exhibit A 28

Paldo Sign and Display Company v. Topsail SportswearCase No. 1:08-cv-05959



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants andthe fee award. The total fund that defendant made available was $2,000,000.)

$ 747,601


Pres89.2%



Class InformationClass Members 10,352Claimants

(Claims were submitted for 1,927 faxes.)591

Claim Rate 5.71%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 42 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 42 per fax


Exhibit A 29

R. Rudnick & Co. v. G.F. Protection, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:08-cv-01856


Item Amount


(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $265,000.)

$ 229,750

Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 31,750Fund Less Cy Pres


Fee Award $ 79,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres






Exhibit A 30

Rojas v. Career Education CenterCase No. 1:10-cv-05260











Exhibit A 31

Sadowski v. Med1OnlineCase No. 1:07-cv-02973




Pres30.5%





Exhibit A 32

Saf-T-Gard Int’l v. Seiko Corp. of Am.Case No. 1:09-cv-00776





Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,155,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy






Exhibit A 33

Saf-T-Gard v. Transworld SystemsCase No. 1:10-cv-07671



Total Fund(The defendant made $5,356,800 available to the class, including the value of defendant’s offered services ($624 per class member). There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)


Administrative Costs $ 8,222Cy Pres Award $ 92,587Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 240,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 8,409Claimants 124Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 200 & $ 624Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 34

Saf-T-Gard International v. Vanguard Energy Services, LLCCase No. 1:12-cv-03671



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $59,500.)

$ 50,120





Class InformationClass Members 82Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 335 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 335 per fax


Exhibit A 35

The Savanna Group, Inc. et al v. Trynex, Inc.Case No. 1:10-cv-07995









Class InformationClass Members 10,223Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 36

Sawyer v. Atlas Heating and Sheet Metal Works Inc.Case No. 2:10-cv-00331

(E.D. Wisconsin)Settlement Details










Exhibit A 37

Targin Sign Sys., Inc. v. Preferred Chiropractic Ctr., Ltd.Case No. 1:09-cv-01399









Class InformationClass Members 3,988Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 250 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 250 per fax


Exhibit A 38

Weinstein v. Airit2me, Inc., et al.Case No. 1:06-cv-00484


Item Amount


(The defendant made $7,000,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)


Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 200,000Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,625,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy



Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 696,650 Lodestar Hours 1,704.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 409Lodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available



Exhibit A 39

Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc.Case No. 3:10-cv-00229

(W.D. Wisconsin)Settlement Details




Administrative Costs $ 17,392Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 432,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy




Class InformationClass Members 1,384Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 332 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 332 per fax


Exhibit A 40

Woodman, et al. v. ADT Dealer Servs. et al.Case No. 2013-CH-10169

(Cir. Ct. Cook County, Illinois)Settlement Details




Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,875,000Fee Award as Percentage of

Fund Less Cy PresNot Publicly Available



Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 15 or $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 41

9th Circuit Cases


Exhibit A 42

Adams v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.Case No. 3:08-cv-00248

(S.D. California)Settlement Details


Total Fund(This is the amount claimants received plus administrative costs, and fees. The total amount defendant made available to the class was $9,000,000.)

$ 7,792,041

Administrative Costs $ 2,549,121Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 5,242,920Fee Award $ 2,700,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres51.5%



Class InformationClass Members 5,627,963Claimants 63,573Claim Rate 1.1%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 40Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 40


Exhibit A 43

Agne v. Papa John’s International, et al.Case No. 2:10-cv-01139

(W.D. Washington)Settlement Details


Total Fund(This amount is the total amount paid to the class in cash plus administrative expenses and attorneys’ fees. The total amount defendant made available to the class was $16,585,000.)

$ 2,867,350


Pres93.6%



Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants 3,347Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 50 Cash Plus

$13 Merchandise


Exhibit A 44

Arthur, et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc.Case No. 2:10-cv-00198



Total Fund $ 24,150,000Administrative Costs $ 6,692,637Cy Pres Award $ 980,396Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 16,476,967Fee Award $ 4,830,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres29.3%

Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 20%

Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,729,885Lodestar Hours 3,963Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 436.51Lodestar Multiplier 2.79

Class InformationClass Members 7,792,256Claimants

(This figure includes approximately 53,400 claimants who had their accounts charged off and were not eligible to receive a cash or reduction award.)

171,263

Claim Rate 2.2%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 20-$ 40Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 118


Exhibit A 45

Bellows v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.Case No. 3:07-cv-01413


Item Amount


(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the cy pres award, and the attorneys’ fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $950,000.)

$ 499,254



Fee Award $ 299,254Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres 99.3%Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 31.5%


Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants 29Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 70Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 70


Exhibit A 46

Chesbro v. Best Buys Stores, L.P.Case No. 2:10-cv-00774



Total Fund $ 4,550,000Administrative Costs $ 195,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,355,000Fee Award $ 1,137,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres26.1%





Exhibit A 47

Clark v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc.Case No. 2:09-cv-00915



Total Fund(The parties reported the total value of the settlement to be $3,809,988, which included 319,055 merchandise certificates with a face value of $10, attorneys’ fees, and administrative costs.)

Not Available

Administrative Costs $ 317,604Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not AvailableFee Award $ 301,834Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

PresNot Available

Fee Award as Percentage of Total Fund 7.9%


Class InformationClass Members 319,055Claimants 319,055Claim Rate 100%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 10 Merchandise

CertificateActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 10 Merchandise

Certificate


Exhibit A 48

Cubbage v. The Talbots, Inc. et al.Case No. 2:09-cv-00911



Total Fund(The parties reported the total value of the settlement to be $492,360, which included cash awards, merchandise certificates, attorneys’ fees, and administrative expenses. The total amount the defendants made available was $1,570,000.)

Not Available

Administrative Costs $ 40,000Cy Pres Award $ 0 Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not AvailableFee Award $ 400,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

PresNot Available


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $482,366Lodestar Hours 704.5Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 685Lodestar Multiplier 0.83

Class InformationClass Members 19,654Claimants 936Claim Rate 4.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 40 Cash or $ 80

Merchandise Certificate Actual Recovery Per Claimant

(561 claims at $40, 367 claims at $80, and 14 where information is not publicly available.)

$ 40 Cash or $ 80 Merchandise Certificate


Exhibit A 49

Ellison v. Steve Madden, Ltd.Case No. 2:11-cv-05935

(C.D. California)Settlement Details


Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, administrative costs, and the attorneys’ fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $10,000,000.)

$ 4,709,450


Pres29.4%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 739,403Lodestar Hours 1,851.2Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 399Lodestar Multiplier 1.7



Exhibit A 50

Grannan v. Alliant Law Group, P.C.Case No. 5:10-cv-02803

(N.D. California)Settlement Details


Total Fund $ 1,000,000Administrative Costs $ 121,840Cy Pres Award $ 54,143Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 824,017Fee Award $ 250,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres30.3%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 169,528 Lodestar Hours 265.4Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 639Lodestar Multiplier 1.47

Class InformationClass Members 137,981Claimants 1,986Claim Rate 1.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 300-$ 325Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 306


Exhibit A 51

Gutierrez, et al. v. Barclays Group, et al.Case No. 3:10-cv-01012


Item Amount

Fund InformationTotal Fund $ 8,184,875Administrative Costs $ 67,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 8,117,875Fee Award $ 1,574,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres19.4%





Exhibit A 52

Hovila v. Tween Brands, Inc.Case No. 2:09-cv-00491



Total Fund(The total amount paid to the class cannot be determined based on publicly available information. The total potential recovery for the class was $4,500,000.)

Not Available

Administrative Costs $ 142,597Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not AvailableFee Award $ 750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

PresNot Available



Class InformationClass Members 100,000Claimants (As of final approval.) 2,690Claim Rate 2.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 20 Cash or $ 45

Merchandise CertificateActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 20 Cash or $ 45

Merchandise Certificate


Exhibit A 53

In re Jiffy Lube International, Inc. Text Spam Litig.Case No. 3:11-MD-02261



Total Fund(The total value of the certificates defendant issued was $39,883,585.)


Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 4,750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy


Fee Award as Percentage of Total Value of Certificates 11.9%


Class InformationClass Members 2,342,239Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant

(Each class member received on certificate worth $15 cash and $20 in goods and services.)

$ 15

Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 54

Kazemi v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc. et al.Case No. 3:09-cv-05142



Total Fund(The defendant made $10,000,000 in cash and/or certificates available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually received.)






Class InformationClass Members 8,500,00Claimants 22,500Claim Rate 1.2%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 25 Merchandise

CertificateActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 25 Merchandise

Certificate


Exhibit A 55

Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., et al.Case No. 4:10-cv-02722



Total Fund $ 12,200,000Administrative Costs $ 1,246,933Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin


Fee Award $ 3,050,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin

(Cy pres award not publicly available.)27.8%



Class InformationClass Members 47,000,000Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 56

Kwan v. Clearwire Corp.Case No. 2:09-cv-01392



Total Fund(In addition to a cash payment of $6,300,000,defendant provided $23,000,000 in class member debt relief.)

$ 6,300,000


Pres49.3%



Class InformationClass Members 1,800,000Claimants 11,686Claim Rate 0.65%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available Actual Recovery Per Claimant

(This amount was capped at $653 per claimant in cash and/or debt relief.)

$ 53 per call in cash and/or debt relief


Exhibit A 57

Lemieux v. Global Credit & Collection Corp.Case No. 3:08-cv-01012



Total Fund(This includes total amount paid to claimants, cy pres award, and attorneys’ fees. The amount the defendant made available was $505,000.)

$ 343,884




Pres(Admin costs not publicly available.)

83.4%





Exhibit A 58

Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC et al.Case No. 3:11-cv-01009



Total Fund $ 49,100Administrative Costs $ 4,500Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 44,600Fee Award $ 12,275Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres27.5%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 72,228Lodestar Hours 142Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 509Lodestar Multiplier 0.17

Class InformationClass Members 203Claimants 22Claim Rate 10.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 1,331.23


Exhibit A 59

Malta v. Freddie Mac & Wells Fargo Home MortgageCase No. 3:10-cv-01290



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admincosts, and the fee award. The total fund that defendant made available was $17,100,000.00.)

$ 17,078,324

Administrative Costs $ 2,997,291Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 14,081,033Fee Award $ 3,847,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres27.3%



Class InformationClass Members 4,337,960Claimants 120,650Claim Rate 2.78%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 85


Exhibit A 60

Meilleur v. AT&T Corp.Case No. 2:11-cv-01025



Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, administrative costs, and the attorneys’ fee award.)

$ 973,905

Administrative Costs $ 75,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 898,905Fee Award $ 750,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres83.4%


Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 388,711Lodestar Hours 685Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 495Lodestar Multiplier 2.2

Class InformationClass Members 15,386Claimants 1,088Claim Rate 7.07%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 270/$ 135Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 270/$ 135


Exhibit A 61

Palmer v. Sprint Solutions, Inc.Case No. 2:09-cv-01211



Total Fund $ 5,500,000Administrative Costs $ 1,012,825Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 4,487,175Fee Award $ 1,540,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres34.3%



Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants

(There were 37,676 claimants as of the date of the motion for final approval.)


Claim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 62

Pimental v. Google, Inc.Case No. 4:11-cv-02585



Total Fund $ 6,000,000Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award

(Final cy pres award not publicly available.)$ 950,000-$ 1,450,000

Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 1,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy





(As of final approval.)5,598

Claim Rate(As of final approval.)

3%

Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 63

Robles v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, et al.Case No. 3:10-cv-04846



Total Fund(Defendant made $9,900,000.00 available to the class. This figure is based on total number of claims made as of final approval plus attorneys’ fees. The final total fund was likely larger given there were 90 days remaining in the claims period.)

$ 3,615,600

Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 2,400,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund 66.4%Fee Award as Percentage of Total Amount Available 24.2%



(As of final approval.)12,156

Claim Rate(As of final approval.)

5.6%

Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 100Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 100


Exhibit A 64

Sarabi v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co.Case No. 3:10-cv-01777



Total Fund(This was not a common fund. This amount includes the amount paid to claimants, administrative costs,and the attorneys’ fee award.)

$ 1,350,000

Administrative Costs $ 600,000Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 750,000Fee Award $ 225,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres30%



Class InformationClass Members 577,278Claimants 10,475Claim Rate 1.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant $ 48


Exhibit A 65

Satterfield v. Simon & SchusterCase No. 4:06-cv-02893





Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 250,000Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 2,500,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy



Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,323,888.00Lodestar Hours 2,639.9Lodestar Hourly Rate $ 501.49Lodestar Multiplier 1.89



Exhibit A 66

Steinfeld, et al. v. Discover Financial Services, et al.Case No. 3:12-cv-01118



Total Fund $ 8,700,000Administrative Costs $ 1,397,100Cy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres $ 7,302,900Fee Award $ 2,175,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin & Cy

Pres29.8%



Class InformationClass Members 9,321,114Claimants 109,154Claim Rate 1.2%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 20-$ 40Actual Recovery Per Claimant $ 47


Exhibit A 67

6th Circuit Cases


Exhibit A 68

Avio, Inc. v. Creative Office Solutions, Inc.Case No. 2:10-cv-10622

(E.D. Michigan)Settlement Details


Total Fund(The defendant made $1,587,000 available to the class. There is no publicly available information regarding the amount the class actually receivedbecause no public information exists regarding the number of faxes claimed.)







(This amount reflects the total claims received as of final approval. There is no publicly available information regarding the number of faxes claimed.)

483

Claim Rate 14.8%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available

($ 305 per fax)Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available

($ 305 per fax)


Exhibit A 69

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Heel, Inc.Case No. 3:12-cv-01470

(N.D. Ohio)Settlement Details


Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, the cy pres award, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $6,000,000.)

$ 3,713,472


(Admin costs not publicly available.)$ 3,517,037

Fee Award $ 2,000,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Cy Pres




Class InformationClass Members 34,381Claimants 6,774Claim Rate 19.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 224Actual Recovery Per Claimant

(This amount represents an average paid per claimant as claims were paid on a per fax basis.)

$ 224


Exhibit A 70

Siding and Insulation Co. v. Beachwood Hair Clinic, Inc.Case No. 1:11-cv-01074

(N.D. Ohio)Settlement Details

Item Amount


(This includes the amount paid to claimants and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $1,956,650.)

$ 1,793,500

Administrative Costs Not Publicly AvailableCy Pres Award $ 0Fund Less Admin & Cy Pres Not Publicly AvailableFee Award $ 600,000Fee Award as Percentage of Fund




Class InformationClass Members 16,847Claimants 1,081Claim Rate 6.4%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 500 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant

(This amount represents an average paid per claimant as claims were paid on a per fax basis.)

$ 1,104


Exhibit A 71

8th Circuit Cases


Exhibit A 72

Heller v. HRB Tax Group, Inc.Case No. 4:11-cv-01121

(E.D. Missouri)Settlement Details








Class InformationClass Members 87Claimants 13Claim Rate 14.9%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 550 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 73

Lindsay Transmission v. Office Depot, Inc.Case No. 4:12-cv-00221

(E.D. Missouri)Settlement Details








Class InformationClass Members 232Claimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 450-$ 550 per faxActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 74

10th Circuit Cases


Exhibit A 75

Bailey Brothers Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Papa's Leatherbarn LLC

Case No. 5:10-cv-00080(W.D. Oklahoma)Settlement Details








Class InformationClass Members 2,756Claimants 321Claim Rate 11.6Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 295Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 76

11th Circuit Cases


Exhibit A 77

Espinal v. Burger King Corp., et al.Case No. 1:09-cv-20982

(S.D. Florida)Settlement Details







Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 218,562Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier 0.78



Exhibit A 78

In Re Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

Case No. 6:13-md-02398(M.D. Florida)

Settlement DetailsItem AmountFund Information

Total Fund(This settlement included injunctive relief, only. No money was distributed to the class.)




Lodestar InformationLodestar Total $ 1,255,843Lodestar Hours Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Hourly Rate Not Publicly AvailableLodestar Multiplier Not Publicly Available

Class InformationClass Members Not Publicly AvailableClaimants Not Publicly AvailableClaim Rate Not Publicly AvailableEstimated Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly AvailableActual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 79

Wojcik v. Buffalo Bills, Inc.Case No. 8:12-cv-02414

(M.D. Florida)Settlement Details


Total Fund(This includes the amount paid to claimants, admin costs, and the fee award. The total fund that defendants made available was $2,487,745.)

$ 2,487,745

Administrative Costs $ 86,164Cy Pres Award Not Publicly AvailableFund Less Admin


Fee Award $ 562,500Fee Award as Percentage of Fund Less Admin 23.4%


Class InformationClass Members 39,750Claimants 2,280Claim Rate 5.7%Estimated Recovery Per Claimant $ 58, $65, or $75Actual Recovery Per Claimant Not Publicly Available


Exhibit A 80

EXHIBIT B

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re JIFFY LUBEINTERNATIONAL, INC. TEXTSPAM LITIGATION

))))))

Case No.: 3:11-MD-2261-JM (JMA)

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASSACTION AND ORDER OFDISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement (Dkt. 90) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and

Expenses and Class Representative Incentive Awards (Dkt. 86) (collectively, the

“Motions”). The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of the Motions,

having heard argument of counsel, and finding good cause appearing therein, hereby

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motions and it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED

THAT:

1. Terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning as ascribed to

them in the Parties’ August 1, 2012 Class Action Settlement Agreement, as amended by

the First Amendment to Class Action Settlement Agreement as of September 28, 2012

(the “Settlement Agreement”).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all

Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members.

1 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. On October 10, 2012, this Court granted Preliminary Approval of the

Settlement Agreement and preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of:

All persons or entities in the United States and its Territorieswho in April 2011 were sent a text message from short codes72345 or 41411 promoting Jiffy Lube containing languagesimilar to the following:

JIFFY LUBE CUSTOMERS 1 TIME OFFER:REPLY Y TO JOIN OUR ECLUB FOR 45% OFFASIGNATURE SERVICE OIL CHANGE! STOP TOUNSUB MSG&DATARATES MAY APPLY T&C: JIFFYTOS.COM.

(Dkt. 85 at 3.)4. Excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons who have submitted

valid and timely requests for exclusion pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order and

the Notice to the Settlement Class. Valid and timely requests for exclusion were received

from the persons listed on Appendix 1 attached hereto and incorporated into this Final

Judgment. Those persons listed on Appendix 1 are found to have validly excluded

themselves from the Settlement in accordance with the provisions of the Preliminary

Approval Order, and are not bound by this Final Judgment or the Releases herein.

5. The Court finds that the Notice and the Notice Plan implemented pursuant to

the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order of October 10, 2012 and

consisting of individual notice via first-class U.S. Mail postcard, internet publication on

the interactive settlement website, a toll-free phone number to field inquiries by Settlement

Class Members, and in-store signage directing Settlement Class Members to the settlement

website and toll-free phone number, has been successfully implemented and was the best

notice practicable under the circumstances and: (1) constituted notice that was reasonably

calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of the

pendency of the Action, their right to object to or to exclude themselves from the Settle-

ment Agreement, and their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing; (2) was reasonable and

constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice;

2 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and (3) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due

Process Clause, and the rules of the Court.

6. The Court finds that Defendants properly and timely notified the appropriate

state and federal officials of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The Court has reviewed the substance

of Defendants’ notice and accompanying materials, and finds that they complied with all

applicable requirements of CAFA.

7. This Court now affirms certification of the Settlement Class for settlement

purposes only, gives final approval to the Settlement, and finds that the Settlement

Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

The settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes fair

value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released

Parties. The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement

Class is reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances of the numerous types of

claims and affirmative defenses asserted in the Action, and the potential risks and

likelihood of success of alternatively pursuing trials on the merits. The complex legal and

factual posture of this case, and the fact that the Settlement is the result of arms’ length

negotiations between the Parties, including negotiations presided over by the Honorable

Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, support this finding.

8. The Court finds that the Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately

represented the Settlement Class for purposes of litigation of this matter and entering into

and implementing the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally

approved in all respects, and the Parties are hereby directed to implement the Settlement

according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated

into this Order in full and shall have the full force of an Order of this Court.

9. The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied for settlement

purposes only, for the reasons set forth herein. The Settlement Class is so numerous that

joinder of all members is impracticable; there are at least some questions of law or fact

3 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

common to the class; the claims do fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;

the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions

affecting only individual members; and a class action is superior to other available

methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy between the Class Repre-

sentatives and Defendants.

10. The appointment of Class Counsel and Liaison Class Counsel are hereby

confirmed. Class Counsel and Liaison Class Counsel are found to be experienced in class

litigation, including litigation of similar claims in other cases, and have fairly and

adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class in the Action and the Settle-

ment.

11. This Court hereby dismisses the Action, comprised of the seven actions

identified in the Settlement Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or

costs to any of the Parties except as expressly provided herein.

12. Upon the Effective Date of this Order, Plaintiffs and each and every Settle-

ment Class Member who did not timely and validly opt out of the Settlement Class, and

any Person claiming by or through any Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member as his,

her, or its spouse, marital community, parent, child, heir, associate, co-owner, attorney,

agent, administrator, devisee, predecessor, successor, assignee, representative of any kind,

shareholder, partner, director, employee, or affiliate, whether or not he, she or it receives

any Settlement Benefits, shall fully, finally, completely and forever, release, acquit and

discharge Heartland, TextMarks, Jiffy Lube, and Oil Express as well as any other entity in

which Heartland, TextMarks, Jiffy Lube, and/or Oil Express has a controlling interest, to

which they are related, or with which they are affiliated, and any and all of any such

entities’ present, past, or future heirs, executors, estates, administrators, predecessors,

successors, assigns, parent entities, subsidiaries, franchises, associates, affiliates, employ-

ers, employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, insurers, directors, managing

directors, officers, partners, principals, shareholders, members, attorneys, accountants,

financial and other advisors, investment bankers, underwriters, lenders, auditors, invest-

4 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ment advisors, legal representatives, and/or successors in interest, from any and all claims,

demands, liabilities, duties, rights, obligations, or causes of action whatsoever belonging

to any of the Releasing Parties, pursuant to the TCPA, the CPA, the CEMA, or other

federal, state, local, statutory, or common law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, related

to, arising out of, or in any way connected to the alleged transmission of the Text Mes-

sage, whether or not such claims were or could have been asserted in the Action, including

claims sounding in law or in equity, whether accrued or unaccrued, suspected or unsus-

pected, known or unknown, direct or derivative, and including Unknown Claims as that

term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.

13. Additionally, Defendants Heartland and TextMarks, on behalf of themselves

and their respective present, past, or future predecessors, successors, assigns, parent

entities, subsidiaries, franchises, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, and agents,

hereby release and forever discharge each other from any and all claims, demands,

liabilities, duties, rights, obligations, or causes of action whatsoever, including Unknown

Claims, related in any way to the Action or the Text Message, including without limitation

claims for defense, indemnification, contribution, comparative fault, reimbursement, or

offset.

14. Upon the Effective Date, the above release of claims and the Settlement

Agreement will be binding on, and will have res judicata and preclusive effect on, all

pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Plaintiffs

and all other Settlement Class Members, Releasing Parties, and their heirs, executors, and

administrators, successors, and assigns. All Settlement Class Members who have not been

properly excluded from the Settlement Class are hereby permanently barred and enjoined

from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members

or otherwise) in any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction based on or arising out of

the Released Claims.

Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant Heartland, as of the

Effective Date, is hereby enjoined from sending or directing the sending of any marketing

5 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

text message to any Person without first obtaining that Person’s prior express consent, as

that term is defined in Section 2.1(a) of the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, Heart-

land shall keep documented proof of all such prior express consent received from such

Persons for a period of two years after said consent is obtained. Heartland is also permitted

to send or direct the sending of marketing text messages in a manner consistent with

applicable laws as such laws may exist from time to time. Defendant Heartland is hereby

ordered to implement and comply with Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement regarding

the injunctive relief made available to the Settlement Class Members.

15. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant TextMarks,

as of the Effective Date, is hereby enjoined from sending any marketing text message to

any Person without first obtaining that Person’s prior express consent, as that term is

defined in Section 2.1(b) of the Settlement Agreement, or an express representation from

TextMark’s client(s) that such consent was obtained. Additionally, TextMarks shall keep

documented proof of all prior express consent received from such Persons, or the express

representation of TextMarks’ client(s) that such consent was obtained, for a period of two

years after said consent is obtained. TextMarks is entitled to rely upon express representa-

tions by its clients that prior express consent has been obtained. TextMarks is also

permitted to send or direct the sending of marketing text messages in a manner consistent

with applicable laws as such laws may exist from time to time. Defendant TextMarks is

hereby ordered to implement and comply with Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement

regarding the injunctive relief made available to the Settlement Class Members.

16. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant TextMarks,

as of the Effective Date, is hereby enjoined from sending any marketing text message to

any Person without first obtaining that Person’s prior express consent, as that term is

defined in Section 2.1(b) of the Settlement Agreement, or an express representation from

TextMarks’ client(s) that such consent was obtained. Additionally, TextMarks shall keep

documented proof of all prior express consent received from such Persons, or the express

representation of TextMarks’ client(s) that such consent was obtained, for a period of two

6 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

years after said consent is obtained. TextMarks is entitled to rely upon express representa-

tions by its clients that prior express consent has been obtained. TextMarks is also

permitted to send or direct the sending of marketing text messages in a manner consistent

with applicable laws as such laws may exist from time to time. Defendant TextMarks is

hereby ordered to implement and comply with Section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement

regarding the injunctive relief made available to the Settlement Class Members.

17. The Court approves the agreed-upon Fee Award to Class Counsel. The Court

hereby awards to Class Counsel 366,230 Certificates, yielding an aggregate cash value of

$4,750,000, as attorneys’ fees and costs. In this Circuit, a 25 percent fee is the accepted

“benchmark” in common fund cases. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043,

1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002). In assessing the Fee Award, the Court has considered the results

achieved in this litigation, the risks of litigation, the skill required of Class Counsel and

the quality of their work, the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried

by the Plaintiffs, and awards made in similar cases. In light of these factors, the Court

finds this Fee Award to be fair and reasonable, given that it represents approximately

13.51% of the total common financial benefit to the Class of the Certificates, exclusive of

the value of the injunctive relief contained in the Settlement Agreement and exclusive of

the costs of settlement administration and of mailing Notice, which were paid for by

Heartland. The Court additionally finds this amount to be fair and reasonable based upon a

lodestar cross check. Class Counsel provided the Court with documentation and sworn

declarations supporting a lodestar of $1,325,490.25 as of November 19, 2012, based on an

expenditure of 2,292.67 hours investigating, litigating and resolving this case. Addition-

ally, Class Counsel set forth the experience of each attorney working on the case and his

or her corresponding billable rate. The Court finds the rates charged to be appropriate and

reasonable in light of the experience of each attorney and that the hourly rates are in line

with comparable market rates. The Court finds the hours expended to be reasonable when

compared with the time and effort put forth by Class Counsel and supporting counsel in

investigating, litigating, and resolving this case, as well as in light of the results achieved

7 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for the Settlement Class in terms of both monetary and injunctive relief. Accordingly, the

overall lodestar of $1,325,490.25, when enhanced by a multiplier of 3.58, which the Court

finds reasonable and proper in light of the benefits to the Class, lodestars applied in other

similar matters, and the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67

(9th Cir. 1975), provides a reasonable lodestar cross-check in awarding Class Counsel’s

Fee Award of 366,230 Certificates, yielding an aggregate cash value of $4,750,000.00.

Class Counsel’s total Fee Award is inclusive of $13,582.02 in costs as of November 19,

2012, which is likewise reasonable based on the documentation and sworn declarations

submitted.

18. Defendants shall pay the Fee Award pursuant to and in the manner provided

by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

19. The Court approves the agreed Incentive Award of $5,000.00, or 386

Certificates with the equivalent cash value of $5,000.00, to each Class Representa-

tive––Joseph Crowl, Lawrence Cushnie, Tramy Duong, Rene Heuscher, Edward Koeller,

Dawn Souder, and Jacob Barr––as an Incentive Award for their roles as Class Representa-

tives. The Court finds this Incentive Award to be reasonable in light of the Class Represen-

tatives’ willingness and efforts with respect to taking on the risks of litigation and helping

achieve the results to be made available to the Settlement Class. Such payment shall be

made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

20. Except as otherwise set forth in this Order, the Parties shall bear their own

costs and attorneys’ fees.

21. This Court hereby directs entry of this Final Judgment based upon the Court’s

finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of this Final

Judgment notwithstanding the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to oversee implementation

and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

22. Neither this Final Judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, the

Settlement Agreement, the settlement that it reflects, nor any act, statement, document, or

proceeding relating to the Settlement:

8 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(a) is, may be deemed, or shall be used, offered, or received against Defendants

as an admission, concession, finding or evidence of the validity of any Released

Claims, the truth of any fact alleged by the Plaintiffs, the validity of any defense that

has been or could have been asserted in the Action, or of any alleged wrongdoing,

liability, negligence, or fault of the Released Parties;

(b) is, may be deemed, or shall be used, offered, or received against Plaintiffs or

the Settlement Class as an admission, concession, finding or evidence of the

infirmity or strength of any claims raised in the Action, the truth or falsity of any

fact alleged by Heartland or TextMarks, or the availability or lack of availability of

meritorious defenses to the claims raised in the Action;

(c) is, may be deemed, or shall be construed against Plaintiffs and the Settlement

Class or against Defendants as an admission or concession, finding or evidence that

the consideration to be given hereunder represents an amount equal to, less than, or

greater than that amount that could have or would have been recovered after trial;

(d) is, may be deemed, or shall be construed as or received in evidence as an

admission or concession, finding or evidence against Plaintiffs and the Settlement

Class or against Defendants that any of Plaintiffs’ claims are with or without merit

and that damages recoverable in the Action would have existed, would have

exceeded or would have been less than any particular amount; or

(e) is, may be deemed, or shall be used, offered, or received against Defendants

as an admission or concession, finding or evidence with respect to any liability,

negligence, fault, or wrongdoing as against any Parties to the Agreement in any

civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or

other tribunal.

23. The Parties, without further approval from the Court, are hereby permitted to

agree and to adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions of the Settlement

Agreement and its implementing documents (including all exhibits to the Settlement

9 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Agreement) so long as they are consistent in all material respects with the Final Judgment

and do not limit the rights of Settlement Class Members.

24. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5), the Court approves the withdrawl of the

Manbeck and Stephens Objection.

25. The objections by Johnathon Sigward-Waters, Cathleen Knutson, and Robert

Caldwell Jr. are hereby overruled in their entirety. Sigward-Waters’ objection that the

Defendants’ merely be told to not send such texts again, at best, only expresses general

disagreement with the Settlement without addressing the Settlement’s adequacy.

Knutson’s objection that the Settlement should not be approved because it should “only be

three years time” is unclear. Caldwell’s objection that each class member should receive

the $500 pursuant to the statute is unconvincing because providing such a large settlement

per class member would likely drive Heartland out of business.

26. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, this Court

hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

27. Based upon the Court’s finding that there is no just reason for delay of

enforcement or appeal of this Final Judgment notwithstanding the Court’s retention of

jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Court directs the Clerk to enter final

judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Clerk is further instructed to close this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2013

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

10 3:11-md-2261-JM (JMA)

Exhibit B

EXHIBIT C

Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CHRISTINA M. ADAMS et al., onbehalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated,

Plaintiff,v.

ALLIANCEONE, INC.,

Defendant.

)))))))))))))))

Civil No. 3:08-cv-0248-JAH-WVG

ORDER

(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTIONFOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASSACTION SETTLEMENT [DKT NO.116];

(2) GRANTING CLASSCOUNSEL’S MOTION FORATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, ANDSERVICE AWARDS [DKT NO.115]

Plaintiffs Christina M. Adams, Sarah Gabany, and Michael D. Messner

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.

(“Defendant”) (the “Parties”) entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Settlement”),

which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

On February 24, 2012, the Parties filed the Settlement, along with their Joint

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval

Motion”).

On April 23, 2012, upon consideration of the Preliminary Approval Motion, and

the record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Action

Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval

3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG

Case 3:08-cv-00248-JAH-WVG Document 137 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 8

Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order, the Court, among other things, (i) preliminarily certified (for settlement purposes

only) a class of plaintiffs (the “Class Members”) with respect to the claims asserted in this

case; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed settlement; (iii) appointed Plaintiffs

Christina M. Adams, Sarah Gabany, and Michael D. Messner as the Class

Representatives; (iv) appointed Hyde & Swigart and The Law Offices of Douglas J.

Campion as Class Counsel; and (v) set the date and time of the Final Approval Hearing.

On July 9, 2012, Class Counsel filed their Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Costs and Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs (the “Fee, Cost, and Award Motion”).

On July 30, 2012, the Parties filed their Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Motion”). Pursuant to the Final

Approval Motion, the Parties request final certification of the Settlement Class under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and final approval of the Stipulation.

Thus, before the Court is the Final Approval Motion and the Fee, Cost, and Award

Motion.

On September 18, 2012, a Final Approval Hearing was held by this Court pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to determine whether this action satisfies the applicable prerequisites

for class action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members, and should be

approved by the Court. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court heard argument from

the Parties regarding the fairness of the settlement and the objections filed pursuant to

conditions set forth in the Notice. Having reviewed the Final Approval Motion, the

memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other documents filed in

support thereof, including the Settlement, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court

hereby GRANTS the Final Approval Motion.

At the same hearing on September 18, 2012, the Court heard argument from Class

Counsel in support of the Fee, Cost, and Award Motion. Having reviewed the Fee, Cost,

and Award Motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other

documents filed in support thereof, including the Settlement, and good cause appearing

2 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the Fee, Cost, and Award Motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. TERMS: This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the

Settlement and all terms in this Order shall be deemed to have the same meaning as

defined in the Settlement.

2. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

case and over the Parties.

3. CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 23 (b)(3), this case is hereby

finally certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following

Class Members with respect to the claims asserted in this case:

The Settlement Class is defined as all persons within the United States towhom any telephone calls were made by AllianceOne or any of the otherReleased Parties between February 8, 2004 and November 30, 2010 to suchperson’s cellular telephone, paging service, specialized mobile radio service,other radio common carrier service or any service for which the called partyis charged for the call, through the use of any automatic telephone dialingsystem which has the capacity to store or produce numbers (whether or notsuch capacity was used), including, without limitation, an automated dialingmachine dialer, auto-dialer or predictive dialer, or an artificial or prerecordedvoice, without such person’s prior express consent; provided, however, thatthe Class shall not include: (a) the officers, directors, and employees ofAllianceOne, the members of the immediate families of the foregoing, andtheir respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns; (b) theofficers, directors and employees of any parent, subsidiary or affiliate ofAllianceOne, and the members of the immediate families of the foregoing;and (c) Counsel for AllianceOne and Class Counsel and the members oftheir respective immediate families. Also excluded from the Class is anypotential Class Member who requested exclusion from the Class in a timelymanner, and those individuals identified by the List of Excluded Numbers.

4. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS COUNSEL APPOINTMENT:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court finally certifies Plaintiffs as Class

Representatives and appoints Hyde & Swigart and The Law Offices of Douglas J.

Campion as Class Counsel.

5. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval

Order, the Court finds the Settlement Administrator has complied with the approved

Notice process as confirmed in its declaration filed with the Court. The form and method

for notifying the Class Members of the Settlement and its terms and conditions were in

3 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conformity with the Preliminary Approval Order and satisfied the requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23 and due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under the

circumstances. The Court finds that the Notice given was clearly designed to advise the

Class Members of their rights. Further, the Court finds that the claim process set forth

in the Stipulation was followed and that the process was the best practicable procedure

under the circumstances.

6. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court again finds that this case

satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,

namely:

A. The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all of them in the

Litigation would be impracticable;

B. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members,

which predominate over any individual questions;

C. The claims of Plaintiffs appointed as Class Representatives are typical

of the claims of the Class Members;

D. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented

and protected the interests of all the Class Members; and

E. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable,

thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy, and a class action is

superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

7. FAIRNESS OF THE SETTLEMENT: The Court finds that the settlement

of the action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement, is in all respects

fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members,

especially in light of the benefits to the Class Members, the strength of Plaintiffs’ case and

the defenses asserted by Defendant, the complexity, expense and probable duration of

further litigation, the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, and the risk of collecting

any judgment obtained on behalf of the class.

8. SETTLEMENT TERMS: The Settlement, which has been filed with the

4 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, shall be consummated in accordance with

the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court.

The material terms of the Settlement include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. The amount of the Settlement Fund remaining after all costs of Notice

and Administrative Expenses, incentive payments and attorneys’ fees and costs, and

related expenses incurred in this case, shall revert to Defendant subject to the terms of the

Settlement;

B. Plaintiffs shall receive from the Settlement Fund the sum of

$10,000.00 as Incentive Payments for bringing and participating in this action, divided

among them as follows: Christina M. Adams shall receive $5,000, Sarah Gabany shall

receive $2,500, and Michael D. Messner shall receive $2,500;

C. The Settlement Administrator shall be paid the amounts it has

incurred for its services as set forth in the Settlement in the total amount of

$2,549,120.99.

D. Class Counsel shall receive attorneys’ fees in an amount representing

30% of the Settlement Fund, which departure from the 25% benchmark this Court finds

is justified for the reasons set forth in the record, for a total award of $2,700,000 as

attorneys’ fees incurred pursuing this case; and

E. Class Counsel shall receive the total sum of $288,319.87 for payment

of costs incurred pursuing this case, which includes miscellaneous litigation costs in the

amount of $36,082.37 and the cost of an information technology consultant in the

amount of $252,237.50, which cost this Court finds was necessarily incurred given the

amount and type of discovery exchanged in this case.

F. Because the aggregate amount of the Settlement Awards is greater

than $1,000,000, a cy pres award is not required.

9. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION: A total of 70 Requests for Exclusion were

received. Those persons who filed valid and timely Requests for Exclusion are named on

Exhibit A to this Order. The Court hereby excludes these individuals from the Class and

5 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Settlement.

10. OBJECTIONS: The Class Members were given an opportunity to file

Objections to the Settlement. Out of 63,573 valid and timely claims, only 6 Class

Members filed timely Objections. After consideration of each of the Objections, and for

the reasons set forth in the record, the Court hereby OVERRULES such Objections.

11. This Order is binding on all Class Members, except those individuals named

on Exhibit A, who filed valid and timely Requests for Exclusion.

12. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION: The Class

Representatives, Class Members, and their successors and assigns are permanently barred

and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either individually or as a class, or in any

other capacity, any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties, as set forth

in the Stipulation. Pursuant to the Releases contained in the Stipulation, the Released

Claims are compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of these

proceedings and this Order.

13. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal

With Prejudice, the Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the

Parties and all matters relating to this case and/or Settlement, including the

administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and

consummation of the Settlement and this Order.

14. TERMINATION OF DEADLINES: As of the date of this Order, all dates

and deadlines associated with this case are VACATED, other than those related to the

administration of the Settlement, unless and until further order of this Court.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH CAFA: Consistent with the Class Action Fairness

Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the Court finds that granting the Final Approval Motion

is appropriate because the required Notices of the Settlement were sent and appropriate

documentation was submitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the

Attorneys General of all 50 states; more than ninety (90) days have elapsed from the date

on which the Attorneys General were served with the notice required by CAFA; and, as

6 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the date of this Order, neither the Attorney General of the United States nor any State

Attorney General has filed any objections to or comments regarding the Settlement.

16. USE OF THE SETTLEMENT: Neither the Settlement, nor any act

performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement (i) is or

may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the validity or

lack thereof of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of any of the

Released Parties; or (ii) is or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, or

evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Released Parties, in any civil, criminal, or

administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal.

17. RELEASES AND BINDING EFFECT ON THE CLASS: Upon entry of this

Order, all Class Members who have not filed valid and timely Requests for Exclusion from

the Class in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Settlement shall be bound by

the Settlement and by this Order and by all determinations and judgments in this case,

whether favorable or unfavorable; and each Class Member shall be (i) conclusively deemed

to have, and by operation of this Order shall have, fully, finally and forever settled,

released, relinquished, waived and discharged Defendant and all Released Parties from all

Released Claims, all as defined in the Settlement, and (ii) barred from suing Defendant

in any action or proceeding alleging any of the Released Claims, even if any Class Member

may thereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those which the Class

Members or Class Counsel now know or believe to be true with respect to this case,

whether or not such Class Members have filed an objection to the Settlement or to the

Fee, Cost, and Award Motion, and whether or not the objections or claims for distribution

of such Class Members have been approved or allowed.

18. DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT: This case (together

with all claims asserted herein, whether asserted by Class Representatives on their own

behalf or on behalf of the Class) is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety, WITH

PREJUDICE. No costs are awarded to any party apart from those awarded to Class

Representatives and/or Class Counsel under this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to

7 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

enter final judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2012 _______________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge

8 3:08-cv–0248-JAH-WVG


Exhibit C

EXHIBIT D

Exhibit D


MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

JERRY WOJCIK, an individual, on

behalf of himself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 8:12-cv-2414-T-23TBM

BUFFALO BILLS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The plaintiff moves (Doc. 77) for final approval of a class action settlement,

for an award of attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff’s counsel, for an award of expenses,

and for an incentive award. A “fairness hearing” on the settlement occurred on

August 20, 2014.

1. An April 17, 2014 order (Doc. 73) grants preliminary approval of the

settlement and certifies a settlement class* that comprises:

All Persons in the United States and its territories who during the

Class Period (from the period of September 12, 2008 until the date

of a final Settlement Agreement) subscribed to the Text Service by

texting the word “BILLS” from their cellular telephone to SMS

short code 64621 in order to receive SMS text message alerts from

Defendant during the Class Period and who received text messages

from Defendant within a Weekly period (a period of seven (7) days

* The terms and phrases in this order retain the meaning ascribed to them in the settlement

agreement.

Case 8:12-cv-02414-SDM-TBM Document 79 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID 2043

Exhibit D

measured from 12:00:01 a.m. Sunday to 11:59:59 p.m. Saturday)during the Class Period where the number of text messages sent aspart of the Text Service exceeded five (5) text messages in thatWeek.

2. Excluded from the settlement class are (1) the defendant, Buffalo Bills,

Inc. (“BBI”), and BBI’s agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, and predecessors;

(2) any entity in which BBI has a controlling interest; (3) BBI’s current and former

employees, officers, and directors; (4) the attorneys, other legal representatives,

successors, and assigns of any excluded person; and (5) any person whose claim

against the defendant has been adjudicated or released in another action.

3. The settlement is approved because the settlement is fair, reasonable, and

adequate and because the settlement is in the best interests of the settlement class,

which is confirmed by the legal and factual composition of this action, the

arm’s-length negotiations that preceded the settlement, the maturity of the litigation,

and participation by both experienced and skillful counsel for the parties and an

experienced and skillful mediator. The plaintiff and the class counsel adequately

represented the settlement class in entering and implementing the settlement

agreement. Accordingly, the settlement agreement is APPROVED. This order

incorporates by reference (1) the settlement agreement and (2) the findings of fact

and conclusions of law announced during the August 20, 2014 fairness hearing.

4. An April 17, 2014 order preliminarily approves, as the best notice

practicable under the circumstances, the parties’ plan to notify the settlement class.

- 2 -


Exhibit D

Now successfully implemented, the notice plan satisfies the requirements of Rule 23,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. In accord with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28

U.S.C. § 1715, BBI properly and timely notified state and federal officials of the

settlement agreement. BBI’s notice and the accompanying material comply with the

applicable requirements of CAFA.

6. On the effective date of the settlement agreement, the plaintiff and each

settlement class member fully, finally, completely, and forever release, acquit, and

discharge each released party from each released claim. The settlement agreement

binds each settlement class member not excluded from the settlement class. Each

settlement class member not excluded from the settlement class is permanently

barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, or prosecuting and from intervening

or participating in (as a class member or otherwise) any other action in any

jurisdiction, if the action is based on, or arises from, a released claim.

7. As an award of attorneys’ fees, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s

counsel $562,500.

8. BBI must pay the plaintiff an incentive award of $5,000 in consideration

(1) of his assuming the risk of litigation and (2) of his contributing to the result

achieved for the settlement class.

9. In good faith and with the application of best efforts, the parties must

deliver the BBI debit cards to eligible members of the settlement class no later than

- 3 -


Exhibit D

November 1, 2014. If either party appeals or causes a tolling of the time to appeal,

the parties must deliver the BBI debit cards to eligible members of the settlement

class within sixty days after this order becomes final (for example, by expiration of

the time to appeal or by receipt of the mandate of the appellate court).

10. Except as specified in this order, the parties must bear their own costs

and attorneys’ fees.

11. Neither the settlement agreement nor the settlement itself nor the acts,

statements, documents, or proceedings pertaining to the settlement agreement

admits, concedes, or evidences any fault, wrongdoing, or liability by a party; the

validity of any claim or defense; the existence or amount of damages; or the

recovery, if any, that might have resulted from a trial.

12. Until the settlement agreement is wholly performed, jurisdiction is

retained over the parties and the action (a) to implement, enforce, and administer the

settlement agreement and (b) to resolve any dispute concerning the composition of

the settlement class or the entitlement to a benefit under the settlement agreement.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 25, 2014.

- 4 -


Exhibit D

EXHIBIT E

Exhibit E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of Final Approval

of Class Action Settlement - 1 of 6 - 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB



ERIK KNUTSON AND KEVIN

LEMIEUX, INDIVIDUALLY AND

ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

SCHWAN’S HOME SERVICE, INC.; AND CUSTOMER ELATION, INC.,

DEFENDANTS.

Case No.: 3:12-CV-00964-GPC-DHB

CLASS ACTION

FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND

JUDGMENT

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

Case 3:12-cv-00964-GPC-DHB Document 151 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER

On May 5, 2014, after active litigation commencing on April 18 2012,

extensive arm’s length negotiations, a mediation before the Honorable Leo S. Papas

(Ret.) and also before the Honorable Leo Wagner (Ret.), Plaintiffs Erik Knutson

and Kevin Lemieux, on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants

Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. and Customer Elation, Inc. (jointly the “Defendants”)

(collectively the “Parties”), entered into a Class Action Settlement (the

“Agreement”), which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

On May 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed the Agreement, along with the Motion

for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Preliminary

Approval Motion”), with the Court.

In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-

2, 119 Stat. 4, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), on May 15, 2014, the claims

administrator, at Defendants’ request and direction, served written notice of the

proposed class action settlement on the United States Attorney General and the

Attorney General of each State in which a Class Member resides.

On July 14, 2014, upon consideration of the Agreement, Preliminary

Approval Motion, and the record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Preliminary Settlement Approval

Order”). Pursuant to the Preliminary Settlement Approval Order, the Court

preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, approved Kurtzman Carson

Consultants as the claims administrator, and set the date and time of the Final

Fairness Hearing for December 12, 2014.

On September 12, 2014, Class Counsel filed their application for attorneys’

fees, costs, and incentive payments.

On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval

of Class Action Settlement (the “Final Approval Motion”). Pursuant to their Final


Exhibit E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Approval Motion, the Plaintiffs request final approval of the proposed class action

settlement, which is unopposed by Defendants.

On December 12, 2014, a Final Fairness Hearing was held pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23 to determine the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members and should be

approved by the Court. The Court has read and considered the Agreement, Final

Approval Motion, and the record. All capitalized terms used herein have the

meanings defined herein and/or in the Agreement unless defined otherwise herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

Action and over all settling Parties hereto.

2. SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3),

this Action is hereby finally certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class

action on behalf of the following Class or Class Member with respect to the

claims asserted in this Action:

All persons who are past or present customers of NutriSystem,

Inc., who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone

service, which number was called by Defendants using an

automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or

prerecorded voice between April 18, 2008 and August 31,

2012. Excluded from the Class are persons who Defendants

called for emergency purposes or persons who gave express

consent to Defendants to call their cellular telephone number

prior to Defendants first placing a call using an automatic

telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.

Also excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers and

directors, families and legal representatives, heirs, successors or

assigns and any other entity in which Defendants have a

controlling interest, any judge assigned to this case and their

immediate families. [Dkt. No. 119]


Exhibit E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



3. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary

Settlement Approval Order, the claims administrator has complied with the

approved notice process as confirmed in its declaration filed with the Court.

The form and method for notifying the Class Members of the settlement and

its terms and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary

Settlement Approval Order and satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under

the circumstances. The Court finds that the notice process was clearly

designed to advise the Class Members of their rights. Further, the Court finds

that the claim process set forth in the Agreement was followed and that the

process was the best practicable procedure under the circumstances.

4. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: The Court finds that the settlement of the

Action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is

in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best

interests of the Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the Class

Members, the complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation,

the serious risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, the cross motion for

summary judgment filed by Defendants as to the entire Class and Defendants’

motion to decertify the class action, and the risk of collecting any judgment

obtained on behalf of the Class.

5. SETTLEMENT TERMS: The Settlement Agreement, which has been filed

with the Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed

settlement, are finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with

the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by

this Court. The material terms of the Settlement Agreement include, but are

not limited to, the following:


Exhibit E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



a. Defendants shall pay each of the 166 claimants who submitted a timely

and valid Claim Form a cash payment of $20.00 in the form of a check,

and a merchandise certificate for Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. products

in the amount of $80.00. The merchandize certificate shall not be

redeemable for cash. The merchandize certificate shall be non-

transferable and shall expire two years after it is issued;

b. Defendants shall pay Class Counsel $453,1551 in attorneys’ fees and

$30,000 in costs of litigation;

c. Defendants shall pay the total sum of $1,500.00 to each of the two

Representative Plaintiffs, Erik Knutson and Kevin Lemieux, payable

through Class Counsel as incentive awards for bringing and participating

in this Action;

d. Defendants shall pay Kurtzman Carson Consultants for the cost of Notice

and other Administrative Expenses of the class action settlement in

accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and

6. EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS: The Class Members were given an

opportunity to object to the settlement.

a. None of the Class Members filed an objection.

b. No requests for exclusion were received. This Order is binding on all of

the Class Members.

1 Class counsel had requested $750,000 in attorney fees and argued that such an amount was merited by a percentage-

of-the-fund method. (ECF No. 140.) However, the Court does not find $750,000 to be reasonable in this case. While

a percentage-of-the-fund may be appropriate, it is unclear what the size of the fund actually is. The parties argue that

the fund is approximately $2.5 million based on the approximately 16,691people that were sent notice. (ECF No.

140-1, at 1.) However, that is not the actual number of potential claimants because notice was sent to all unique cell

phone numbers in Defendants’ records whereas the actual class is only those people who were called but did not give

consent. (ECF No. 135-1, at 6.) The parties made no effort to send notice only to those who did not give consent and

thus it is inappropriate to consider all 16,691people as the class size and basis for the size of the fund. The fact that

only 217 valid claims were filed in this case further indicates that the size of the class is likely not as large as the

number of people who were noticed. (See ECF No. 145, at 1.) Without a clear indicator of the size of the fund, the

Court turns the actual fees incurred by Class Counsel. Class Counsel has incurred a total $453,155 for approximately

912.4 hours. (ECF No. 140-2, at 7.) Based on the work done and the complexity of this case, as well as comparable

rates in the Southern District of California that have been reviewed by the Court and cited by the parties, the Court

finds both the hours and hourly rate to be reasonable and thus approves $453,155 in attorney fees.


Exhibit E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



7. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT: The Class

Representatives, Class Members, and their successors and assigns are

permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either

individually or as a class, or in any other capacity, any of the Released Claims

against any of the Released Parties, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the release contained in the Agreement, the Released Claims are

compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of these

proceedings and this Order. [Agreement § 13].

8. The Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice in all respects.

9. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendants

of any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding.

10. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal

with Prejudice, the Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction

over the Parties and all matters relating to the Action and/or Settlement

Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, construction,

effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Exhibit E

EXHIBIT F

Exhibit F

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT 1 CASE NO.: 2:14 -CV-00734-GW-FFM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: CV 14-734-GW(FFMx) ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT JUDGE: Hon. George H. Wu

ANN FOX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF, V. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,

DEFENDANT.

JS-6Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1629

Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff Ann Fox (“Ms. Fox” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant

Asset Acceptance, LLC (“Asset Acceptance” or “Defendant”), entered in to an

Amended Settlement Agreement and Release (hereinafter referred to as the

“Agreement”), which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of

Settlement Class (hereinafter referred to as the “Preliminary Approval Motion”) in

the above-captioned action (the “Lawsuit”).

On August 17, 2015, upon consideration of the Agreement, Preliminary

Approval Motion, and the record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “Preliminary

Approval Order”).

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,

Costs and Incentive Payment, and supplemental briefing was filed on June 13,

2016 (together the “Fee Brief”).

On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her initial Motion for Final Approval

of Class Action Settlement.

On March 9, 2016, the Court issued an order approving and requiring

supplemental notice via postcard to the Settlement Class and scheduled a hearing

on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement for June 30, 2016.

On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed her renewed and revised Motion for Final

Approval of Class Action Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “Final

Approval Motion”). Pursuant to their Final Approval Motion, Plaintiff requests

final certification of the settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and final

approval of the proposed class action settlement.

On June 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing in support of the

Final Approval Motion.

On June 30, 2016, a Fairness Hearing was held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

23 to determine whether the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class

Case 2:14-cv-00734-GW-FFM Document 93 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:1630

Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members and should be

approved by the Court.

The Court has read and considered the Agreement, Fee Brief, Final

Approval Motion, and the objection to the Settlement. All capitalized terms used

herein have the meanings defined herein and/or in the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED THAT:

I. The Agreement and all definitions set forth therein are hereby incorporated

with and made part of this Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement

and Judgment (“Final Order and Judgment”).

II. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

Lawsuit and over all settling Parties thereto including, without limitation, the

Class Members.

III. CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Lawsuit is

hereby finally certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on

behalf of the following Class Members:

1. The settlement Class or Class Members consists of:

All persons who were called using a dialer without consent on a cellular telephone by Asset Acceptance, LLC or someone acting on behalf of Asset Acceptance, LLC between April 17, 2009 and September 4, 2014.

2. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its parent companies, affiliates or

subsidiaries, and any entities in which any of such companies has a

controlling interest; the judge or magistrate judge to whom the Lawsuit is

assigned; and, any member of those judges’ staffs and immediate

families, as well as persons who validly requested exclusion from the

Settlement Class.


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL APPOINTMENT:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff Ann Fox is the Class Representative

and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart, Abbas Kazerounian of the

Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Todd M. Friedman of the Law Offices of

Todd M. Friedman, P.C. are certified as Class Counsel.

V. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary

Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator, Heffler Claims Group, has

complied with the approved notice process as confirmed in its declaration

filed with the Court. The Court finds that the form and method for notifying

the settlement Class Members of the Settlement and its terms and conditions

was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, provided a

means of notice reasonably calculated to apprise the Class Members of the

pendency of the action and the proposed settlement, and thereby satisfied the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) and due process, and constituted the

best notice practicable under the circumstances, and due and sufficient notice

to all Class Members entitled thereto. Specifically, individual notice was

provided to those potential Class Members who are current or former Asset

Acceptance account holders who are identified in Asset Acceptance’s records

as having received a call made using a dialer during the Class Period from

Asset Acceptance or Astra Business Services, Inc. on a telephone number

that Asset Acceptance determined was assigned to a cellular telephone

service at the time of the call; and all other persons were notified by

publication by (1) an insertion of the Publication Notice in People magazine

in an advertisement size of at least 1/3 of a page in two consecutive issues;

(2) sponsored link and banner advertising on the Internet for a duration of

thirty days delivering over 197,000,000 total impressions; and (3) a press

release on PR Newswire’s US1 full-nation English and Hispanic wire

transmission. The Court finds that the notice process was designed to advise


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the settlement Class Members of their rights. The Court finds that the notice

requirements set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act and any other

applicable law have been satisfied. Further, the Court finds that Common

Fund is approved, and the claim process set forth in the Agreement was

followed and that the process was the best practicable procedure under the

circumstances.

VI. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court finds that the Lawsuit satisfies

the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P.

23, for settlement purposes. The Court finds that the Settlement of the

Lawsuit, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all

respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of

the settlement Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the

settlement Class Members, the strength of the Plaintiff’s case, the

complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation, the risk and

delay inherent in possible appeals, and the risk of collecting any judgment

obtained on behalf of the class.

VII. SETTLEMENT TERMS: The Agreement, which has been filed with the

Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed Settlement,

are finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with the terms

and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court.

The Settlement Administrator shall conduct all administration of the

Common Fund. The Settlement Administrator shall prepare and issue all

disbursements of the Individual Cash Settlement Amounts from the

Common Fund to Authorized Claimants entitled to such benefits within the

time period specified in the Agreement. Asset Acceptance shall prepare and

issue all of the Individual Debt Forgiveness Settlement Amounts from the

Common Fund to Authorized Claimants entitled to such benefits within the

time period specified in the Agreement. The Court approves deficient


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims that were cured within thirty (30) days of the date the deficiency

letters were mailed by the Settlement Administrator. The Court also

approves late claims (which are otherwise valid) that were received by the

Settlement Administrator by June 30, 2016.

VIII. The Court finds that Class Counsel are qualified to represent the settlement

Class. The Court hereby grants Class Counsel’s request for an award of

attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $262,500 to be paid by Asset

Acceptance within the time period set forth in the Agreement, separate and

apart from the Common Fund. The Court finds that the amount of this

award is fair and reasonable in light of the efforts expended by Class

Counsel in prosecuting this Action and the results obtained.

IX. The Court finds that it is appropriate for the Class Representative, Ann Fox,

to be paid a one-time payment of $2,500 from the Cash Component of the

Common Fund, which amount shall include her compensation for the

telephone calls she claims were made to her cell phone without consent as

well as the compensation for instituting, prosecuting and bearing the

laboring oar and risk of this litigation. This shall be the only consideration

paid to the Class Representative.

X. EXCLUSIONS AND OBJECTIONS: This Final Order and Judgment applies

to all claims or causes of action settled under the terms of the Settlement

Agreement, and shall be fully binding with respect to all Class Members who

did not properly request exclusion. A total of fourteen (14) requests for

exclusion were received. Those persons requesting exclusion are named on

Exhibit A to this Order. The Court hereby excludes these individuals from

the Class and Settlement.

XI. The Class Members were given an opportunity to object to the settlement.

Only one (1) objection was submitted. After consideration of the objection,

the Court hereby overrules the objection.


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XII. This Order is binding on all Class Members, except those individuals named

on Exhibit A who validly and timely excluded themselves from the Class.

XIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT: The Class

Representative, Class Members, and their successors and assigns are

permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either

individually or as a class, or in any other capacity, any of the Released

Claims against any of the Released Parties, as set forth in the Agreement.

Pursuant to the Release contained in the Agreement, the Released Claims are

released, compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of

these proceedings and this Order. The Released Claims include, without

limitation, any and all liabilities, claims, causes of action, damages, penalties,

costs, attorneys’ fees, losses, or demands, whether known or unknown,

existing or past potential, suspected or unsuspected, which were asserted in

the Action, or could have been asserted in the Action only as it pertains to the

placing or initiating of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or

an artificial or prerecorded voice, any and all claims for violation of the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 and the regulations

promulgated thereunder, and any and all claims for violation of any laws of

any state that regulate, govern, prohibit or restrict the making, placing or

initiating of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or any

automated process or technology or any artificial or prerecorded voice.

XIV. This document shall constitute a judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Final Judgment in this action is hereby

entered. This action, including all claims asserted herein, is hereby dismissed

with prejudice in all respects.

XV. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendant of

any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding.


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XVI. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal

with Prejudice, the Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction

over the Parties and all matters relating to the Action and/or Agreement,

including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation,

enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order and

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2016 ___________________________ THE HON. GEORGE H. WU U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A


Exhibit F


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exclusions First Name Last Name

1 Autumn Johnson 2 Ashlea Street 3 Mohammad Alabed 4 Mary Ann Verner 5 Gloria Leonard 6 Chelsea Brown 7 Jennifer Fletcher 8 Justin Melnick 9 Michael Barrett 10 William Jordan 11 Julian Alan Schulman 12 Tracy R Downs 13 Collette Greene 14 Juliet Pablico


Exhibit F

EXHIBIT G

Exhibit G

Location Firmwide Billing Rate High

Firmwide Billing Rate Low

Firmwide Billing Rate Med

Partner Billing Rate High

Partner Billing Rate Low

Partner Billing Rate Med

Associate Billing Rate High

Associate Billing Rate Low

Associate Billing Rate Med

NLJ Billing Source

Notes

New Orleans $595.00 $120.00 $320.00 $595.00 $275.00 $375.00 $305.00 $175.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Riverside,

CA

$625.00 $225.00 $390.00 $625.00 $310.00 $435.00 $390.00 $225.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Chicago $835.00 $105.00 $385.00 $835.00 $325.00 $560.00 $460.00 $190.00 $325.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

St. Louis $795.00 $200.00 $480.00 $795.00 $390.00 $553.00 $550.00 $200.00 $373.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Detroit $750.00 $210.00 $313.00 $750.00 $290.00 $363.00 $425.00 $210.00 $234.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Philadelphia $970.00 $235.00 $440.00 $970.00 $320.00 $513.00 $575.00 $235.00 $345.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Detroit $585.00 $285.00 $280.00 $205.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

2012 NLJ Billing Survey

Year Firm Name Average FTE Attorneys

2012 Adams and Reese 267

2012 Best Best & Krieger 191

2012 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

135

2012 Bryan Cave 884

2012 Butzel Long 140

2012 Cozen O'Connor 503

2012 Dickinson Wright 254

Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1 888-770-5647

www.alm.com Exhibit G

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

Washington $1250.00 $210.00 $580.00 $1250.00 $560.00 $700.00 $570.00 $235.00 $460.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Cincinnati $650.00 $130.00 $310.00 $650.00 $180.00 $380.00 $325.00 $130.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

New York $1200.00 $105.00 $635.00 $1200.00 $550.00 $775.00 $760.00 $335.00 $530.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Minneapolis $835.00 $200.00 $410.00 $835.00 $305.00 $525.00 $420.00 $200.00 $275.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Chicago $685.00 $130.00 $415.00 $675.00 $395.00 $505.00 $465.00 $235.00 $305.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

New York $750.00 $215.00 $435.00 $750.00 $330.00 $535.00 $455.00 $215.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Atlanta $565.00 $215.00 $410.00 $565.00 $350.00 $430.00 $395.00 $215.00 $305.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Milwaukee $875.00 $200.00 $495.00 $875.00 $390.00 $570.00 $605.00 $200.00 $370.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey


Billing

Survey

Cincinnati $525.00 $150.00 $295.00 $525.00 $205.00 $350.00 $275.00 $150.00 $205.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Dallas $795.00 $230.00 $485.00 $795.00 $395.00 $565.00 $525.00 $235.00 $350.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Newark, NJ $815.00 $285.00 $450.00 $815.00 $395.00 $500.00 $450.00 $285.00 $320.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Rochester,

NY

$625.00 $175.00 $350.00 $625.00 $285.00 $400.00 $350.00 $175.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

2012 Dickstein Shapiro 343

2012 Dinsmore & Shohl 412

2012 DLA Piper 3746

2012 Dorsey & Whitney 531

2012 Dykema Gossett 331

2012 Epstein Becker & Green 275

2012 Fisher & Phillips 237

2012 Foley & Lardner 874

2012 Fox Rothschild 471

2012 Frost Brown Todd 393

2012 Gardere Wynne Sewell 242

2012 Gibbons 200

2012 Harris Beach 189



Syracuse,

NY

$650.00 $175.00 $361.00 $650.00 $235.00 $441.00 $275.00 $175.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Washington $1200.00 $230.00 $625.00 $1200.00 $545.00 $750.00 $655.00 $310.00 $465.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Denver $695.00 $180.00 $360.00 $695.00 $275.00 $420.00 $400.00 $180.00 $268.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Washington $985.00 $200.00 $490.00 $985.00 $315.00 $560.00 $575.00 $200.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

St. Louis $890.00 $185.00 $355.00 $890.00 $240.00 $405.00 $445.00 $185.00 $235.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

New York $950.00 $285.00 $550.00 $950.00 $450.00 $660.00 $600.00 $285.00 $450.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Irvine, CA $760.00 $120.00 $380.00 $760.00 $425.00 $525.00 $420.00 $295.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Kansas City,

MO

$595.00 $175.00 $355.00 $595.00 $285.00 $410.00 $385.00 $205.00 $245.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Phoenix $725.00 $225.00 $470.00 $725.00 $410.00 $520.00 $450.00 $225.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Dallas $1285.00 $265.00 $560.00 $1285.00 $455.00 $655.00 $600.00 $265.00 $400.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Oklahoma

City

$500.00 $165.00 $335.00 $500.00 $250.00 $375.00 $265.00 $165.00 $215.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Cleveland $600.00 $185.00 $380.00 $595.00 $310.00 $440.00 $370.00 $185.00 $270.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Morristown,

NJ

$575.00 $190.00 $300.00 $575.00 $300.00 $385.00 $325.00 $190.00 $255.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

2012 Hiscock & Barclay 165

2012 Hogan Lovells 2253

2012 Holland & Hart 394

2012 Holland & Knight 908

2012 Husch Blackwell 520

2012 Kelley Drye & Warren 303

2012 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear

265

2012 Lathrop & Gage 290

2012 Lewis and Roca 183

2012 Locke Lord 540

2012 McAfee & Taft 183

2012 McDonald Hopkins 128

2012 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter

286



jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

Atlanta $830.00 $215.00 $455.00 $830.00 $375.00 $550.00 $560.00 $215.00 $395.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Milwaukee $650.00 $210.00 $380.00 $650.00 $245.00 $425.00 $350.00 $210.00 $265.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Baltimore $700.00 $230.00 $405.00 $700.00 $320.00 $460.00 $350.00 $230.00 $300.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Chattanooga,

TN

$630.00 $180.00 $340.00 $630.00 $250.00 $385.00 $285.00 $185.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Columbia,

SC

$850.00 $80.00 $330.00 $850.00 $230.00 $420.00 $370.00 $160.00 $258.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Washington $990.00 $170.00 $550.00 $990.00 $425.00 $665.00 $570.00 $240.00 $435.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Seattle $910.00 $220.00 $485.00 $910.00 $290.00 $560.00 $605.00 $220.00 $365.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Kansas City,

MO

$650.00 $210.00 $350.00 $650.00 $300.00 $390.00 $325.00 $210.00 $260.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Costa Mesa,

CA

$650.00 $200.00 $650.00 $340.00 $425.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey


Billing

Survey

New York $995.00 $125.00 $605.00 $995.00 $785.00 $895.00 $705.00 $295.00 $585.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

San

Francisco

$420.00 $157.00 $299.00 $587.00 $189.00 $361.00 $420.00 $157.00 $260.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Toledo, OH $570.00 $180.00 $375.00 $570.00 $280.00 $390.00 $325.00 $210.00 $255.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

2012 McKenna Long & Aldridge 424

2012 Michael Best & Friedrich 196

2012 Miles & Stockbridge 213

2012 Miller & Martin 169

2012 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough

414

2012 Patton Boggs 491

2012 Perkins Coie 747

2012 Polsinelli Shughart 503

2012 Rutan & Tucker 144

2012 Saul Ewing 219

2012 Schulte Roth & Zabel 371

2012 Sedgwick 343

2012 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick

219



Miami $635.00 $190.00 $380.00 $635.00 $250.00 $415.00 $370.00 $190.00 $263.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Portland, OR $655.00 $200.00 $400.00 $655.00 $300.00 $463.00 $435.00 $200.00 $276.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Dallas $649.36 $189.65 $397.00 $649.00 $213.00 $402.00 $385.00 $190.00 $243.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Boston $900.00 $320.00 $570.00 $900.00 $500.00 $670.00 $540.00 $320.00 $430.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Dallas $900.00 $260.00 $530.00 $900.00 $440.00 $595.00 $480.00 $260.00 $365.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

St. Louis $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $330.00 $460.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Cleveland,

OH

$615.00 $195.00 $350.00 $615.00 $265.00 $420.00 $395.00 $195.00 $295.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

Dallas $645.00 $215.00 $410.00 $645.00 $375.00 $475.00 $425.00 $215.00 $320.00 2012 NLJ

Billing

Survey

2012 Shutts & Bowen 212

2012 Stoel Rives 374

2012 Strasburger & Price 212

2012 Sullivan & Worcester 144

2012 Thompson & Knight 291

2012 Thompson Coburn 309

2012 Ulmer & Berne 178

2012 Winstead 258



Location Partner Billing Rate High




Associate Billing Rate Average

Partner Billing Rate Average

Firmwide Billing Rate Average

Associate Billing Rate Med

Partner Billing Rate Med

Houston

Memphis $595.00 $250.00 $315.00 $160.00 $228.00 $357.00 $311.00 225 345

Riverside, CA $575.00 $275.00 $375.00 $205.00 $265.00 $417.00 $358.00 240 420

Boston

Minneapolis $625.00 $325.00 $305.00 $230.00

Orlando $575.00 $295.00 $350.00 $180.00 $265.00 $435.00 $377.00 265 395

St. Louis $795.00 $375.00 $540.00 $200.00 $356.00 $565.00 $475.00 360 553

Detroit $700.00 $325.00 $425.00 $225.00 $274.00 $440.00

New York

Tampa $815.00 $320.00 $380.00 $195.00 $262.00 $470.00 $397.00 265 470

Philadelphia $900.00 $305.00 $550.00 $225.00 $330.00 $510.00 $439.00 330 490

Parsippany $960.00 $380.00 $470.00 $235.00 $317.00 $537.00 $447.00 315 525

Detroit $600.00 $325.00 $320.00 $200.00

Washington $1000.00 $540.00 $545.00 $225.00 $435.00 $680.00 $560.00 465 670

Cincinnati $630.00 $150.00 $310.00 $130.00 $217.00 $373.00 $308.00 220 370

New York $1120.00 $530.00 $730.00 $320.00 $508.00 $747.00 $585.00 510 730

Minneapolis $810.00 $295.00 $465.00 $190.00 $294.00 $526.00 $426.00 275 525

Philadelphia $875.00 $375.00 $530.00 $225.00 $365.00 $575.00 $503.00 365 570

Detroit $665.00 $310.00 $395.00 $260.00 $309.00 $482.00 $406.00 305 485

New York $850.00 $350.00 $550.00 $195.00 $341.00 $519.00 $428.00 325 500

New York $730.00 $460.00 $440.00 $275.00 325 525

Atlanta

2011 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto2011 Ford & Harrison

2011 Dykema Gossett2011 Epstein Becker & Green

2011 Dorsey & Whitney2011 Duane Morris

2011 Dinsmore & Shohl2011 DLA Piper

2011 Dickinson Wright2011 Dickstein Shapiro

2011 Cozen O'Connor2011 Day Pitney

2011 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft2011 Carlton Fields

2011 Bryan Cave2011 Butzel Long

2011 Briggs and Morgan2011 Broad and Cassel

2011 Best Best & Krieger2011 Bingham McCutchen

2011 Andrews Kurth2011 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &

2011 NLJ Billing SurveyCopyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Fiscal Year

Firm Name

Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1

888-780-5647www.alm.com Exhibit G

Philadelphia $725.00 $325.00 $455.00 $190.00 $297.00 $486.00 $413.00 295 483

Cincinnati $515.00 $205.00 $265.00 $150.00 $200.00 $340.00 $296.00 200 340

Dallas $815.00 $380.00 $500.00 $225.00 $325.00 $550.00 $435.00 320 550

Newark $725.00 $400.00 $475.00 $285.00 $380.00 $562.00 $505.00 320 505

Rochester $390.00 $275.00 $260.00 $160.00

Syracuse $750.00 $195.00 $350.00 $150.00 $207.00 $304.00 $269.00 195 265

Buffalo $685.00 $240.00 $420.00 $180.00 $234.00 $378.00 225 360

Washington $895.00 $300.00 $495.00 $175.00 $295.00 $530.00 $445.00 290 520

New York $990.00 $625.00 $695.00 $270.00 $533.00 $828.00 $633.00 540 800

Richmond

St. Louis $850.00 $225.00 $425.00 $175.00 $226.00 $395.00 $341.00 210 390

Charleston, WV $505.00 $255.00 $260.00 $155.00 $208.00 $319.00 $275.00 205 325

White Plains

New York $1080.00 $685.00 $705.00 $310.00 $519.00 $831.00 $661.00 525 835

New York $925.00 $480.00 $595.00 $275.00 $425.00 $634.00 $474.00 420 645

Irvine $735.00 $415.00 $495.00 $295.00 $346.00 $525.00 $439.00 345 500

Seattle $645.00 $340.00 $360.00 $225.00 $295.00 $460.00 $405.00 285 450

New York

Kansas City, MO $735.00 $275.00 $410.00 $205.00 $246.00 $390.00 $337.00 245 390

St. Louis $470.00 $270.00 $320.00 $150.00 $275.00

Roseland, NJ $895.00 $435.00 $660.00 $250.00 $400.00 $613.00 $478.00 390 595

Los Angeles $850.00 $540.00 $550.00 $215.00 $464.00 $676.00 $602.00 500 670

Morristown, NJ $575.00 $295.00 $325.00 $185.00 $250.00 $350.00 $245.00 235 375

Atlanta $800.00 $405.00 $510.00 $215.00 $374.00 $562.00 $472.00 375 540

Milwaukee $650.00 $245.00 $310.00 $205.00 $241.00 $413.00 $321.00

Chattanooga $610.00 $240.00 $275.00 $185.00 $215.00 $369.00 $313.00 215 375

Columbia, SC $850.00 $220.00 $350.00 $170.00 $255.00 $412.00 $318.00 250 400

Columbia, SC $550.00 $235.00 $265.00 $170.00

2011 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough2011 Nexsen Pruet

2011 Michael Best & Friedrich 2011 Miller & Martin

2011 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter2011 McKenna Long & Aldridge

2011 Lowenstein Sandler2011 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

2011 Lathrop & Gage2011 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh

2011 Lane Powell2011 Latham & Watkins

2011 Kelley Drye & Warren2011 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear

2011 Jackson Lewis2011 Kaye Scholer

2011 Husch Blackwell2011 Jackson Kelly

2011 Hughes Hubbard & Reed2011 Hunton & Williams

2011 Hodgson Russ2011 Holland & Knight

2011 Harris Beach2011 Hiscock & Barclay

2011 Gardere Wynne Sewell2011 Gibbons

2011 Fox Rothschild2011 Frost Brown Todd



San Francisco

Washington $990.00 $410.00 $570.00 $240.00 $410.00 $659.00 $546.00 415 645

Philadelphia $825.00 $380.00 $460.00 $235.00 $344.00 $557.00

Seattle $875.00 $285.00 $590.00 $215.00 $368.00 $550.00 $462.00 545

New Orleans $465.00 $190.00 $245.00 $150.00 $189.00 $281.00 $236.00 190 275

Kansas City, MO $630.00 $275.00 $335.00 $205.00

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia $750.00 $350.00 $495.00 $245.00 $326.00 $502.00 $431.00 300 490

New York $935.00 $770.00 $675.00 $285.00 $608.00 $846.00 $615.00 580 840

San Francisco

Chicago $790.00 $355.00 $505.00 $225.00 $341.00 $528.00 $437.00 340 525

Los Angeles $860.00 $505.00 $635.00 $275.00

Toledo $555.00 $265.00 $320.00 $195.00 $252.00 $364.00 $345.00 250 375

Washington

Portland, OR $625.00 $320.00 $500.00 $195.00 $292.00 $451.00 $385.00 275 450

Dallas $630.00 $211.00 $332.00 $199.00 $250.00 $395.00 $363.00 238 397

Dallas $875.00 $440.00 $460.00 $250.00 $358.00 $594.00 $520.00 350 585

St. Louis $750.00 $315.00 $445.00 $195.00

Cleveland $585.00 $280.00 $390.00 $200.00 $260.00 $405.00 $316.00

Chicago $735.00 $295.00 $520.00 $265.00 $345.00 $500.00 $445.00 335 490

Philadelphia

Washington

Washington

Dallas $680.00 $365.00 $410.00 $215.00 $301.00 $477.00 $406.00

Chicago $1130.00 $580.00 $600.00 $350.00 $434.00 $713.00 $557.00 413 700

Louisville $500.00 $240.00 $275.00 $180.00 $220.00 $325.00 $312.00 235 375

2011 Winston & Strawn2011 Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs

2011 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr2011 Winstead

2011 White and Williams2011 Wiley Rein

2011 Ulmer & Berne2011 Vedder Price

2011 Thompson & Knight2011 Thompson Coburn

2011 Stoel Rives2011 Strasburger & Price

2011 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick2011 Steptoe & Johnson LLP

2011 Seyfarth Shaw2011 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton

2011 Schulte Roth & Zabel2011 Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold

2011 Reed Smith2011 Saul Ewing

2011 Phelps Dunbar2011 Polsinelli Shughart

2011 Pepper Hamilton2011 Perkins Coie

2011 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe2011 Patton Boggs



Firmwide Billing Rate Med

Annual billable hours requirement

Variation on the billable hour

Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained through variations on the billable hour (%)

Firm Billing Alternatives Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained via alternative billing (%)

NLJ Billing Source

78 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011

310 5 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011



90 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011








National Law Journal, December 19, 2011










Notes































































EXHIBIT H

Exhibit H

2013 NLJ Billing Survey

Source:National Law Journal

Category: National Law Journal

The National Law Journal's survey of billing rates of the largest U.S. law firms provides the high, low and average rates for partners and associates.

Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.


www.alm.com

Exhibit H

Year Firm Name Location Average FTE Attorneys

Partner Billing Rate High


Partner Billing Rate Avg



Associate Billing Rate Avg

Counsel Avg Counsel Low Counsel High NLJ Billing Source Notes

2013 Adams and Reese New Orleans, LA

277 $650.00 $275.00 $390.00 $320.00 $200.00 $260.00 $460.00 $405.00 $500.00 National Law Journal, December 2013

Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.

2013 Akerman Senterfitt Miami, FL 502 $610.00 $350.00 $480.00 $425.00 $175.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

Washington, DC

806 $1220.00 $615.00 $785.00 $660.00 $365.00 $525.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis

Los Angeles, CA

187 $680.00 $525.00 $615.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Alston & Bird Atlanta, GA 805 $875.00 $495.00 $675.00 $575.00 $280.00 $425.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Andrews Kurth Houston, TX 348 $1090.00 $745.00 $890.00 $1090.00 $265.00 $670.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Archer & Greiner Haddonfield, NJ



2013 Arent Fox Washington, DC



2013 Arnall Golden Gregory Atlanta, GA 139 $520.00 $430.00 $490.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Arnold & Porter Washington, DC



2013 Arnstein & Lehr Chicago, IL 141 $595.00 $350.00 $465.00 $350.00 $175.00 $250.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

jasonibey

Highlight

2013 Baker & Hostetler Cleveland, OH



2013 Baker & McKenzie Chicago, IL 4004 $1130.00 $260.00 $755.00 $925.00 $100.00 $395.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz

Memphis, Tenn.



2013 Ballard Spahr Philadelphia, PA



2013 Barnes & Thornburg Indianapolis, IN



2013 Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff

Cleveland, OH



2013 Best Best & Krieger Riverside, CA 175 $655.00 $340.00 $455.00 $385.00 $235.00 $280.00 $435.00 $325.00 $565.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Bingham McCutchen Boston, MA 900 $1080.00 $220.00 $795.00 $605.00 $185.00 $450.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Blank Rome Philadelphia, PA



2013 Bond, Schoeneck & King Syracuse, NY 194 $520.00 $240.00 $355.00 $285.00 $160.00 $225.00 $385.00 $295.00 $485.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Bowles Rice Charleston, WV



2013 Bracewell & Giuliani Houston, TX 432 $1125.00 $575.00 $760.00 $700.00 $275.00 $440.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

Birmingham, AL



2013 Broad and Cassel Orlando, FL 160 $465.00 $295.00 $380.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Denver, CO 216 $700.00 $310.00 $520.00 $345.00 $265.00 $305.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Bryan Cave St. Louis, MO 990 $860.00 $405.00 $590.00 $570.00 $210.00 $405.00 $600.00 $320.00 $810.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles, CA



2013 Burr & Forman Birmingham, AL



2013 Butzel Long Bloomfield Hills, MI



2013 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

New York, NY



2013 Carlton Fields Tampa, FL 276 $840.00 $455.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Connell Foley Roseland, NJ 121 $575.00 $275.00 $425.00 $325.00 $200.00 $265.00 $450.00 $275.00 $625.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Cooley Palo Alto, CA 632 $990.00 $660.00 $820.00 $630.00 $160.00 $525.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Covington & Burling Washington, DC




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

jasonibey

Highlight

2013 Cox Smith Matthews San Antonio, TX



2013 Cozen O’Connor Philadelphia, PA



2013 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle

New York, NY



2013 Davis Graham & Stubbs Denver, CO 146 $595.00 $350.00 $435.00 $340.00 $150.00 $245.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York, NY



2013 Debevoise & Plimpton New York, NY



2013 Dechert New York, NY



2013 Dentons $1050.00 $345.00 $700.00 $685.00 $210.00 $425.00 National Law Journal, December 2013

Location and Average FTE Attorneys' data not available due to merger in 2013. Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350 published in April 2013.

2013 Dickstein Shapiro Washington, DC



2013 Dinsmore & Shohl Cincinnati, OH



2013 DLA Piper New York, NY



2013 Dorsey & Whitney Minneapolis, MN




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Duane Morris Philadelphia, PA



2013 Edwards Wildman Palmer Boston, MA 572 $765.00 $210.00 $535.00 $415.00 $245.00 $325.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Faegre Baker Daniels Minneapolis, MN



2013 Foley & Lardner Milwaukee, WI



2013 Foley Hoag Boston, MA 223 $775.00 $590.00 $670.00 $385.00 $290.00 $325.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Fox Rothschild Philadelphia, PA



2013 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson

New York, NY



2013 Gardere Wynne Sewell Dallas, TX 223 $775.00 $430.00 $635.00 $445.00 $235.00 $310.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Gibbons Newark, NJ 210 $865.00 $440.00 $560.00 $475.00 $295.00 $360.00 $490.00 $385.00 $750.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher New York, NY



2013 Gordon & Rees San Francisco, CA



2013 Greenberg Traurig New York, NY




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Harris Beach Rochester, NY



2013 Harter Secrest & Emery Rochester, NY



2013 Haynes and Boone Dallas, TX 489 $1020.00 $450.00 $670.00 $580.00 $310.00 $405.00 $510.00 $220.00 $840.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Hogan Lovells Washington, DC



2013 Holland & Hart Denver, CO 409 $725.00 $295.00 $435.00 $415.00 $165.00 $275.00 $360.00 $185.00 $595.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Holland & Knight Washington, DC



2013 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn

Detroit, MI 227 $560.00 $290.00 $390.00 $225.00 $205.00 $220.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Hughes Hubbard & Reed New York, NY



2013 Husch Blackwell St. Louis, MO 514 $925.00 $235.00 $430.00 $465.00 $190.00 $260.00 $395.00 $230.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Ice Miller Indianapolis, IN



2013 Irell & Manella Los Angeles, CA



2013 Jackson Kelly Charleston, WV




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Jackson Lewis Los Angeles, CA



2013 Jackson Walker Dallas, TX 328 $550.00 $450.00 $500.00 $385.00 $255.00 $335.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell

Los Angeles, CA



2013 Jenner & Block Chicago, IL 432 $925.00 $565.00 $745.00 $550.00 $380.00 $465.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Jones Day New York, NY



2013 Jones Walker New Orleans, LA



2013 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

New York, NY



2013 Katten Muchin Rosenman Chicago, IL 586 $745.00 $500.00 $615.00 $595.00 $340.00 $455.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Kaye Scholer New York, NY



2013 Kelley Drye & Warren New York, NY



2013 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

Atlanta, GA 552 $775.00 $400.00 $550.00 $475.00 $315.00 $385.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 King & Spalding Atlanta, GA 838 $995.00 $545.00 $775.00 $735.00 $125.00 $460.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago, IL 1517 $995.00 $590.00 $825.00 $715.00 $235.00 $540.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear

Irvine, CA 268 $785.00 $440.00 $555.00 $535.00 $295.00 $345.00 $685.00 $685.00 $685.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel

New York, NY



2013 Lane Powell Seattle, WA 172 $465.00 $365.00 $430.00 $330.00 $225.00 $265.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Latham & Watkins New York, NY



2013 Lathrop & Gage Kansas City, MO



2013 Leonard, Street and Deinard Minneapolis, MN



2013 Lewis Roca Rothgerber $695.00 $380.00 $505.00 $525.00 $205.00 $400.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Lindquist & Vennum Minneapolis, MN



2013 Littler Mendelson San Francisco, CA



2013 Lowenstein Sandler Roseland, NJ 254 $755.00 $510.00 $615.00 $650.00 $260.00 $360.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Los Angeles, CA




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

jasonibey

Highlight

2013 McCarter & English Newark, NJ 373 $625.00 $450.00 $530.00 $370.00 $220.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 McDermott Will & Emery Chicago, IL 1024 $835.00 $525.00 $710.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter

Morristown, NJ



2013 McGuireWoods Richmond, VA



2013 McKenna Long & Aldridge Atlanta, GA 509 $650.00 $480.00 $530.00 $425.00 $375.00 $395.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Michael Best & Friedrich Milwaukee, WI



2013 Miles & Stockbridge Baltimore, MD



2013 Miller & Martin Chattanooga, TN



2013 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Philadelphia, PA



2013 Morris, Manning & Martin Atlanta, GA 142 $575.00 $400.00 $480.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Morrison & Foerster San Francisco, CA



2013 Nixon Peabody Boston, MA 612 $850.00 $295.00 $520.00 $550.00 $180.00 $300.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Norton Rose Fulbright $900.00 $525.00 $775.00 $515.00 $300.00 $400.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Nutter McClennen & Fish Boston, MA 135 $715.00 $470.00 $575.00 $460.00 $295.00 $375.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 O’Melveny & Myers Los Angeles, CA



2013 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

San Francisco, CA



2013 Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein

Charlotte, NC 178 $500.00 $425.00 $450.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Patton Boggs Washington, DC



2013 Paul Hastings New York, NY



2013 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

New York, NY



2013 Pepper Hamilton Philadelphia, PA



2013 Perkins Coie Seattle, WA 823 $940.00 $320.00 $600.00 $595.00 $215.00 $405.00 $565.00 $270.00 $790.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Washington, DC



2013 Polsinelli Kansas City, MO




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Proskauer Rose New York, NY



2013 Quarles & Brady Milwaukee, WI



2013 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan

New York, NY



2013 Reed Smith Pittsburgh, PA



2013 Richards, Layton & Finger Wilmington, DE



2013 Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti

Morristown, NJ



2013 Robinson & Cole Hartford, CT 209 $490.00 $285.00 $410.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Rutan & Tucker Costa Mesa, CA



2013 Saul Ewing Philadelphia, PA



2013 Sedgwick San Francisco, CA



2013 Seward & Kissel New York, NY



2013 Seyfarth Shaw Chicago, IL 753 $860.00 $375.00 $610.00 $505.00 $225.00 $365.00 $470.00 $245.00 $800.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

jasonibey

Highlight

2013 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton

Los Angeles, CA



2013 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick Toledo, OH 226 $585.00 $295.00 $405.00 $335.00 $175.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Shutts & Bowen Miami, FL 221 $660.00 $250.00 $430.00 $345.00 $195.00 $260.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

New York, NY



2013 Snell & Wilmer Phoenix, AZ 422 $695.00 $295.00 $495.00 $420.00 $185.00 $280.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Squire Sanders Cleveland, OH



2013 Stevens & Lee Reading, PA 167 $800.00 $525.00 $625.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Stinson Morrison Hecker Kansas City, MO



2013 Stoel Rives Portland, OR 371 $690.00 $320.00 $475.00 $425.00 $190.00 $280.00 $410.00 $320.00 $550.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Strasburger & Price Dallas, TX 208 $770.00 $225.00 $420.00 $450.00 $215.00 $260.00 $445.00 $225.00 $600.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Cincinnati, OH



2013 Thompson & Knight Dallas, TX 281 $740.00 $425.00 $535.00 $610.00 $240.00 $370.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Thompson Coburn St. Louis, MO 305 $510.00 $330.00 $440.00 $350.00 $220.00 $270.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Troutman Sanders Atlanta, GA 575 $975.00 $400.00 $620.00 $570.00 $245.00 $340.00 $510.00 $325.00 $675.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Ulmer & Berne Cleveland, OH



2013 Varnum Grand Rapids, MI



2013 Venable Washington, DC



2013 Vinson & Elkins Houston, TX 677 $770.00 $475.00 $600.00 $565.00 $275.00 $390.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis

Nashville, TN 165 $600.00 $350.00 $460.00 $335.00 $190.00 $245.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Weil, Gotshal & Manges New York, NY



2013 White & Case New York, NY



2013 Wiley Rein Washington, DC



2013 Williams Mullen Richmond, VA



2013 Willkie Farr & Gallagher New York, NY




www.alm.com

Exhibit H

2013 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Washington, DC



2013 Winston & Strawn Chicago, IL 842 $995.00 $650.00 $800.00 $590.00 $425.00 $520.00 National Law Journal, December 2013


2013 Wolff & Samson West Orange, NJ



2013 Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs Louisville, KY 165 $500.00 $280.00 $418.00 National Law Journal, December 2013



www.alm.com

Exhibit H

Documents

Case No.: 12-cv-01997-BAS-WVG · kazerounian decl. in supp. of mtn. for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive award 1 case no.: 12-cv-01997-bas