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 EVAN M. MEYERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 

APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

I, Evan M. Meyers, hereby aver, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that I have 

personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein unless otherwise indicated, and would 

testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

1. I am an adult over the age of 18 and a resident of the State of Illinois. I 

am licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois and in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois. I am one of the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs 

in this matter and have been appointed Class Counsel by this Court. I am fully competent 

to make this Declaration and make such Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards.

2. I am an attorney with the law firm McGuire Law, P.C. and I, along with 

Myles McGuire of McGuire Law, P.C. and Michael J. McMorrow or McMorrow Law, 

P.C., have been appointed as Class Counsel in this matter representing Plaintiffs Misty 

Murray and Shaun Murray and the Settlement Class.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:360
2

3. The attorneys of McGuire Law, P.C. have regularly engaged in complex 

litigation on behalf of consumers and have extensive experience in class action lawsuits 

similar in size and complexity to the instant case. Myles McGuire and I have been 

appointed as class counsel in numerous complex consumer class actions. See, e.g,

McFerren et al v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (Sup. Ct. Fulton County, Ga. 2008); Gray et al v. 

Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc. et al., (S.D. Fla. 2008); Gresham et al v. Keppler & 

Associates, LLC et al., (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles County, Cal. 2008); Sims et al v. Cellco 

Partnership et al., (N.D. Cal. 2009); Van Dyke et al v. Media Breakaway, LLC et al., 

(S.D. Fla. 2009); Paluzzi, et al. v. mBlox, Inc., et al., (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill. 2009);

Valdez et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2009); Parone et al v. m-Qube, Inc.

et al., (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill. 2010); Williams et al v. Motricity, Inc. et al., (Cir. Ct. 

Cook County, Ill. 2011); Walker et al v. OpenMarket, Inc. et al., (Cir. Ct. Cook County, 

Ill. 2011); Schulken at al v. Washington Mutual Bank, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2011); In re 

Citibank HELOC Reduction Litigation (N.D. Cal 2012).

4. The attorneys of McGuire Law, P.C. have intimate knowledge of the law 

in the field of telecommunications and cellular telephone technology and have been 

pioneers in the field of consumer class actions involving unauthorized telephone calls 

under the TCPA. Myles McGuire and I have extensive experience in prosecuting 

consumer class actions involving the TCPA and we and/or our firms have served as class 

counsel in a number of precedent-setting TCPA cases. See, e.g., Shen et al v. Distributive 

Networks, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2007); Weinstein et al v. The Timberland Co., et al. (N.D. Ill. 

2008); Satterfield et al v. Simon & Schuster (N.D. Cal. 2010); Espinal et al v. Burger 

King Corporation et al., (S.D. Fla. 2010); Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox, (N.D. Ill. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:361
3

2011); Kramer et al v. Autobytel et al., (N.D. Cal. 2011); Rojas et al v. Career Education 

Co. (N.D. Ill. 2012); Ellison et al v. Steven Madden, Ltd. (C.D. Cal. 2013); Robles et al v. 

Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. et al., (N.D. Cal. 2013); Pimental et al v. Google, Inc. et 

al., (N.D. Cal. 2013); In re Jiffy Lube Spam Text Litigation (S.D. Cal. 2013); Lee et al v. 

Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. et al., (N.D. Cal. 2013); Gomez et al v. Campbell-Ewald Co.

(C.D. Cal. 2014).

5. I have twelve years of extensive experience in complex commercial 

litigation and have regularly litigated cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts 

across the nation, including the Northern District of Illinois. Prior to being a partner with 

McGuire Law, P.C., I was Senior Counsel at a class action litigation boutique from 2009 

through 2012; prior to that, I was an associate at a large, national full-service law firm

from 2002 to 2009.

6. I received my B.A. from the University of Michigan—Ann Arbor, and I

graduated from the University of Illinois College of Law in 2002. My colleague, Myles 

McGuire, graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2000.

Class Counsel’s Contribution to the Case

7. From the outset of this case, the attorneys of McGuire Law, P.C.

anticipated spending hundreds, if not thousands, of hours litigating the claims in this 

matter with no guarantee of success. Class Counsel understood that prosecution of this 

case would require that other work be foregone, that there was significant uncertainty 

surrounding the applicable legal and factual issues, particularly involving a mass robocall 

service operated by a large corporation as part of its nationwide business, and that there 

would be significant opposition from a large Defendant with substantial resources.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:362
4

8. Throughout the litigation Defendant and its counsel mounted a vigorous 

opposition, consistently arguing that Plaintiffs would not be able to certify a damages 

class and contesting whether Defendant would be liable under the TCPA to Plaintiff and 

to many Settlement Class Members. Had this case not settled, Defendant undoubtedly 

would have contested class certification, as well as the underlying factual allegations of 

the case, in the District Court and potentially in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

9. Analysis of novel issues, significant investigation and discovery involving 

complex communications technology and the review and analysis of millions of records, 

and careful and extended negotiation of the final Settlement Agreement were required to 

ensure a substantial benefit to the class. 

10. In addition to Publication Notice, Direct Notice of this Settlement was 

provided by First-Class Mail to approximately 285,000 consumers, and notice was 

provided by email to an additional approximately 27,000 consumers. As of the date of 

this Declaration, approximately 27,555 Claim Forms have been received by the 

Settlement Administrator. There have only been 15 requested exclusions.

11. The work that the attorneys of McGuire Law, P.C. have committed to this 

case has been substantial. Among other things, the attorneys of McGuire Law, P.C.:

a. Conducted extensive pre-suit investigation, including identification and 

early legal analysis of the allegations at issue in this case;

b. Drafted and filed Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint;

c. Drafted and filed a Motion for Class Certification or, Alternatively, for 

Deferred Ruling Pending Discovery, a procedure then considered untested 

in the immediate post-Damasco landscape.

d. Communicated early and often with Defendant’s counsel, so as to open 

and maintain a dialogue regarding the parties’ respective views of the 

relevant facts, law, and overall direction of the litigation.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:363
5

e. Communicated at length with Defendant’s counsel about withdrawal of 

Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, including negotiation about the 

avoidance of client “pick-offs.”

f. Engaged in substantial written discovery, including drafting two rounds of 

documents requests and two rounds of interrogatories, and responding to

Defendant’s document requests and interrogatories.

g. Reviewed and analyzed thousands of pages of data produced by 

Defendant, including data for millions of telephone calls over multiple 

years;

h. Engaged expert witness to analyze data produced in discovery, and 

engaged in many written and telephonic conversations with the retained 

expert.

i. Had extensive communications with Defendant’s counsel about discovery 

deficiencies, including the drafting of multiple discovery deficiency letters 

and two motions to compel.

j. Conducted three depositions, which required travel, and defended the 

depositions of both Class Representatives.

k. Attended fourteen (14) Court hearings.

l. Drafted a comprehensive mediation statement and attended two full-day 

mediation session at JAMS in San Francisco with the Hon. Edward Infante 

(Ret.);

m. Engaged in continued communication, negotiations, and the exchange of 

settlement drafts with Defendant’s counsel, which resulted in the drafting 

and execution of the finalized Settlement Agreement and related 

documents, including class notice and claim form documents;

n. Engaged in multiple telephone and email communications with the 

Settlement Administrator about class notice, settlement website, 

publication strategy, and claim submission.

o. Successfully briefed and moved for preliminary approval of the 

Settlement; and

p. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, effectuated notice to class 

members and responded to Class Member inquiries.

12. Our firm’s billable rates and the hours of each person who worked on 

these matters are incorporated in the chart below. In my opinion, the expenditure of time 

by attorneys and staff of McGuire Law, P.C. was reasonable and necessary. Mr. 

McGuire and I were aware of the need to do all of the work necessary to prosecute this 

action to the best of our ability. At the same time, by taking this case on a contingency 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:364
6

basis and not being paid by the hour, we all had an incentive to conduct our efforts 

efficiently and to avoid duplicative or unnecessary work. 

13. Our firm’s practice generally, which was followed in this case, is to use a 

collaborative effort – both among ourselves and with other Plaintiffs’ counsel – in the 

drafting of court filings, exhibits, discovery-related documents, and other important 

documents. Mr. McGuire, Mr. McMorrow, and I also worked very closely and 

collaboratively throughout this action, including with respect to litigation and settlement 

strategy, document and data review, and deposition preparation. Mr. McGuire, Mr. 

McMorrow and I all made a conscious effort to minimize the duplication of work.

14. I believe that McGuire Law, P.C. assumed a significant risk of nonpayment in initiating and prosecuting this case given the novelty of legal issues involved, 

the breadth of the telephone calls at issue, the complexity of the communications 

processes at issue, and the vigorous and nuanced defenses that Defendant and its highly 

skilled counsel raised throughout the litigation and were prepared to further raise had this 

case proceeded. My colleagues and I would not have brought this action absent the 

prospect of obtaining a percentage of the fund or a multiplier on their actual fees 

expended to account for the risk inherent in this type of class action. 

15. Prior to the initiation of this litigation, the Class Representatives executed 

a fee agreement with my firm that was contingent in nature. The Class Representatives 

agreed ex ante that 33% of any settlement fund, plus reimbursement of all costs and 

expenses, would represent a fair award of attorneys’ fees from a fund recovered for the 

class. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:365
7

16. As is the general practice of most law firms, the attorneys of McGuire 

Law, P.C., as well as its law clerks, were responsible for keeping track of their own 

billable time, and did so with detailed daily time entries.

17. Based on my experience doing both large firm defense work and 

plaintiffs’ class action work and my knowledge of the billing rates of other firms that 

pursue complex consumer class action litigation, I believe that the billing rates of the 

attorneys at McGuire Law, P.C. properly correlate to their respective experience, are 

reasonable in the Chicago legal market, and approximate the average rates of attorneys 

with similar backgrounds and experience. Additionally, numerous federal courts have 

approved our prevailing billing rates in substantially similar litigation under the TCPA. 

See, e.g,, Rojas et al v. Career Education Co. (N.D. Ill. 2012); Robles et al v. Lucky 

Brand Dungarees, Inc. et al., (N.D. Cal. 2013); In re Jiffy Lube Spam Text Litigation

(S.D. Cal. 2013).

18. The rates listed below are the same rates assessed to hourly clients. The 

hours and rates of the McGuire Law, P.C. attorneys are provided below and represent the 

total work our firm has undertaken since the inception of this litigation, including case 

investigation, research, briefing, discovery and data analysis, negotiation, and settlement. 

This chart does not include the time of other individuals, including associates and clerks,

who worked on this case when the attorneys of McGuire Law, P.C. were associated with

a different law firm at the outset of this case. Such additional otherwise-billable time is 

not included as part of Class Counsel’s lodestar. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:366
8

ATTORNEY

(Position)

HOURS HOURLY 

RATE

TOTAL

Myles McGuire

(Partner)

386.8 $650 $251,420.00

Evan M. Meyers

(Partner)

979.3 $595 $582,683.50

Law Clerk 176.6 $220 $38,852.00

Total Lodestar $872,955.50

19. Based on my experience, I anticipate that our firm will expend an 

additional $40,000-$70,000 in attorney time over the pendency of this action relating to 

briefing and filing a motion for final approval of the Settlement, attending the final 

approval hearing, responding to Class Members’ inquiries regarding the Settlement and 

advising them how to proceed, responding to objectors, and remaining involved with the 

Settlement through implementation.

20. In addition to attorney time, McGuire Law, P.C. has expended $78,728.06 

in reimbursable expenses, including filing fees, expert fees, consulting fees, mediation 

fees, travel, lodging, deposition transcripts, copying, and case administration. Every 

effort was made to keep these expenses at a minimum. Being responsible for advancing 

all expenses, Class Counsel had a strong incentive not to expend any funds unnecessarily.

Class Representatives

21. From the onset, each of the Class Representatives has been critically 

involved in this litigation and has remained committed to the Class, has willingly 

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:367
9

contributed his/her own time and expended efforts toward this litigation, and is deserving 

of the proposed Incentive Award. The Class Representatives were instrumental is 

assisting Class Counsel’s investigation at the outset of this case and have remained fully 

involved in its prosecution. Moreover, the Class Representatives received scores of 

automated calls from Defendant and chose to proceed with their claims on behalf of a 

class, despite having financial incentive to pursue their claims on an individual basis, and 

have succeeded in obtaining nonmonetary as well as financial relief on behalf of a 

nationwide class.

22. The Class Representatives were consistently available to consult with 

Class Counsel in person, over the phone, and by email and did so on numerous occasions. 

The Class Representatives were each deposed by Defendant. The Class Representatives 

reviewed and responded to discovery requests, reviewed pleadings and settlement 

documents, and produced documents and information, committing numerous hours of 

time and stress for the benefit of the class.

23. Were it not for their efforts and contributions to the litigation by assisting 

Class Counsel with their investigation and filing of this suit, their participation in 

responding to the Defendants’ discovery and agreeing to be deposed, and their 

monitoring of the case throughout its litigation, the substantial benefit to the class 

afforded under this Settlement Agreement would not have resulted. 

24. The Class Representatives have not received any payments in this matter, 

were never promised any payments, and were not promised that they would receive an 

award of any kind in this litigation. Rather, the requested Incentive Award seeks only to 

compensate the Class Representatives for their time, effort, and contributions to this case.

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:368
10

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 6, 2014 in Deerfield, Illinois.

/s/ Evan M. Meyers

Evan M. Meyers

Case: 1:12-cv-04789 Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/06/14 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:369