A Chicago federal judge has dismissed most of a racketeering lawsuit against the Bandas Law Firm, but not without first blasting that firm's reputation as one of the country's most active objectors to class action settlements.

Ruling Tuesday in a proposed class action that Chicago-based plaintiffs firm Edelson PC brought in December 2016 against Texas-based Bandas, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer of the Northern District of Illinois wrote that Bandas' settlement objections may be in “bad faith” and out-of-step with legal ethics standards. But, the judge concluded, the firm's actions didn't amount to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as Edelson had alleged.

Pallmeyer dismissed claims under RICO and ordered Edelson to explain why she, as a federal judge, would have jurisdiction over the only claims remaining, which fall under state law.

“As vexing as the court finds the behavior of defendants and other 'serial objectors,' the court is unable to find that the alleged conduct constitutes racketeering activity,” the judge wrote.

Edelson's suit took aim at Bandas, its managing partner Christopher Bandas and two other lawyers—Jeffrey Thut of Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd. and solo practitioner Darrell Palmer—who allegedly helped Bandas. Edelson referred to them as “extortionists” who look to make a profit off legitimate work done by other class action lawyers. The suit accused Bandas and the others of filing frivolous settlement objections and then threatening to press those objections through an appeal unless the lead plaintiffs lawyers pay a portion of their legal fees from the settlement.

Edelson had a front-row view of this alleged scheme, the suit said, having agreed to pay $225,000 to get Bandas to drop an objection to one of its settlements. Edelson said it capitulated to Bandas' demand—which arose out of a $13.8 million settlement in a case that Edelson brought against publisher Gannett Co. Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act—in order to avoid delaying payments to members of the Gannett class, and because that sort of delay would make it harder for Edelson to collect its own fees.

While Pallmeyer granted most of Bandas' motion to dismiss, the judge also wrote that her run-ins with Bandas and Thut over the years lent credence to the “troubling allegations” in Edelson's complaint. Also, lending credibility to the claims are rulings from other judges who “have condemned Bandas' practices,” Pallmeyer wrote.

“The alleged conduct appears to be in bad faith, to have no genuine social value, and to be inconsistent with the ethical standards of the legal profession,” the judge wrote. “Gaming the rules of the legal system solely for personal self-enrichment wastes the time and money of courts and attorneys, wrests funds away from deserving litigants, and tarnishes the public's view of the legal process.”

Although she ultimately found against the racketeering claims, the judge also spent a portion of her opinion discussing other approaches that Edelson and others might pursue to thwart serial objectors.

“The court is hopeful that, if there is ultimately no remedy for plaintiff in this case, courts presiding over class actions will craft effective means to deter the alleged behavior of Bandas, Palmer, and other attorneys who seek private gain at the expense of deserving class members,” Pallmeyer wrote.

Edelson founder Jay Edelson said in an email that he appreciated Pallmeyer's tough words regarding Bandas, adding that his firm will take a closer look at the ruling before deciding whether to mount an appeal in federal court or, perhaps, bring a similar case in state court.

“We were gratified by many parts of the court's decision, including its clear condemnation of the 'objector blackmail' practice alleged in our complaint and the court's discussion of its own experience with Mr. Bandas,” said Edelson. “We are strongly committed to this case and will continue to pursue it. In terms of whether the case continues on in state court, in federal district court, through an appeal, or through other avenues, we are reviewing the decision carefully and are weighing our options.”

Christopher Bandas said in an email he was happy with the court's ruling. One of the co-defendants in the case, Palmer, said the ruling vindicated his practices. The Bandas firm was defended in the case by Freeborn & Peters.

“I am grateful for the court's written decision, which was entirely correct in dismissing the baseless RICO claims,” said Bandas. “There were no criminal activities that were conducted at any time as the court correctly determined. We look forward to contesting the remaining state law claims in court, and we fully expect to be vindicated.”