Jeffrey Wilens of Lakeshore Law Center has a history of using friends and family as plaintiffs /objectors in his “Class Action business” focusing on tricky ways to make money, not on justice. Jeffrey Wilens is married to Theresa Wilens, they have three daughters named Amanda Wilens, Alexis Wilens and Macy Wilens. Phyllis Wilens is his mother and his brother is Gary Wilens. See below the proof how he uses his Mother, Brother & Wife in several class action cases of what appears to be frivolous cases where he appears to demonstrates a conduct which is typical for Barratry, or Champerty and Maintenance which are offenses against Public Justice.
Jeffrey Wilens his own wife Theresa Wilens involved in 5 different cases.
1.1 Citygroup 2003 “JONES v. CITIGROUP” class action and lost
1.2 started as Wilens v. Bank One Corporation
http://www.arnoldporter.com/experience.cfm?action=view&id=122 case summery 2005
Bank One Corporation v. Theresa Wilens – Also Jeffrey Wilens lost when Bank One counter suit
1.3 Theresa Wilens v. Rudy Exelrod & Zieff, Llp Et 2003 – See the docket of the case
1.4 cv-00623 890 2001 Theresa Wilens v. Tristar Enterprises, et al
1.5 cv-00513 430 2002 Theresa Wilens v. The May Dept Stores, et al
2. Jeffrey Wilens of Lakeshore Law Center represented his mother, Phyllis Wilens in another class action objection and Jeffrey Wilens’s objections were found completely without merit. The case “Vlaho Miletak, et al v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al” Case Number: 12-16739
See Docket and filings of Jeffrey Wilens and his mother Phyllis Wilens ”objections”
3. Jeffrey Wilens of Lakeshore Law Center uses his own brother Gary Wilens as an objector in NETFLIX PRIVACY LITIGATION Case No. 5:11-cv-00379-EJD . Jeffrey Wilens interfere in the settlement for the purpose of harassment and extorting money. In pleadings filled in this case Jeffrey Wilens was accused in making threats and “hold the settlement hostage”. “His decision to represent a family member suggests that, at the time he first with Class Counsel, he did not have a client despite his representations to the contrary” “Jeffrey Wilens has a long history of using improper tactics to file meritless objections on behalf of family members.” - In Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus, Jeffrey Wilens “was sanctioned for improperly soliciting class members to opt-out of the settlement”
The content belw comes from court filings about Jeffrey Wilens and his brother Gary Wilens malicious intervention as an “objector” in the NetFlix Class Action lawsuit Case No. 5:11-cv-00379.
Here is the original court filled Declaration by Jay Edelson Esq. about Jeffrey Wilens misconduct including all the exhibits from the source at gov-us-courts: Read paragraph 29-36
“Gary Wilens’ objection (Dkt. 194) is entirely baseless and was preceded by attorney misconduct.”
“Objector Gary Wilens brings his objection through his attorney and family member Jeffrey Wilens, 51 and presents no arguments that militate against final approval Attorney Jeffrey Wilens has a long history of using improper tactics to file meritless objections on behalf of family members. For example, in 2009, Wilens’s co-counsel in another class action objection (which raised many of the same erroneous objections Wilens raises here), was sanctioned for improperly soliciting class members to opt-out of the settlement. See Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus., Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1447, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 734, 739 (2009). The award of monetary sanctions against Wilens’s co-counsel was reversed, but the appellate court upheld the lower court’s ruling prohibiting Wilens’s co-counsel from contacting any other class members. Id. Likewise, earlier this year, Wilens represented his mother in another class action objection, and the Northern District Court found his objections so completely without merit improperly attempted to leverage the threat of an objection to obtain confidential discovery (and apparently misrepresented on whose behalf he was seeking that information), (see Edelson Decl. ¶¶ 29–36), Wilens filed an objection making meritless demands for confidential information, and contending that the Settlement should be thrown out either because the case is worth more than the relief obtained, or because it is frivolous. Each of Wilens’s objections fails to withstand even the lowest level of scrutiny.” Jay Edelson Esq. Declaration also here See paragraph 29-36