UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NO. 1:12-CV-04069

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

OBJECTOR FREEDOM HOME CARE, INC.’S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHEMEIER, 

STEPHEN PARKES, and REGINA STONE, 

individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., ECONOMIC 

STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY 

GROUP, INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, 

THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC. and VACATION 

OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC., 

 Defendants

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:14218
i

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 4

I. Freedom Home Care is Entitled to Fees for the Class Benefit Attributable 

to its Objection.................................................................................................................... 4

II. Freedom Home Care’s Request for Fees is Reasonable and is Far Below 

What Precedent Permits..................................................................................................... 5

III. Freedom Home Care’s Fee Award Should be Funded from Class Counsels’ Fees............. 8

IV. Freedom Home Care is Entitled to an Incentive Award. ..................................................... 9

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 10

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:14219
ii

Table of Authorities

Cases

Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 12 C 4069, 2017 WL 1369741 

(N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017) ................................................................................................................. 2

Craftwood Lumber Co. v. Interline Brands, Inc., 11-CV-4462, 2015 WL 2147679 

(N.D. Ill. May 6, 2015) ................................................................................................................... 2

Dewey v. Volkswagen of Am., 909 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D.N.J. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Dewey v. 

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 558 Fed. Appx. 191 (3d Cir. 2014) ............................................. 7

Duhaime v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 1998) ....................... 9

Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014)...................................................................... 3

Gastineau v. Wright, 592 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.2010)......................................................................... 5

Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 12 C 5510, 2016 WL 3027831 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016)....... 4

Gottlieb v. Barry, 43 F.3d 474 (10th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................. 5

Great Neck Capital Appreciation Inv. P’ship, L.P. v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, L.L.P. 212 

F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Wis. 2002) .................................................................................................. 4, 8

In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 5:06-cv-05208-JF, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52685 

(N.D. Cal. May 17, 2011). .......................................................................................................... 9

In re Capital One Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Lit., 80 F. Supp.3d 781 (N.D. Ill. 2015...................... 2

In re Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig., 243 F.3d 722 (3d Cir. 2001)................................................. 3

In re Citigroup Secs. Litig., No. 07-cv-9901(SHS), Dkt. No. 286, Order at 1-2 

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013)........................................................................................................... 9

In re Classmates.com Consol. Litig., No. C09-45RAJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83480 (W.D. 

Wash. Jun. 12, 2012)................................................................................................................... 7

In re Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. Secs. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D.N.M. 1998) ................ 9

In re Ikon Office Solutions, 194 F.R.D. 166 (E.D. Pa. 2000) ......................................................... 9

In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litig., 815 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D.P.R. 2011)........................ 7

In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litig., 11 C 8176, 2013 WL 5497275 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013), 

amended, 11 C 8176, 2014 WL 2809016 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2014), aff'd, 799 F.3d 701 (7th 

Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 799 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2015).................................................................... 5

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:14220
iii

In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 1

IIn re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2011) (Posner, J.)............ 3, 7, 10

Kolinek v. Walgreen Co., 311 F.R.D. 483 (N. D. 2015)............................................................. 4, 8

Lan v. Ludrof, 2008 WL 763763 (W.D. Pa. Mar, 21, 2008) .......................................................... 8

Lonardo v. Travelers Indem. Co., 706 F. Supp. 2d 766 (N.D. Ohio 2010), 

on reconsideration in part (July 21, 2010)......................................................................... 5, 8, 9

Neslin v. Wells, 104 U.S. 428 (1882).............................................................................................. 8

Parker v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P. 631 F. Supp. 2d 242 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)........................... 9

Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat. Bank, 288 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2002)................................................ 3, 4

Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Rodriguez I”) ....................... 5, 8

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Sadlowski, 435 U.S. 977 (1978)..................................................... 8

Wilkins v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 14 C190, 2015 WL 890566 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2015) ........ 2

Other

Claire Bushey, Squabble Beetween Law Firms Morphs into Defamation Suit, Crain’s Chicago 

Business (Apr. 3, 2017), accessible at 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170403/NEWS04/170409983/law-firm-sues-fordefamation (last visited Apr. 18, 2017)..................................................................................... 5, 8

Rob Capriccioso, McCain Opposes Harper Nomination to UN Council, Citing Indian Concerns, 

Indian Country Today Media Network (Sept. 24, 2013), accessible at 

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/mccain-opposes-harper-nomination-toun-council-citing-indian-concerns (last visited Apr. 18, 2017).................................................. 8

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:14221
1

BACKGROUND

Class counsel sought 33% of the class members’ $56-$76 million TCPA settlement (less 

administration and notice costs). Their request ignored the economies of scale, and would have 

allocated an excessive amount to class counsel (between $17.9 and $24.5 million) at the expense 

of the class. 

Class member Freedom Home Care filed an objection on January 23, 2017 (the objection 

deadline), submitted additional supporting papers, and advocated against this fee in hearings 

before the Court. In a comprehensive analysis, Freedom Home Care’s objection urged 

application of a diminishing sliding scale applied to the whole fund (including attorneys’ fees, 

but not administration and notice costs).

1 Freedom Home Care dispelled class counsels’ expert 

Professor M. Todd Henderson’s false premise that the case had “zero” inherent value, and that 

the settlement was purely attorney generated, which class counsel relied on to argue the sliding 

scale should not be applied.

2

During argument, Freedom Home Care advocated against forcing this case to fit into 

dicta from Synthroid I wherein the Court noted the sliding scale may create a disincentive for 

continued labor. In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 264 F.3d 712, 721 (7th Cir. 2001). Freedom Home 

Care also identified class counsels’ alternative two-tiered scale as result-oriented and unsupported by 

authority.

Significantly, Freedom Home Care was the only litigant to propose the correct fee 

methodology for this large TCPA settlement—a diminishing sliding scale applied to the whole

 1 Objection of Freedom Home Care, ECF Doc. 548, passim. 

2 Id. at 14. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:14222
2

fund (including attorneys fees, but excluding administration and notice costs).

3 It urged a fee 

between approximately $12-$15 million (without a risk premium), depending on the outcome of 

the claims process.

4

Defendants filed an opposition echoing Freedom Home Care’s arguments, but submitted

a dramatically inaccurate and never before applied approach omitting attorneys’ fees from the 

gross figure in calculating the percentages.

5 Defendants’ method was not employed by any of the 

four sliding-scale TCPA opinions in this District, nor was it applied by this Court.6

On April 6, 2017, this Court entered its order granting in part and denying in part class 

counsels’ motion for fees (which this Court subsequently corrected on April 10, 2017).

7 The 

Court employed a diminishing sliding scale to the whole fund (including attorneys fees, but 

excluding administration and notice costs)—exactly what Freedom Home Care advocated.8 The 

Court also applied a risk premium to each band of the scale, awarding between $14.76-$18.48 

million.

The result is class counsel take approximately $3-$6 million less than they sought from 

the class members’ fund. Freedom Home Care’s played an important role in limiting class 

 3 Id. at 8-10.

4 Id. at 9.

5 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, ECF Doc. 565, at 17-18. 

6 See Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 12 C 4069, 2017 WL 1369741, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 

10, 2017) (applying the sliding-scale percentages to the fund, including attorneys’ fees, but not 

administration and notice costs); Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 316 F.R.D. 215, 222, 237-38 

(N.D. Ill. 2016) (same); Craftwood Lumber Co. v. Interline Brands, Inc., 11-CV-4462, 2015 WL 

2147679, at *1-5 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2015) (same); Wilkins v. HSBC Bank Nevada,N.A., 14 C 190, 

2015 WL 890566, at *9-12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2015) (same); In re Capital One Tel. Consumer 

Prot. Act Lit., 80 F. Supp. 3d 781, 804-07 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (same).

7 Aranda, 2017 WL 1369741, at *8-10.

8 Id. at *9.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:14223
3

counsels’ fees to a more reasonable sum for the benefit of the class, and should be rewarded 

accordingly.

INTRODUCTION

The Seventh Circuit places value on the role objectors play in class action settlements, 

and instructs that “their requests for fees must not be slighted.” In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy 

Litig., 629 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (Posner, J.) (citations omitted); Reynolds v. Beneficial 

Nat. Bank, 288 F.3d 277, 288 (7th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted) (noting “participation is 

encouraged by permitting lawyers who contribute materially to the proceeding to obtain a fee”). 

Where objections result in a more favorable result for the class, “the objectors will receive a cash 

award that can be substantial.” Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718, 720 (7th Cir. 2014); see also 

In re Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig., 243 F.3d 722, 744 (3d Cir. 2001) (reversing a district court’s 

order denying objector fees where the objector’s efforts resulted in reduced fees for class 

counsel).

Freedom Home Care’s advocacy of the sliding scale contributed to providing millions of 

dollars in benefit to the class members. Its persistence in the face of vigorous opposition and ad 

hominem attacks contributed to a $3-6 million direct class benefit.9

Accordingly, Freedom Home Care contends it is entitled to $59,410 in attorneys’ fees

based on the lodestar method with no multiplier, as well as a $1,000 incentive award for Objector 

Freedom Home Care. This amount should be taken from class counsels’ share of the settlement 

fund so that (1) the class is not penalized for class counsels’ excessive request and (2) future 

class counsel will be discouraged from making similar improper fee requests. 

 9 As class counsel acknowledge, “the amount class members will receive necessarily depends on 

the amount of attorneys’ fees.” Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys” Fees, 

Expenses, and Incentive Awards, ECF Doc. 584, at 7.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:14224
4

ARGUMENT

I. Freedom Home Care is Entitled to Fees for the Class Benefit Attributable to its 

Objection.

The pertinent question for an objector fee motion is whether the “objection has secured a 

benefit for the class that outweighs the fee” sought. Kolinek v. Walgreen Co., 311 F.R.D. 483 (N. 

D. 2015); see also Reynolds, 288 F.3d at 288 (requiring that “objectors produce an improvement 

in the settlement worth more than the fee they are seeking”); Great Neck Capital Appreciation 

Inv. P’ship, L.P. v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, L.L.P. 212 F.R.D. 400, 413 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

(court should consider whether the objector “improved the settlement, assisted the court, and/or 

enhanced the recovery in any discernible fashion).

Fees may be denied when multiple class members voiced the same objection and 

consequently provided no real benefit to the class. See e.g., Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 

12 C 5510, 2016 WL 3027831, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016) (rejecting objector fee request 

where at least four other objectors reiterated the same argument). But here, Freedom Home Care 

is the only class member who stood up to class counsels’ overreaching fee motion. And, it is the 

only litigant who argued for the sliding scale as applied to the whole fund (less administration 

and notice costs). It is therefore entitled to a fee for the direct benefit provided to the class.

Additionally, fees should not be denied based on the notion that a court would have 

arrived at the same conclusion without the objections. See Reynolds, 288 F.3d at 288; Cendant, 

243 F.3d at 743 (3d Cir. 2001). As the Seventh Circuit explained, “objectors must decide 

whether to object without knowing what objections may be moot because they have already 

occurred to the judge.” Reynolds, 288 F.3d at 288. 

Class recovery in this was enhanced by application of the fee methodology (with the 

exception of the use of a risk premium) advocated by Freedom Home Care alone. Considering 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:14225
5

the benefit bestowed upon the class, between $3 and $6 million, it would be error to deny 

Freedom Home Care’s request. See e.g., Gottlieb v. Barry, 43 F.3d 474, 491 (10th Cir. 1994); 

Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Rodriguez I”) (“clearly 

erroneous” for district court to decide that objector counsel “did not add anything”).10

II. Freedom Home Care’s Request for Fees is Reasonable and is Far Below what 

Precedent Permits.

Freedom Home Care seeks a conservative lodestar award of $59,410 for its role in the $3-

$6 million class benefit. No multiplier is sought.

“Under the lodestar method, the Court begins by multiplying the number of hours that 

class counsel reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly rate.” In re Southwest Airlines Voucher 

Litig., 11 C 8176, 2013 WL 5497275, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013), amended, 11 C 8176, 2014 

WL 2809016 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2014), aff'd, 799 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 799 F.3d 

701 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Gastineau v. Wright, 592 F.3d 747, 748 (7th Cir.2010)); Lonardo v. 

Travelers Indem. Co., 706 F. Supp. 2d 766, 814-15 (N.D. Ohio 2010), on reconsideration in part

(July 21, 2010) (awarding objector fees under the lodestar method).

Freedom Home Care’s counsel, Christopher Bandas and Robert Clore, logged 181.8

hours in uncompensated time in furtherance of Freedom Home Care’s objection for a total 

lodestar of $54,410.

11 That time excludes all work associated with (1) Freedom Home Care’s 

motion for attorneys’ fees and (2) the contested pro hac vice motion of Christopher Bandas, and 

(3) Freedom Home Care’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply and attached sur-reply, which 

motion was denied by this Court. Id. That lodestar also does not include the work of local 

 10 The Rodriguez litigation continued and resulted in the Ninth Circuit’s further determination 

that the lower court “clearly erred” and “abused its discretion by denying fees to the [] 

Objectors.” Rodriguez II, 688 F.3d at 659-60.

11 Exhibit 1, Bandas Declaration, ¶ 8.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:14226
6

counsel Jonathan Novoselsky. 

As set forth in Mr. Bandas’s declaration, counsel worked diligently and efficiently in 

preparing the various papers supporting Freedom Home Care’s objection (including the 

objection itself, supporting exhibits, the response to Defendants’ motion to reconsider and/or 

alter the February 27, 2017 order, and the motion to appear at the fairness hearing), as well as in 

preparing for and participating in several hearings in support thereof.12 These hours were 

reasonable and necessary, and their lodestar of $54,410 is based on hourly rates of $450 for Mr. 

Bandas, and $325 for Mr. Clore, which are usual and customary in the communities where they 

practice.

13 These rates are considerably below the rates in the plaintiffs’ declarations supporting 

their fee motion.

The following chart explains the lodestar breakdown for Mr. Bandas and Mr. Clore:

Attorney Years of Exp. Hours Hourly Rate Total

Christopher A. 

Bandas

(Sole 

Shareholder)

23 51 450 $22,950

Robert W. Clore.

(Associate)

17 96.8 $325 $31,460

Freedom Home Care also seeks an award for Jonathan Novoselsky’s participation as 

local counsel, who was paid a flat fee of $5,000.14 Mr. Novoselsky worked an estimated 20 hours 

on pleadings, participating in conferences, participating in hearings, and performing other 

work.15 That would result in an hourly rate of $250, which is well within the usual and customary 

 12 Id. at ¶ 7.

13 Id. at ¶ 10.

14 Id. at ¶ 12.

15 Id.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:14227
7

rate in Chicago.16 These hours expended by Mr. Novoselsky were reasonable and necessary.17

Objector’s $59,410 fee request (including $5,000 for Mr. Novoselsky’s labor) is clearly 

reasonable.

18 The class will benefit from the $3-$6 million reduction from class counsels’ fee 

request. Further, as the only attorneys to advocate the correct methodology, Freedom Home 

Care’s counsel have demonstrated skill and efficiency. 

To the extent this lodestar is questioned, Freedom Home Care requests that the Court 

compare this time to that spent by class counsel or defense counsel for the same issues; Freedom 

Home Care believes that its counsel operated more efficiently than its adversaries. Three 

attorneys pale in comparison to the assortment of attorneys that have worked on plaintiffs’ side 

of the case. 

Further, Freedom Home Care’s request is far below what might have been requested 

based on a percentage-of-the fund recovery, where “10% of the benefit conferred [is] well within 

the range of acceptable . . . recovery[.]” Dewey v. Volkswagen of Am., 909 F. Supp. 2d 373, 396 

(D.N.J. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Dewey v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 558 Fed. Appx. 191 (3d 

Cir. 2014); see also In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F.3d 741, 748 (7th Cir. 2011)

(finding an award of $2.7 million (3.8% of the benefit conferred) “was too small” and 

concluding that objector’s counsel was entitled to $4.125 million (5.9% of the benefit 

conferred)); In re Classmates.com Consol. Litig., No. C09-45RAJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83480 

(W.D. Wash. Jun. 12, 2012) (noting that award of $100,000 “if anything” “would have 

undercompensated” the objector where $100,000 was roughly 5% of the monetary benefit 

conferred); In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litig., 815 F. Supp. 2d 448, 468 (D.P.R. 2011)

 16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id. at ¶¶ 7-11.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:14228
8

(finding that “10% [of $3 million benefit conferred] is reasonable and appropriate to reflect 

Objectors’ time, effort, ingenuity and success in increasing the kitty for the benefit of the 

Class.”); Lan v. Ludrof, 2008 WL 763763, at *28 (W.D. Pa. Mar, 21, 2008) (awarding objector 

25% of the increase in the benefit to the class). A 5% award of the $3-$6 million benefit 

conferred would have resulted in a $150,000-$300,000 fee, while a 10% award would have 

resulted in $300,000-$600,000 fee. 

III. Freedom Home Care’s Fee Award Should be Funded from Class Counsels’ Fees. 

“[T]he ‘common benefit’ theory is premised on a court’s equity power” United 

Steelworkers of Am. v. Sadlowski, 435 U.S. 977, 979 (1978); accord Rodriguez II, 688 F.3d at 

654. Where class counsel propose an excessive fee from the common fund, thereby necessitating 

the participation of an objecting class member, the equities are clear. It would be unfair to 

require the class to foot the bill for both class counsel and again for objector’s counsel, when 

class counsel alone created the necessity of the objection. See Neslin v. Wells, 104 U.S. 428, 437 

(1882) (“equity requires that the loss, which in consequence thereof must fall on one of the two, 

shall be borne by him by whose fault it was occasioned.”).

Although an objector’s fee may come from the common fund,19 some courts deem it

appropriate to award objector fees from class counsels’ award. See Great Neck Capital 

Appreciation Inv. P'ship, L.P. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., 212 F.R.D. 400, 417 (E.D. 

Wis. 2002) (ordering that “attorneys' fees awarded to the objector are to be paid by class counsel 

and the defendants as they may agree but without diminution of the sum awarded to the class”); 

Lonardo, 706 F. Supp. 2d 766 at-817 (awarding objector’s attorneys’ fees out of class counsel’s 

 19 Kolinek v. Walgreen Co., 311 F.R.D. 483 (N. D. 2015) (“When an objector recovers attorney's 

fees, the fee award is drawn from the settlement fund, and the total award to the class is 

diminished”).

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:14229
9

fee award); Parker v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P. 631 F. Supp. 2d 242, 277 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

(same); Prudential, 273 F. Supp. at 573 (D.N.J. 2003), aff’d 103 Fed. Appx. 695, 697 (3d Cir. 

2004) (same); In re Ikon Office Solutions, 194 F.R.D. 166, 197 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (same); Duhaime 

v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 F. Supp. 2d 175, 176 (D. Mass. 1998) (same); In re 

Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. Secs. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1215 (D.N.M. 1998) (same); In 

re Citigroup Secs. Litig., No. 07-cv-9901(SHS), Dkt. No. 286, Order at 1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 

2013) (same with objector’s expenses). 

Freedom Home Care urges that awarding all legal expenses from the initial fee pot is not 

merely equitable, it is also good public policy. It provides a practical incentive for class counsel 

to avoid overreaching fee requests that (as here) have a high probability of being rejected. If 

class counsel are not even responsible for paying the comparatively minimal fees of successful 

objectors, then there will be little, if any, reason for them not to continue making similar requests 

in the future.

IV. Freedom Home Care is Entitled to an Incentive Award.

Freedom Home Care requests a $1,000 incentive award. That amount is appropriate in

light of Freedom Home Care’s role in conferring a benefit upon the class. Dewey, 909 F. Supp. 

2d at 398-400; Lonardo, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 816-17; In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 5:06-cv05208-JF, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52685 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2011).

By objecting here, Freedom Home Care exposed itself to the risk of harassment by class 

counsel. See, e.g., Edelson PC v. The Bandas Law Firm, PC, 1:16-cv-11057, ECF Doc. 50, at 

(Edelson PC lumping discussion of Freedom Home Care’s objection into a frivolous RICO 

lawsuit, and making the unsubstantiated claim that Robert Burack, who manages day to day 

operations at Freedom Home Care, was solicited); Claire Bushey, Squabble Between Law Firms 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:14230
10

Morphs into Defamation Suit, CRAIN’S CHICAGO BUSINESS (Apr. 3, 2017)20 (discussing 

allegations that “Edelson and its founder, Jay Edelson, . . . manipulate[e] the legal system” and 

“use the threat of negative publicity”); see generally In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 

F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that “class lawyers may try to fend off interlopers who 

oppose a proposed settlement” and that such tactics should not be permitted considering

objectors can “prevent cozy deals that favor class lawyers and defendants at the expense of class 

members”); Rob Capriccioso, McCain Opposes Harper Nomination to UN Council, Citing Indian 

Concerns, INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY MEDIA NETWORK, Sept. 24, 201321 (describing how different 

class counsel in the Cobell case revealed personal information of objecting class members in an 

attempt to intimidate them into dropping their appeal).

Freedom Home Care is requesting a small fraction of the collective $40,000 incentive

payments awarded to the class representatives, payments that this Court has previously approved 

as reasonable. Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 12 C 4069, 2017 WL 1369741, at *1, 9 

(N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017). Just as class representatives receive incentive payments, so should 

objectors whose objections meaningfully contribute to class recovery. As a result of Freedom 

Home Care’s having come forward, class counsel will not take an unauthorized fixed percentage 

of the settlement, and more will be available to the class. 

CONCLUSION

Objector Freedom Home Care thus respectfully requests that this Court award it $1,000 as an 

incentive award and $59,410 in attorneys’ fees for its role in conferring a direct benefit to the 

class.

 20Accessible at http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170403/NEWS04/170409983/law-firmsues-for-defamation (last visited Apr. 18, 2017).

21Accessible at https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/mccain-opposes-harpernomination-to-un-council-citing-indian-concerns (last visited April 18, 2017).

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14231
1

Dated: April 19, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher A. Bandas 

Christopher A. Bandas

BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

(361) 698–5200 (tel)

(361) 698-5222 (fax)

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Robert W. Clore

BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

(361) 698–5200 (tel)

(361) 698-5222 (fax)

Jonathan P. Novoselsky

JONATHAN NOVOSELSKY, P.C. 303 W. Madison, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 286-8429 (tel)

(872) 228-8085 (fax) 

Attorneys for Objector Freedom 

Home Care, Inc.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:14232
Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that today he filed the foregoing response on ECF which will 

send electronic notification to all attorneys registered for ECF-filing. 

DATED: April 19, 2017 /s/ Christopher A. Bandas _ 

 Christopher A. Bandas

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/19/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:14233