(If you need additional space for AI-IY section, ptea1e attach 'an addltlonal sheet and refefenoe that aectlon.) 

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

~ °' ~ t f< i <""1 (VKl-e__~ ) ~ etq \ ) 

Plaintiff ) 

_Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)_ 

Case Number: (:/ i --tv-DlfD61 

/\A \u - .. 1 ✓,., nv1-e. l l" Judge: 1 ,.. , C\. ~ f-4- / 

Magistrate Judge: _j v,:l~ ~ \L:e_. p 

Motion For Order of Counsel Representation and Order to vacate recent award of Attorneys fees 

•we do not believe that Class Counsel has an obligation to represent you individually, nor would we advocate 

for a class member to dilute the payments to the class generally by claiming more calls than the evidence 

supports. Based on the Court's well-reasoned opinion, we do not believe that you have reasonable grounds for 

an appeal. For each of these reasons, we will not be handling your appeal." 

In reference to the above communication received from Class Counsel in response to my request for Class 

representation in my appeal, it is shockingly evident that from the time the Special Master's ruling was handed 

down and Mr. Rauscher called to tell me of the ruling and advised me not to appeal because Class would not 

file it on my behalf, that they have fought against my claim on a very real discriminatory basis. 

First of all, had I not kept close watch on my claim, it never would have made it to a Telephonic Hearing, at all. I 

was an Option 2 (more than 3 calls - 700 calls) Claimant and in September 2018 received confirmation of my 

telephonic hearing request and acknowledgedment of supporting documents, having been received. Despite 

that acknowledgement, Telephonic Hearings were held and excluded me from having one. Instead, the 

Settlement Administrator bumped my claim to an Option 1 status (3 or fewer calls) without ever sending me 

prior or after-the-fact notice of that action! That action nullified my inltial request for a Telephonic Hearing. 

But because I was able to make contact with a live person or two to get an update on the status of my 

requested Telephonic Hearing who were kind enough to inform me that all Telephonic Hearings had been 

completed and a Final Order was just hours away from possibly being handed down, I knew I had to get an 

appeal fried right away or else I would have been left witb the 1 phone call my claim was bumped down to with 

no recourse. I was successful in getting contact Information for Mr. Rauscher who in turn filed the appeal. 

Otherwise, I and the approximately 100 other Claimants who'd also requested Telephonic Hearings but were 

instead also bumped down to Option 1 Claimants would have been disproportionately disadvantaged with 

little chance at any post disbursement recovery by not granting us our initial requests for Telephonic Hearings. 

For background, I claimed 700 calls. Keeping in mind the entire background surrounding my case mentioned 

above, Counsel advised me that the Special Master's award of 250 calls was a good award and should not be 

appealled. I complied. When the Defendants offer for 125 calls was relayed to me, I was In possession of the 

Settlement Administrator's award letter stating I was awarded 700 calls. When those calls got rescinded, I sent 

Counsel an email asking to appe~I_ but again Class Counsel would not. When the Defendants again wanted to 

negotiate wirh me in March 2020, ~ asked Counsel to ask the Defendants for an updated offer and Mr. 

Rauscher ref used and stated I hacNo__rgake the counter offer, which I did and told Counsel I was open to 

negotiate the number I gave Mr. Rausch;r stated he relayed my off er and didn't hear back from the Defendants 

and had no explanation why. ~ 

frt:Ad,·fl~I?~(!_(~) !-iJl/~t,0 /J4q~.a- - '-

5/ J)at'Sj £Xuh1 

(If you need addlUonal space fOI' ANY section, please attach an addltlonal sheet and reference that section.) 

FILED 8/3/2020

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

TG

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 863 Filed: 08/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:51176