1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Philip Charvat on behalf of himself and )

others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:12-cv-5746

)

v. ) The Honorable Andrea R. Wood

)

Elizabeth Valente, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING ON WHETHER, UPON REMAND,

THIS COURT WOULD APPROVE SETTLEMENT WITH OBJECTORS

SHELTON, JOHNSON AND DUNLAP

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5)(B)(i), and 62.1, Class Counsel, 

Objectors-Appellants, Evan Shelton, Timothy Johnson and Mark Dunlap (“Objectors”), and 

Defendants, Carnival Corporation & PLC, NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. and Royal Caribbean Cruises, 

Ltd., (“Cruise Lines”) jointly move for an indicative ruling on whether, upon remand, the Court 

would approve a conditional settlement agreement (“Agreement”) reached between Class Counsel, 

the Cruise Lines and Objectors-Appellants, Evan Shelton, Timothy Johnson and Mark Dunlap 

(“Objectors”)Objectors.

1

 

If the Agreement is approved and the Court agrees to the terms, which are described below,

Objectors will dismiss with prejudice their appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

1 No other objectors appealed from the Court’s Final Order of Dismissal and Final Judgment and, 

therefore, should the court determine that it would grant the relief is the Seventh Circuit remands, 

after nearly eight (8) years this case will finally be resolved and the Settlement Class Members 

would be able to receive the funds from the Class Settlement. [DE 730].

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 739 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:24350
2

Seventh Circuit, Case No. 19-3280 and 19-3291. The Objectors’ briefs are currently due to be 

filed on January 27, 2020, however, given the pendency of the settlement, they will seek an 

extension of time and/or stay pending entry of an indicative ruling from this Court on the 

Agreement.

The Agreement has two components. First, in the Court’s Final Order of Dismissal and 

Final Judgment [DE 730], the Court ordered that distribution of the class settlement funds to 

eligible class members should be distributed, and if any funds remain because checks were not 

cashed or checks otherwise become null and void, the Settlement Administrator shall distribute 

the remaining Settlement Funds to the Settlement Class Members who previously cashed their 

settlement funds on a pro rata basis if doing so is administratively and economically feasible, which 

would be presumptively feasible if the settlement members would receive a check for more than 

$5.00, after the Settlement Administration Expenses. [DE 730, pp. 4-5, ¶ 13(c)-(e)]. The 

Agreement before the Court would lower the threshold for the administrative and economically 

feasible second round payments to Settlement Class Members from $5.00 to $2.50 to provide a 

greater economic benefit to active Settlement Class Members. Plaintiff/Class representative, Phil 

Charvat, Class Counsel and the Cruise Lines all agree that this adjustment would be in the best 

interests of the Settlement Class.

While this Court rejected the Objectors’ objections, the reduction in the threshold of the 

second round of payments was not specifically addressed by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion

or the Court’s Final Order of Dismissal and Final Judgment [DE 727, 730], although the issue was 

raised at the fairness hearing. See DE 714, pp. 81-84, 102-103 attached as Exhibit 1. The parties 

agreed to this adjustment in the settlement process and respectfully request the Court to enter an 

indicative ruling that the Court would grant this adjustment if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 739 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:24350
3

remands the case because it would benefit the Settlement Class members.

The second component of the Agreement is a payment of $25,000 to counsel for objectors 

Shelton and Johnson, Jonathan Hilton, and $25,000 to counsel for Mark Dunlap, for fees, costs 

and expenses relating to the appeal (“Settlement”). The Settlement is a pool of funds comprised 

of contributions from Class Counsel and from the Cruise Lines. Class Counsel will pay its portion 

of the Settlement solely from the fee award granted to them by this Court and not from the class 

net settlement fund. The Cruise Lines’ Settlement payments are also separate from the class net 

settlement fund. The Settlement, therefore, will not result in reduction of any funds designated for 

Settlement Class Members. See Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The Agreement is, 

however, contingent upon an indicative ruling from this Court and subsequent dismissal of the 

Objectors’ appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal.

Class Counsel believes the Agreement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class 

because it provides additional funds to those Settlement Class Members who receive the first round 

of Net Settlement Funds. Moreover, this Agreement provides an economic benefit to the class and 

not solely an economic benefit to Objectors’ counsel. It is therefore a legitimate basis for 

Objectors’ counsel to seek fees, and given that the fees are proportionately lower than the 

anticipated benefit to the class, the payment to Objectors’ counsel reflected within this Agreement 

is the type that this Court should approve. And, although not the main consideration, resolving the 

appeal now would allow the class to receive their Net Settlement Fund payments now as opposed 

to six months to a year after an appeal is resolved, assuming no other appeals are taken.

The Cruise Lines are also in favor of lowering the administrative and economic feasibility 

dollar amount for the second round of payments so that more of the settlement funds will be 

received by active Settlement Class Members. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 739 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:24350
4

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request this Court to enter an indicative ruling that 

it would grant the relief requested in this Motion and for all other relief that the Court deems just 

and proper.

Dated: January 23, 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

Matthew P. McCue

THE LAW OFFICE OF 

MATTHEW P. MCCUE

1 South Avenue, Suite 3

Natick, MA 01760

Telephone: (508) 655-1415

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Matthew P. McCue

 Matthew P. McCue

Alexander H. Burke

Daniel J. Marovitch

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 729‐5288

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Alexander H. Burke

 Alexander H. Burke

Edward A. Broderick

Anthony I. Paronich

BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.

99 High St., Suite 304

Boston, MA 02110

Telephone: (617) 738-7080

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Edward A. Broderick

 Edward A. Broderick

Catherine J. MacIvor 

Florida Bar. No. 932711

FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2300 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel.: (305) 358-6555

Attorneys for Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. 

and NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.

By: /s/ Catherine J. MacIvor

 Catherine J. MacIvor

and 

Jeffrey S. Becker (ARDC #6282492)

Darren B. Watts (ARDC #6197441)

SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Tel: 312-321-9100

Attorneys for Carnival Corporation & PLC

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Becker

 Jeffrey S. Becker

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 739 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:24350
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We do hereby certify that on this 23 day of January, 2020, a copy of the foregoing to be 

served to all counsel of record via ECF, and to Elizabeth Valente, as agreed, at the e-mail address 

of bvalente@tsncorporate.com.

SERVICE LIST

Charvat v. Valente, et al., Case No. 12-cv-5746

Attorneys for Plaintiff Travel Services and Beth Valente

Alexander H. Burke Elizabeth Valente

Burke Law Offices, LLC TSN/RMG

155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020 bvalente@tsncorporate.com

Chicago, IL 60601 By e-mail service as agreed

312-729-5288

FAX: 312-729-5289 Attorney for Objectors 

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com Evan Shelton & Timothy Johnson

Jonathan Hilton (Ohio 0095742)

Matthew P. McCue (pro hac vice) 10400 Blacklick-Eastern Rd. NW

Law Offices of Matthew P. McCue Suite 110

1 South Ave., Third Floor Pickerington, OH 43147

Natick, MA 01760 614-992-2277

508-655-1415 FAX: 614-427-5557

FAX: 508-644-1415 jhilton@hiltonparker.com

mmccue@massattorneys.net

Attorney for Objector 

Edward A. Broderick (pro hac vice) Mark C. Dunlap

Broderick Law, P.C. W. Allen McDonald

125 Summer Street, Suite 1030 LACY, PRICE & WAGNER, P.C.

Boston, MA 02110 249 Peters Road – Suite 101

617-738-7080 Knoxville, TN 32923-4917

ted@broderick-law.com 865-246-0800

amcdonald@lpwpc.com

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 739 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:24350