Farnham, Kristie v. Caribou Coffee Company

Filing 108

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Order, Opinion and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 106 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Order, # 3 Opinion, # 4 Docket Sheet) (lak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KRISTIE FARNHAM, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,

v.

Plaintiff,

CARIBOU COFFE COMPANY, INC.,

ORDER
16-cv-295-wmc

Defendant.
On Monday November 27, 2017, the court held a hearing on the fairness of the
proposed final settlement agreement, at which counsel for the class, the defendant, and
objector Susan Stradtmann appeared. In addition to the requests for final approval and
attorneys’ fees (dkt. ##88, 61), the court considered four objections from class members
(dkt. ##59, 60, 66, 68) and a motion by class counsel to (1) prohibit unauthorized
communications and (2) disqualify the Bandas Law Firm from its representation of
Stradtmann (the “motion to prohibit and disqualify”) (dkt. #69). The court also had
requests from Stradtmann (1) to strike plaintiff’s reply brief or to file a sur-reply on the
motion to prohibit and disqualify (dkt. #92) and (2) for permission to file an opposition
to plaintiff’s motion for final approval (dkt. #94).
For the reasons elaborated during the hearing and as will be set forth in more detail
in the court’s written opinion, IT IS ORDERED that:
1) The motion for final approval of the settlement (dkt. #88) is GRANTED
because the court finds the proposed final settlement to be fair, reasonable and
adequate.

2) The Hansen, Johnson and Guidarelli objections (dkt. ##59, 60, 68) are
rejected for lack of merit under current law. Class counsel shall inform these
objectors that: (a) the court considered their objections; (b) notwithstanding
their possible merit as a matter of policy, the court determined that the claims
asserted by plaintiff in this case are valid under the TCPA and current case
law; and (c) the court approved the settlement. Counsel must also inform
them of their options regarding payment for their filed claims.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and service award (dkt. #61) is
GRANTED IN PART AND RESERVED IN PART. The court finds a $10,000
incentive award for the named plaintiff to be reasonable and therefore
approves it. The request for attorneys’ fees will be addressed in a later opinion
and order. The parties are instructed to work with the claims administrator to
determine a final, total cost of administration and advise the court accordingly.
4) Stradtmann’s request to strike plaintiff’s reply on the motion to prohibit and
disqualify her law firm or to file a sur-reply (dkt. #92) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Stradtmann’s request to strike is DENIED, while
her request to file a sur-reply is GRANTED.
5) Plaintiff’s motion to prohibit and disqualify the Bandas Law Firm (dkt. #69) is
DENIED.
6) Stradtmann’s request to file an opposition to plaintiff’s request for final
approval (dkt. #94) is DENIED. Additionally, Stradtmann’s objections (dkt.
#66) are rejected for lack of merit.
Entered this 27th day of November, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2