Equifax Judge Orders 'Serial Objectors' to Post Appeal Bonds
U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash said the objectors' appeals "are not in the best interests of the class."
May 12, 2020 at 04:13 PM
5 minute read
The presiding judge who approved Equifax's data breach settlement has ordered six objectors to post bond while they pursue appeals of the $1.4 billion deal.
U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash of the Northern District of Georgia on Monday ordered each of six individuals he called "serial objectors" to individually post a $2,000 bond within the next 14 days.
The judge said he has already addressed the substance of each objection and found, "They each lacked merit, and in some instances, were made in bad faith." Thrash also defended the settlement agreement as the largest data breach settlement in history, saying it provides class members "an unprecedented package of benefits."
Thrash said the objectors' appeals could delay distribution of settlement benefits by a year. The class includes millions of consumers whose personal and financial data were compromised in a 2017 data breach at Atlanta-based Equifax.
Thrash's bond order names Ted Frank, the litigation director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute in Washington, D.C.; attorney Mikell West, of Corpus Christi; and Ohio lawyer George Cochran. Thrash also required bonds from Frank co-objector David Watkins and pro se litigators Christopher Andrews and Shiyang Huang.
Thrash said in his order that the objectors he cited "have unsuccessfully asserted many of the same or similar objections in other class action settlements."
He also held that their objections "are not in the best interests of the class, that there is no substantial likelihood their objections will be successful on appeal, and that the class would be best served by final resolution of their objections as soon as practicable so that class members can begin to benefit from the settlement."
West is represented by Atlanta attorney Jerry Froelich and Corpus Christi attorney Robert Clore, senior appellate counsel with the Bandas Law Firm. On Tuesday, Froelich said his client will post the bond. Clore couldn't be reached for comment.
Frank said he and Watkins already have jointly posted their bonds but will appeal Thrash's order.
Frank said Thrash's factual findings are "without basis" and contended that through his Center for Class Action Fairness, now part of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, he has "won hundreds of millions of dollars for class members" in other cases where he either has been or represented objectors.
Cochran couldn't be reached for comment.
Counsel for the class of 147 million consumers asked Thrash last month to require objectors who appealed the settlement to post $20,000 bonds as security for costs associated with the appeals. Co-lead class counsel Ken Canfield of Atlanta's Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles declined to comment on the order Tuesday.
Thrash said the courts traditionally presume that an objector is financially able to post an appeal bond and that the burden is on objectors to present "sufficient financial information" to prove a bond is beyond their means.
Thrash said West is represented by counsel, "who presumably have agreed to advance litigation expenses on his behalf."
"Most of the other objectors have already been identified by this Court as serial objectors, who have extorted money from counsel in prior class actions to withdraw their objections, and thus should not be heard now to claim they cannot afford to put up a bond to pursue their appeals," the judge added.
Thrash was particularly caustic in addressing Andrews' tactics, which he said included "wild and outrageous accusations."
"Andrews has been cited for repeatedly filing frivolous objections and related motions; sanctioned for engaging in vexatious and bad faith litigation; arrested and held in contempt for violating a court order," Thrash wrote. "One of his litigation tactics is to make outrageous and utterly unsubstantiated charges of fraud, collusion, and unethical conduct regarding class counsel and the courts evaluating the fairness of class action settlements to which he has objected."
In a separate May 7 order, Thrash denied Andrews' motion to waive all costs of his appeal, saying Andrews "is acting maliciously."
"Given Mr. Andrews' propensity to make outrageously false statements in the pleadings filed in this Court, the Court does not accept his claim that his monthly expenses exactly equal his monthly income," the judge wrote.
Thrash also castigated Andrews for "making repetitive scandalous allegations in this case, his threats of harm to class counsel's ability to litigate future class action cases free of baseless allegations of fraud, and his history of engaging in similar behavior when objecting to other settlements."
Andrews claimed Tuesday that Thrash has treated his objection "like it was invisible" and that labeling him a serial objector is "propaganda."
Andrews also contended that class counsel and the court "are scared of a reversal." He cited cases in two other circuits where he said he has appeals pending "which I will win."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
'Paragraph V Displaced Lathrop': High Court Mulls Sovereign Immunity Waiver Disputes
7 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250