- 1 - 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DISVISION 

GARY HANLEY, on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FIFTH THIRD BANK, 

Defendant. 

NO. 1:12-CV-1612 

Honorable Rubin Castillo 

Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez 

DECLARATION OF BETH E. TERRELL 

I, Beth E. Terrell, declare as follows: 

1. I am a member of the law firm of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC 

(“TMDW”), counsel of record for Plaintiff in this matter. I am admitted to practice before this 

Court and am a member in good standing of the bars of the States of Washington and California. 

I respectfully submit this declaration in support of final approval and Plaintiff’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees, expenses, and incentive award. Except as otherwise noted, I have personal 

knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and could testify competently to them if 

called upon to do so. 

2. TMDW is a law firm in Seattle, Washington that focuses on complex civil and 

commercial litigation with an emphasis on consumer protection, product liability, employment, 

real estate, and personal injury matters. The attorneys of TMDW have extensive experience in 

class actions, collective actions, and other complex matters. They have been appointed lead or 

co-lead class counsel in numerous cases at both the state and federal level. They have 

prosecuted and defended a variety of multi-million-dollar disputes involving consumer fraud, 

securities fraud, product defect, and anti-trust issues. The defendants in these cases have 

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:400
- 2 - 

included companies such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Best Buy, Toyota, Sallie Mae, Comcast, ABM 

Industries, Inc., AT&T, T- Mobile USA, Weyerhaeuser, Behr Products, and American 

Cemwood. 

3. A founding member of TMDW, I concentrate my practice in complex litigation, 

including the prosecution of consumer, defective product, anti-trust, and wage and hour class 

actions. I have served as co-lead counsel on numerous multi-state and nationwide class actions. 

I also handle a variety of employment issues including employment discrimination, restrictive 

covenant litigation, and pre-litigation counseling and advice. I received a B.A., magna cum 

laude, from Gonzaga University in 1990. In 1995, I received my J.D. from the University of 

California, Davis School of Law, Order of the Coif. Prior to forming TMD in May 2008, I was a 

member of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC. 

4. Kimberlee L. Gunning is a member of TMDW. Ms. Gunning received her B.A., 

magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Macalester College in 1991, an M.A. from Rutgers, 

The State University of New Jersey, in 1998 and graduated from the University of Washington 

School of Law in 2004. Before joining the firm, Ms. Gunning had a solo practice focused on 

consumer class actions, employment law and appeals in all areas of civil and administrative law 

and was also an associate at Tousley Brain Stephens for four years. Ms. Gunning has extensive 

experience in complex civil litigation and has represented plaintiffs in several consumer class 

actions, including Spafford v. EchoStar; Seraphin v. SBC Internet Services, Hartman v. Comcast; 

Boucher v. First American Title; Vernon v. Qwest, Grosvenor v. Qwest, and Godoy v. AT&T 

Wireless. 

5. TMDW is currently litigating or has recently settled the following cases involving 

unlawful “robo-calling” schemes: 

 Chesbro v. Best Buy, filed on behalf of consumers who received 

automated, pre-recorded solicitation phone calls on their residential 

telephones without their prior express consent within the meaning of 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

 Comcast Robocalling Class Actions, two consolidated cases filed on 

behalf of consumers who received automated, pre-recorded solicitation 

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:401
- 3 - 

phone calls from Defendants in violation of the Washington Consumer 

Protection Act; 

 Meilleur v. AT&T Corp., filed on behalf of consumers who received 

automated, pre-recorded solicitation phone calls on their residential 

telephones without their prior express consent within the meaning of 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

 Ramirez v. Bank of America, N.A., filed on behalf of consumers who 

received automated, pre-recorded collection phone calls on their 

cellular telephones without their prior express consent within the 

meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.; 

 Heyrich v. Global Callcenter Solutions, filed on behalf of consumers 

who received solicitation phone calls on their cellular telephones made 

by an automatic telephone dialing system, without their prior express 

consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

 Rose v. Bank of America, Corporation, filed on behalf of consumers 

who received automated, pre-recorded collection phone calls on their 

cellular telephones without their prior express consent within the 

meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.; 

 Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services, filed on behalf of consumers 

who received automated, pre-recorded collection phone calls on their 

cellular telephones without their prior express consent within the 

meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.; 

 Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., filed on behalf of consumers who received 

automated, pre-recorded collection phone calls on their cellular 

telephones without their prior express consent within the meaning of 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

 Amadeck v. Capital One Financial, filed on behalf of consumers who 

received automated, pre-recorded collection and solicitation phone 

calls on their cellular and residential telephones without their prior 

express consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

 Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA, filed on behalf of consumers who 

received automated, pre-recorded collection phone calls on their 

cellular telephones without their prior express consent within the 

meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.; and 

6. TMDW is currently litigating or has recently settled the following cases involving 

consumer fraud: 

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:402
- 4 - 

 Cooper, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., filed in 2010 on 

behalf of owners of 2006–2010 Honda Civics containing defective 

visors that cause them to split and hang in the face of drivers and 

passengers; 

 Milligan, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., filed in 2009 on behalf of 

owners of 2001 – 2003 Toyota RAV4s containing defective Electronic 

Computer Modules (“ECM”) which cause harsh shifting conditions 

and permanent damage to the transmissions; 

 Brown v. U.S. Bank, N.A., filed in 2010 on behalf of Washington 

consumers who incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as a 

result of U.S. Bank’s practice of re-sequencing transactions from 

highest to lowest; 

 Kitec Consolidated Cases, in which TMD served as co-counsel in a 

national class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of defective 

hydronic heating and plumbing systems; 

 Seraphin v. AT&T Internet Services, Inc., et al. is a multi-state class 

action filed in 2009 on behalf of AT&T internet customers who paid 

$20 a month or less for internet service and were assessed and Early 

Termination Fee (“ETF”) when they cancelled service; 

 In re General Motors OnStar Litigation, a consolidated group of 

lawsuits consumers brought against multiple auto manufacturers due to 

the failure of analog OnStar equipment in their vehicles and the 

resulting termination of OnStar service; 

 Soto v. American Honda Motor Corporation, filed in 2012 on behalf 

of owners and lessees of 2008-2010 Honda Accords that consume 

motor oil at a much higher rate than intended, due to a systemic design 

defect.

7. TMDW is currently litigating or recently settled the following cases involving 

mortgage fraud and/or illegal debt adjusting schemes: 

 Smith v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution LLC, in which defendants 

allegedly engaged in a coordinated scheme to enrich themselves at the 

expense of indebted Washington consumers who have unsecured 

debts. A settlement between Plaintiffs and several Defendants was 

approved by the Court in December 2012. TMDW is continuing to 

litigate the case against the remaining Defendants. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:403
- 5 - 

 Brown v. Consumer Law Associates LLC, is another case in which 

defendants allegedly designed and implemented a uniform scheme to 

evade fee restrictions and other consumer protections. This case settled 

in 2012 and Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary settlement approval is 

currently pending before the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Washington. 

 Bronzich et al. v. Persels & Associates, LLC, filed in 2010, defendants 

allegedly are co-conspirators that aided and abetted one another in 

carrying out unfair and deceptive business practices. This case settled 

in 2012 and a final approval hearing is scheduled for January 2013 in 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. 

 Callow v. CDS Client Services, Inc. et al., where defendant allegedly is 

engaged in the business of debt adjusting and charging excessive fees. 

This case settled in 2012 and Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of 

the settlement is currently pending in Washington State Superior Court 

in and for King County 

8. In addition to a successful consumer protection practice, TMDW has litigated the 

following wage and hour class actions: 

 Newell v. Home Care of Washington, Inc., et al, in which we represent 

a class of over 400 in-home health care workers who allege violations 

of state wage and hour law. The class was certified on December 20, 

2012 by the Honorable Linda Tompkins, in Washington State Superior 

Court, in and for Spokane County. 

 Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, et al, and Douglas v. Xerox 

Business Services, LLC, et al, in which we represent proposed classes 

of current and former call center workers who allege violations of state 

and federal wage and hour laws. Both cases were filed in 2012 and are 

pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Washington. 

 Dickerson v. Cable Communications, Inc. filed in January 2012, in 

which we represent Plaintiffs alleging that Defendants engaged in a 

systematic scheme of wage and hour abuse against non-managerial 

installation technicians in the State of Oregon. This scheme has 

involved, among other things, failing to pay non-managerial 

installation technicians for all hours worked, including overtime. 

 Khadera v. ABM Industries, Inc., in which we represent an opt-in 

FLSA class of 337 employees who allege violations of federal and 

state wage and hour law. The case settled in March 2012, and final 

approval of the settlement was granted on October 17, 2012 by the 

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:404
- 6 - 

Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, in the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Washington. 

 Simpson v. ABM Industries, Inc., in which we represent a CR 23 class 

of approximately 6,800 employees who allege Washington State wage 

and hour violations. The case settled in March 2012, and final 

approval of the settlement was granted on September 28, 2012 by the 

Honorable Teresa B. Doyle, in the Washington State Superior Court in 

and for King County. 

 Labor Services Company Lawsuit, in which we represented a class of 

1,390 employees who alleged wage and hour violations. The case 

settled in 2009, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement was approved on April 23, 2010. 

 Martinez v. 24 Hr. Professional Janitorial Services, Inc., in which we 

represented a class of 175 employees who alleged wage and hour 

violations. The case settled in 2009, and the settlement was approved 

by the Honorable Paris Kallas, in the Washington State Superior Court 

in and for King County. 

 Barnett et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in which we represented a 

certified class of more than 88,000 employees alleging wage and hour 

violations. After more than seven years of litigation, we obtained a 

$35,000,000 settlement on behalf of the class. That settlement was 

approved in July 2009. 

 McGinnity et al. v. AutoNation, Inc. et al., in which we represented a 

certified class of more than 500 employees who were denied vacation 

benefits they had earned. After nearly two years of litigation before an 

arbitrator, we obtained an award of $2.34 million on behalf of the 

class. We successfully defended the award on appeal, and the 

Washington Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for review. A 

judgment in excess of $2.6 million was satisfied in September 2009. 

 Ramirez et al. v. Precision Drywall, Inc., in which we represented a 

certified class of workers who allege they were not paid for all hours 

worked, and were not provided with proper rest and meal breaks. The 

case was tried in 2010 in King County Superior Court before a jury 

with the Honorable Timothy Bradshaw presiding. TMDW successfully 

obtained a judgment for the Plaintiff Class and is currently working on 

enforcing the judgment against multiple Defendants. The judgment is 

currently valued at more than $4.2 million. 

 Lettic v. Spectrum Glass Co., Inc., in which we represent a certified 

class of 300 current and former employees who allege wage and hour 

violations regarding time shaving practices and inadequate meal and 

rest breaks. We are currently preparing for the upcoming trial of this 

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:405
- 7 - 

matter in King County Superior Court before the Honorable Timothy 

Bradshaw. 

9. TMDW undertook this case entirely on a contingency basis, meaning that if 

Plaintiff did not achieve a settlement or succeed at trial, the firm would not have recovered any 

of the costs incurred in litigating this action and would not have been paid anything for the time 

it has devoted to the litigation. 

10. The attorneys and staff members of TMDW have devoted significant hours to 

investigating, litigating, and settling this case. TMDW attorneys and staff members reviewed 

documents and discovery responses produced by Fifth Third, prepared and served a Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition notice regarding Fifth Third’s electronic information systems. We also 

worked on briefing in support of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and in the process 

thoroughly analyzed Defendant’s “express consent” affirmative defense. We worked to prepare 

mediation submissions containing detailed factual and legal analysis and conducted legal 

research. We also attended mediation, worked on class notices, and prepared the papers in 

support of settlement approval. 

11. The settlement reached in this case was contingent on Fifth Third providing an 

affidavit in support of its estimate of the number of allegedly unlawful calls and the basis for this 

estimate. 

12. As of October 1, 2013, my firm has not received any written objections to the 

settlement. We will respond to any objections if we receive them. 

 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and 

the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. 

EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington, this 3rd day of October, 2013. 

 

 Beth E. Terrell, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:406
- 8 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Beth E. Terrell, hereby certify that on October 3, 2013, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to the following: 

Gary S. Caplan, #6198263 

Email: gcaplan@ReedSmith.com 

Henry Pietrkowski, #6230048 

Email: hpietrkowski@ReedSmith.com 

Timothy R. Carraher, #6299248 

Email: tcarraher@ReedSmith.com 

REED SMITH LLP 

10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: (312) 207-1000 

 Attorneys for Defendant

 DATED this 3rd day of October, 2013. 

 TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 

 By: /s/ Beth E. Terrell, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Beth E. Terrell, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Email: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com 

936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 

Seattle, Washington 98103-8869 

Telephone: (206) 816-6603 

Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 79-2 Filed: 10/03/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:407