ASHACK v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., 1:15-cv-01069

Plaintiff Rebecca Ashack sued Caliber Home Loans under the TCPA, alleging automated calls to cellular phones; she sought class relief on behalf of similarly situated persons.
Parties reached a $2,895,000 class settlement after discovery and private mediation; Court preliminarily approved the settlement and notice plan.
The settlement fund covers claims for calls to cellular phones from July 9, 2011 forward; notices were mailed and administered to the class.
One objection was filed by David Tharp asserting far greater per-call damages; testimony revealed many calls to Tharp were to a landline, not a cellular phone.
Court concluded Tharp’s objection was moot as landline calls fall outside the TCPA claims released by the settlement, and the parties did not contest that interpretation.
Court granted final approval of the settlement, awarded $783,000 in attorneys’ fees, $29,060.73 in costs, and a $4,500 service award to Ashack; case dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Tharp’s objections to the settlement valid given his alleged calls?	Tharp argued he suffered extensive TCPA violations and that the settlement paid him only a small share.	Caliber and the settlement address only cellular-phone TCPA claims; many of Tharp’s calls were to a landline.	Overruled as moot: Tharp’s landline claims are not released by this TCPA class settlement and may be pursued separately.
Was the settlement procedurally and substantively fair under Rule 23(e)?	Ashack argued the settlement was a reasonable compromise after discovery and mediation.	Caliber supported the negotiated settlement terms reached at arm’s length.	Approved: Court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Are requested attorneys’ fees reasonable under Seventh Circuit guidance?	Plaintiff sought fees equating to ~30.39% of fee-plus-class-recovery ratio, relying on market norms for TCPA actions.	Defendant did not oppose the fee request as part of the unopposed final approval.	Granted: Court applied Redman ratio (fee/(fee+class recovery)) and found 30.39% reasonable.
Is the requested service award for the class representative appropriate?	Ashack sought $4,500 for her participation in discovery, deposition, and settlement.	No opposition noted.	Granted: $4,500 deemed reasonable given Ashack’s active participation.

Wong v. Accretive Health, Inc., 773 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2014) (court acts as fiduciary for class when evaluating settlement fairness)
Redman v. RadioShack, 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (endorsing fee-assessment ratio of fee to fee plus class recovery)
Amadeck v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (discussing market-rate percentages for attorneys’ fees in TCPA class actions)
Cook v. Neidert, 142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) (upholding reasonableness of named-plaintiff service awards)