Exhibit C 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:547
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

MISTY MURRAY AND SHAUN MURRAY, ) 

individually and on behalf of a class of ) 

similarly situated individuals, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) No. 12-cv-04789 

) 

v. ) 

) Hon. Sara L. Ellis 

BILL ME LATER, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MCMORROW 

I, MICHAEL J. McMORROW, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I am over the age of eighteen and am fully competent to make this declaration. I 

make this Declaration based upon personal knowledge unless otherwise indicated. 

2. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Illinois and in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and other federal district courts. I make 

this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. 

3. I am the principal of McMorrow Law, P.C., and I, along with Myles McGuire and 

Evan Meyers of McGuire Law, P.C., have been appointed as Class Counsel in this matter, 

representing Plaintiffs Misty Murray and Shaun Murray (“Plaintiffs”), and the Settlement Class. 

4. All capitalized terms in this Declaration have the same meaning set forth in the 

simultaneously filed Plaintiffs’ Motion & Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement. 

5. I have regularly engaged in major complex litigation on behalf of consumers, and 

have extensive experience in class action lawsuits that are similar in size and complexity to the 

present case. I have been appointed as class counsel in numerous consumer class actions. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:548
2

6. I have extensive experience in prosecuting consumer class actions involving the 

TCPA in particular. See, e.g., Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster (N.D. Cal. 2010); Lozano v. 

Twentieth Century Fox (N.D. Ill. 2011); Kramer v. Autobytel (N.D. Cal. 2011); Rojas v. Career 

Education Co. (N.D. Ill. 2012); and In re Jiffy Lube Spam Text Litigation, (S.D. Cal. 2012). 

7. Through the investigation, litigation, mediation, and settlement process, I have 

gained an intimate understanding of the instant litigation and believe the Settlement to more than 

exceed the “fair, adequate, and reasonable” standard required for the Court’s approval. 

8. In litigating this case, the other Class Counsel and I were required to conduct 

substantial investigation into the claims in this case, to engage in significant discovery relating to 

class certification issues and significant legal research regarding untested questions in the class 

certification context, including several depositions in Chicago and in Baltimore, to prepare for 

and attend two separate mediations, to draft a comprehensive settlement agreement, to prepare 

preliminary approval papers and accompanying exhibits, including the Class Notices and several 

declarations, and to prepare the instant final approval papers. I did all of this work on behalf of 

the Plaintiffs and the Class without compensation and requiring that other work be foregone. 

9. On January 28, 2014, I, along with other Counsel for the Parties, participated in a 

formal mediation with Hon. Edward A. Infante (ret.), former Chief Magistrate Judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California, at JAMS in San Francisco, CA. After a 

day-long mediation, the Parties were unable to reach an agreement. At that time, Judge Infante 

made a proposal of a negotiating range, which was accepted by both Parties. As a result, the 

Parties agreed to return to San Francisco for an additional day-long mediation on March 13, 

2014. The Parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case at the second mediation. 

10. Despite this agreement in principal, the Settlement Agreement was not finalized 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:549
3

until Class Counsel negotiated the specific terms of the Settlement Agreement with counsel for 

the Defendant in the months that followed, together with assistance and guidance from Judge 

Infante. Eventually, these discussions culminated in the Settlement Agreement. 

11. Only after the relief to the Class was agreed-upon and several drafts of settlement 

papers had been exchanged, did the Parties decide upon the amount of attorneys’ fees or 

incentive awards. 

12. Class Representatives Misty Murray and Shaun Murray brought this matter to the 

attention of Class Counsel, and remained vitally involved in this litigation from the outset. Their 

continued attentive involvement was critical to the ultimate successful resolution of this matter to 

the benefit of the Settlement Class. The Class Representatives showed a strong commitment to 

the Class and this action by assisting Class Counsel in answering lengthy discovery, sitting for 

depositions, and aiding in preparation for the mediations that resulted in this Settlement. I 

believe that, but for the participation of the Class Representatives, the substantial benefit to the 

Class available through the Settlement would not have resulted. 

13. Prior to the mediations, the Parties never discussed incentive awards of any type, 

and there was no pre-agreement with the Class Representatives concerning any award for being a 

class representative or bringing the suit. 

14. To my knowledge, which has been confirmed by Defendant’s counsel, Mark 

Blocker, no Attorney General has filed or otherwise indicated any objection to the Settlement or 

any aspect of it. 

15. After submitting the Settlement to this Court and receiving preliminary approval 

on July 24, 2014, the Parties and the Settlement Administrator began the process of effectuating 

the Notice Plan and responding to inquiries from Settlement Class Members. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:550
4

16. Records produced to me by the Settlement Administrator indicate that, as of 

October 31, 2014, 41,865 Claim Forms have been received by the Settlement Administrator. 

17. I have spoken with over 200 Settlement Class Members by phone in connection 

with the Settlement in this action since the Settlement Administrator distributed notice to the 

Settlement Class. None of the Settlement Class Members with whom I spoke indicated any 

dissatisfaction with the Settlement, and the overwhelming majority indicated approval of the 

Settlement and that they intended to file claims with the Settlement Administrator. In addition, 

no Settlement Class Members have objected to me, in writing or by phone, regarding the Fee 

Motion or the fees, expenses and Incentive Awards requested therein, in the month since I filed 

that Motion. 

18. Because of the complexity and novelty of the legal issues involved in this case, 

the considerable defenses that Defendant and its highly skilled counsel raised and promised to 

raise in the litigation, as well as Defendant Bill Me Later’s indication that absent a settlement it 

will continue pursuing these arguments and defenses, I believe that the Settlement Agreement 

provides a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class and is fair, reasonable and adequate. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed in Chicago, Illinois on November 6, 2014. 

By: /s/ Michael J. McMorrow 

 Michael J. McMorrow 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/06/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:551