IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT ) 

BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, and ) 

REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves ) 

and classes of others similarly situated, ) Case No. 12-cv-4069 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Matthew F. Kennelly 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., ) 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ) 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC., ) 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, LLC, ) 

THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC. AND ) 

VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING ) 

TOURS, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

__________________________________________) 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO 

THE SPECIAL MASTER’S UPDATE ON AWARD OF CALLS 

Defendants Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., and 

The Berkley Group, Inc. (“Defendants”), pursuant to Rule 53(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Paragraph 15 of the Judgment Granting Final Approval of Settlement (Dkt. # 

626), Object to the Special Master’s Update on Award of Calls (“Award”) as follows: 

Introduction 

On December 2, 2019, the Special Master awarded calls to 100 separate claimants who 

requested telephonic hearings. Ex. A hereto, Award. This objection is limited to the Special 

Master’s award of 250 calls to one claimant, Daisy Exum. Defendants do not seek to disturb the 

Special Master’s award of calls to the other 99 claimants. Simply put, Ms. Exum’s award is 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:50934
2 

unsupported by the evidence and constitutes a windfall that far exceeds the awards to the other 

99 claimants who requested telephonic hearings. 

On January 13, 2017, Ms. Exum submitted her claim form claiming that she received 700 

calls, which means Ms. Exum sought a $350,000 payment from the settlement fund.1

 This was 

an immediate red flag. KCC, the settlement administrator, reviewed Ms. Exum’s claim form, 

applied the provisions of the Settlement Agreement (including screening her claim for fraud and 

abuse), and awarded one call to Ms Exum. After receiving notice of KCC’s determination, Ms. 

Exum, through class counsel, requested a telephonic hearing with the Special Master to try to 

increase her award. Ms. Exum provided no additional supporting documentation with her 

request. 

Ms. Exum testified at a telephonic hearing on September 16, 2019. Ex. B hereto, 

transcript of a.m. session; Exhibit C hereto, transcript of p.m. session.2 The Special Master 

ultimately awarded 250 calls to Ms. Exum, which means that she will receive $125,000 (when 

applying the $500 per call scenario). The awards to the other 99 claimants pale in comparison to 

Ms. Exum’s award and the Special Master provided no analysis or explanation to justify 

increasing Ms. Exum’s call award by almost 250% from KCC’s award. Nor does the Special 

Master cite any specific testimony or additional proof to support such a dramatic increase in Ms. 

Exum’s award. 

The sheer number of calls claimed by and ultimately awarded to Ms. Exum compared to 

other claimants warrants a reduction in her award in light of her testimony and lack of supporting 

                                                            

1

 While it is still unknown whether Defendants will ultimately be required to pay the Floor, the Ceiling, or 

somewhere in between, one likely scenario is that claimants will receive $500 per call. 

2

 Defendants are attaching only pages 1 through 19 from the transcript of the p.m. session because the 

remaining part of the transcript reflects the telephonic hearing of another claimant, not Ms. Exum. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:50934
3 

documentation. The majority of the other claimants who requested telephonic hearings were 

awarded calls in the single digits. Moreover, of those claimants who requested telephonic 

hearings, the claimant with the next highest call award received 30 calls, which is 220 fewer calls 

than Ms. Exum’s award. 

Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of the Settlement Agreement make clear that when Defendants assert 

a challenge, it is the Class Member’s “ultimate burden” to “demonstrate the number of calls, 

greater than one (1).” Ex. D hereto, Settlement Agreement, §§ 5.4 & 5.5. Here, Ms. Exum’s 

actions before the telephonic hearing, her testimony at the telephonic hearing, and her lack of 

documentation to support her claim for hundreds of calls demonstrate that she did not satisfy her 

burden of proof as required under the Settlement Agreement. 

As discussed below, Ms. Exum should not be permitted to reap the benefit of such an 

excessive award that is unsupported by the record, is unreasonably disproportionate to other 

individual awards, and will reduce the settlement fund to the detriment of other claimants. Ms. 

Exum’s award should be reduced to one call, which is the number that KCC awarded to her after 

screening her claim for fraud and abuse and properly applying the provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement. 

Jurisdiction 

 Rule 53(f)(2) provides that, “[a] party may file objections to—or a motion to adopt or 

modify—the master’s order, report, or recommendations no later than 21 days after a copy is 

served, unless the court sets a different time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). The Special Master 

served the Award on December 2, 2019. Defendants’ Objection to the Award is timely as it is 

filed no later than 21 days after service of the Award. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:50934
4 

Standard of Review 

 Rule 53(f)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court must decide de novo all 

objections to findings of fact made or recommended by a master.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3). The 

Special Master made a factual finding that Ms. Exum received 250 calls from the political cruise 

call campaign at issue. Accordingly, the Special Master’s Award is reviewed under a de novo 

standard of review. 

Similarly, Rule 53(f)(4) provides that, “[t]he court must decide de novo all objections to 

conclusions of law made or recommended by a master.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4). Therefore, to 

the extent that the Special Master’s Award is deemed to be a conclusion of law based on his 

review and interpretation of a contract, the Settlement Agreement, the standard of review is still 

de novo. Bourke v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 159 F.3d 1032, 1036 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Contract 

interpretation . . . involves conclusions of law.). 

Argument 

I. The Special Master Erroneously Determined That Ms. Exum Is Entitled To An 

Award Of 250 Calls, Which Is A Payment Of Approximately $125,000. 

A. Ms. Exum’s claim, on its face, is suspect. 

Ms. Exum submitted her claim form electronically on January 13, 2017, nearly four and a 

half years after the political cruise call campaign ended. She did not provide any additional 

documentation at the time she submitted her claim form. Nevertheless, she stated, under oath, 

that she received exactly 700 calls from the political cruise call campaign. 

Given the one-year class period, this means that Ms. Exum claims she received an 

average of almost 2 calls per day, every day, for 365 days, and that each call was a political 

cruise call. In doing so, Ms. Exum sought payment of $350,000 from the settlement fund. A 

comparison of Ms. Exum’s claim to the claims of the other 99 claimants who requested 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:50934
5 

telephonic hearings highlights why her claim is not credible. The majority of these other 

claimants requested single digit call awards. The highest call request of these claimants (other 

than Ms. Exum) was for 50 calls, and there were only two of those.3 So, of the claimants seeking 

telephonic hearings, Ms. Exum claimed 650 calls more than the claimant who had the next 

highest call request. In dollars, this means that Ms. Exum sought $325,000 more than the next 

highest claimant of the 99 other claimants who requested telephonic hearings. The bottom line is 

that Ms. Exum was awarded more calls simply because she claimed significantly more calls than 

the other claimants who requested telephonic hearings. Her testimony does not support such an 

award and she provided no documentation demonstrating that she received even a single call. 

B. It is unclear whether Ms. Exum owned the relevant phone number during the 

class period. 

In conducting its duties under the Settlement Agreement, KCC performed a reverse lookup of the phone numbers that were called as part of the political cruise call campaign. That 

reverse look-up revealed that the phone number that Ms. Exum claimed to own during the oneyear class period was actually associated with another individual, Edith Gay. Ex. E hereto, 

Email from KCC. Moreover, the home address associated with the phone number was not Ms. 

Exum’s address. Id. KCC used this reverse look-up procedure for thousands of claimants, 

which was an accepted protocol. The fact that KCC associated the relevant phone number with a 

different individual and address creates significant doubt whether Ms. Exum even owned the 

phone number during the class period. 

                                                            

3

 Moreover, out of more than 57,000 total claim forms, only a small number of individual claimants 

requested more than 700 calls. All of those claimants received single digit call awards. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:50934
6 

C. Ms. Exum’s pre-hearing conduct demonstrates her lack of credibility and 

unwillingness to be questioned about her claim. 

 One business day before the telephonic hearing, Ms. Exum sent an email outlining a list 

of conditions and restrictions that she wanted to inject into the proceedings. Ex. F, Email from 

Ms. Exum. Specifically, Ms. Exum wanted the Special Master to decide her claim without a 

hearing. Id. She further demanded that, if the Special Master conducted a hearing, Defendants’ 

counsel should not be permitted to participate in the hearing and she did not want to be 

questioned about her claim. Id. These unusual requests are not indicative of an individual who 

is willing to stand by and defend a claim for 700 calls. Ms. Exum’s attempt to block any further 

inquiry into her excessive demand is further evidence that her claim, which she has the burden to 

prove, is not credible. 

D. Ms. Exum’s testimony is not credible and does not satisfy her burden of proof 

under the express terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

 Even if Ms. Exum owned the relevant phone number during the class period, her 

testimony does not support the hundreds of calls claimed. Ms. Exum testified that she received 

calls from other telemarketing companies or campaigns during the class period. Ex. B, pp. 36-

37. She further testified that “we weren’t really thinking much about the calls . . .”, there “was 

just a lot going on that year”, and “it was just a crazy year”. Id., pp. 5-6. While Ms. Exum 

apparently had several distractions during the calling campaign, which concluded over seven 

years ago, she nevertheless asserts that she is able to identify 700 political cruise calls. Ms. 

Exum stated that she answered about 85-95% of the alleged 700 political cruise calls. Ex. B, p. 

35. This means that she answered the phone between 595 to 665 times. Id., p. 36 (“Q: It’s your 

testimony that you can recall picking up about 595 of these calls. A: At a minimum, yes.”). 

While she allegedly took the time to answer hundreds of political cruise calls in a one-year time 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:50934
7 

period, and characterized the calls as “aggravating”, “frustrating”, and “annoying”, she admitted 

that she never made any physical notes about the calls. Ex. B, pp. 10-12, 37. It is simply not 

credible that Ms. Exum would answer hundreds of “aggravating”, “frustrating”, and “annoying” 

calls and not create a single written record about any of those offending calls. 

 E. Ms. Exum provided no timely or relevant documentation to support her claim. 

 During the telephonic hearing, Ms. Exum testified that when she heard about the 

settlement, she found some older phone bills and highlighted the political cruise calls. Ex. B, pp. 

23. She claimed that she received one bill with “at least 30 pages of phone calls.” Id., p. 11. 

She said that she highlighted 100 calls in her phone bills, but stopped highlighting because her 

carpel tunnel syndrome was acting up. Id., p. 21. Rather than resume the highlighting when her 

carpel tunnel syndrome subsided, Ms. Exum testified that she sent the phone bills (including 

pages that were not highlighted) to “an administrator at a Providence address” so that someone 

else could finish the highlighting. Ex. B, pp. 11 and 29. However, KCC has no record of 

receiving any documents from Ms. Exum other than her initial claim form. Id., pp. 29-30. Ms. 

Exum also claimed that she sent her phone bills to class counsel. Id., p. 31. But class counsel 

indicated that they did not receive any phone bills from Ms. Exum either. Ms. Exum originally 

stated that she retained copies of the phone bills that she allegedly sent to KCC and class 

counsel, but she could not locate them. Ex. B, p. 11. Later in the hearing, however, Ms. Exum 

testified that she did not make any copies of her phone bills. Ex. C, p. 6. Moreover, even though 

Ms. Exum sought hundreds of thousands of dollars from the settlement fund, she never checked 

to see if anyone received the phone bills she claims to have sent. Ex. B, p. 31. 

Because Ms. Exum failed to produce a single phone bill, there is no way to determine 

whether the phone numbers on those bills were associated with the political cruise call campaign. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:50934
8 

The only documents that Ms. Exum produced in addition to her claim form were her military 

identification, her department of corrections identification, and a letter from her pastor, all of 

which she produced after taking a break during the telephonic hearing. Ex. C, p. 4. But when 

she was asked to simply identify the documents before the break, Ms. Exum was cryptic and 

testified that there was “no way [she] could describe the documents without revealing what the 

documents are.” Ex. B, p. 44. Section 5.5 of the Settlement Agreement specifically provides 

that, in the event of a challenge, KCC shall notify the challenged claimants that they “must 

within thirty (30) days either submit supplemental documentation to prove each call claimed or 

schedule a telephonic hearing with the Special Master . . . .” Ex. D, § 5.5 (emphasis added); Ex. 

B, p. 41. Ms. Exum failed to submit her military identification, her department of corrections 

identification, the letter from her pastor, or any other supplemental documentation within 30 

days as required under the Settlement Agreement. Because Ms. Exum failed to produce these 

documents by the designated deadline, they should be disregarded. Furthermore, even if these 

documents are allowed, they do nothing to substantiate Ms. Exum’s claim that she received 

hundreds of political cruise calls. 

Ms. Exum led the Special Master to believe that she had pages and pages of phone bills 

supporting her claim and that she sent them to KCC and class counsel. But Ms. Exum never 

produced a single page of a phone bill and both KCC and class counsel deny ever receiving any 

phone bills. The fact that representations from both KCC and Ms. Exum’s own counsel 

contradict her testimony is troubling. Despite the lack of documentary support and explicit 

contradiction between Ms. Exum’s testimony and her own counsel’s representations, Ms. Exum 

still stands to receive $125,000. Such a result ignores the evidence (and lack thereof), is 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:50934
9 

inconsistent with requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and is fundamentally 

unfair to other claimants. 

Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court sustain 

Defendants’ objection, reduce the Special Master’s award to one call for Daisy Exum, and enter 

whatever further relief this Court deems just and appropriate. 

Dated: December 23, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

By: /s/ Richard J. Prendergast 

Richard J. Prendergast, Esq. 

Michael T. Layden, Esq. 

RICHARD J. PRENDERGAST, LTD. (#11381) 

111 W. Washington St., Suite 1100 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(T) (312) 641-0881 

(F) (312) 641-3562 

rprendergast@rjpltd.com 

mlayden@rjpltd.com

Kevin M. Forde, Esq. 

Brian P. O’Meara, Esq. 

Forde Law Offices LLP 

111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(T) 312.465.4780 

(F) 312.641.1288 

kforde@fordellp.com 

bomeara@fordellp.com 

M. Peebles Harrison (Pro Hac Vice) 

Rose, Harrison & Gilreath, P.C. 

700 Blue Jay Street, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 405 Kill Devil Hills, 

North Carolina 27948 

Phone: (252) 480-1414 

Fax: (252) 480-1765 

peebles@outerbankslaw.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:50934
10 

Counsel for Defendant The Berkley Group, Inc.

- and - 

By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Backman

Richard W. Epstein (Florida Bar No. 229091) 

Richard.Epstein@gmlaw.com 

Jeffrey A. Backman (Florida Bar No. 662501) 

Jeffrey.Backman@gmlaw.com 

GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. 

200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1500 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

954.491.1120 (Telephone) 

954.343.6958 (Fax) 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Timothy Hudson, Esq. 

TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC 

209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

312.762.9476 (Telephone) 

312.762.9451 (Fax) 

thudson@tdrlawfirm.com 

Counsel for Defendants Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. and 

Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. 

   

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:50934
11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned, an attorney, states that the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION 

TO THE SPECIAL MASTER’S UPDATE ON AWARD OF CALLS was electronically filed 

with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will provide copies to all counsel of 

record registered to receive CM/ECF notification on this 23rd day of December 2019. 

 /s/ Richard J. Prendergast 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 812 Filed: 12/23/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:50934