Vess A. Miller

Meet Vess

Vess helps people and businesses that have been victimized or harmed by a practice, scam, or event that has also affected hundreds or thousands of other people. This is accomplished through a class action, where one person or a few people step forward to sue on behalf of everyone who has been harmed. A class action is often the most efficient means of suing when a business has a routine practice and a class action allows people who otherwise would not have the time or resources to each sue individually to nonetheless recover for wrongs.

Class action cases lead by Vess have involved suing payday lenders, banks, corporations, and individuals whose actions have harmed a large group of people in a similar way.

Vess has unique experience defeating attempts by businesses to force consumers into individual arbitrations that rob consumers of the ability to bring a class action in court to hold a business accountable to all of its customers. He has been successful in trial and appellate courts across the country in beating back arbitration motions and securing the rights of his clients to be heard in court.

Practice Areas

• Class Action
• Appellate Law

Education

J.D., cum laude, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 2006

• Articles Editor, Indiana Law Journal
• Semi-finalist, Sherman Minton Moot Court Competition

B.S., Computer Science, Indiana University, 2003

Awards

Best Lawyers, Woodward/White Inc., Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions- Plaintiffs 2021

Indiana Super Lawyers Rising Star, Thomson Reuters 2010-2021

Indiana Super Lawyers, Thomson Reuters 2023-2025

Leadership in Law Up & Coming Lawyer– Indiana Lawyer Newspaper 2010

Professional & Bar Association Memberships

Indiana Bar Association

American Association for Justice (AAJ)

Jurisdictions Admitted To Practice

• Indiana, 2006
• California, 2011
• United States Supreme Court, 2012
• United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2013
• United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2024
• United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 2006
• United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, 2006
• United States Court of Federal Claims, 2010
• United States District Court, Northern District of California, 2013
• United States District Court, Central District of California, 2013
• United States District Court, District of Colorado, 2014
• United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2017
• United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2018
• United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2018
• United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2018
• United States District Court, Western District of New York, 2018
• United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 2021
• United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2025

Featured Cases And Matters

Merritt Island Woodwerx, LLC v. SpaceCoast Credit Union, 137 F.4th 1268 (11th Cir. 2025)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. Vess defeated the motion in the district court by arguing that the credit union had waived any right to arbitration by not registering its arbitration clause with the arbitration forum. Vess argued the appeal to a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which agreed with the customers and affirmed, meaning the customers will have the ability to have their case heard in court and to seek class certification.

Ransom v. VyStar Credit Union, No.3:23-cv-461-TJC-PCB, 2025 WL 323311 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2025)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. After a bench trial, the federal district court ruled for Vess’s clients finding the credit union failed to prove an agreement to arbitrate existed. The ruling clears the way for the customers to have their overdraft fee claims heard as a potential class action in court, rather than only in an individual arbitration.

Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Baird, 400 So. 3d643 (Fla. Ct. App. 2024), reh’g denied (Jan. 15, 2025)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. Vess defeated the motion at the trial court. On appeal, the Florida Court of Appeals Court agreed that the customers could have their day in court because the credit union failed to prove an enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

Teachers Credit Union v. Cripe, 248 N.E.3d 1230(Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied, 257 N.E. 3d 776 (Ind. 2025)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with Vess’s clients that the credit union did not have the authority to unilaterally add arbitration terms to the parties’ agreement. The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed as a class action in court.

Herbert v. OceanFirst Bank, No. OCN-L-001571-24(N.J. Super. Ct. May 13, 2025)
‍Vess represents bank customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The bank moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the parties’ original agreement required any amendments to be signed by both parties, but the customers had never signed any amendment to add arbitration.

Smith v. Founders Federal Credit Union, No.2023-CP-39-01156 (S.C. C.P. May 8, 2025)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, based on a recent South Carolina Supreme Court decision that holds additions of new terms, such as arbitration terms, through a notice and opt-out scheme are not valid. The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed as a class action in court.

Wiggins v. Citizens National Bank of Texas, No.DC-24-20768 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Mar. 20, 2025)
‍Vess represents bank customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, based on Texas Supreme Court precedent that certain “amendments” clauses may render an arbitration agreement illusory under Texas law. The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed as a class action in court.

Knisley v. Equity Bank, 553 P.3d 982 (Kan. Ct.App. 2024)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and the Kansas Court of Appeals agreed with Vess’s clients that the credit union did not have the authority to unilaterally add arbitration terms to the parties’ agreement. The case ultimately settled, returning money to thousands of Kansas customers.

Land v. IU Credit Union, 218 N.E.3d 1282 (Ind.2023), aff’d on reh’g, 226 N.E.3d 194 (2024).
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed. The Indiana Supreme Court then heard the case and ruled in favor of Vess’s clients that the credit union failed to prove the customers agreed to the addition of arbitration terms to the parties’ original agreement. The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed as a class action in court.

Decker v. Star Financial Group, Inc., 204 N.E.3d918 (Ind. 2023)
‍Vess represented bank customers who alleged they were charged improper overdraft fees. The bank moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed. The Indiana Supreme Court then heard the case and ruled in favor of Vess’s clients that the bank did not have the authority to unilaterally add arbitration terms to the parties’ agreement. The case ultimately settled, returning money to thousands of Indiana customers.

Pruett v. WESTconsin Credit Union, 998 N.W.2d 529(Wisc. Ct. App. 2023)
‍Vess represents credit union customers who allege they were charged improper overdraft fees. The credit union moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed and ruled in favor of Vess’s clients that the credit union failed to prove the customers agreed to the addition of arbitration terms to the parties’ original agreement where the ability to “opt out” was unclear given language that the customer was required to do so within two dates “whichever is sooner.” The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed as a class action in court.

‍Dubinski v. Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company, No. 1:14-cv-00551-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind. 2014)
‍Vess was appointed Class Counsel to represent a class of Indiana residents against Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company alleging that Sentry failed to pay auto insurance premium refunds that the company promised to safe drivers under its Payback insurance policies.

Moss v. Indiana Department of Child Services, No. 46D02-1406-PL-1025 (LaPorte Super. Ct. 2014)
‍Vess represented families who adopted special needs kids out of the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) foster care system and who alleged that DCS failed to pay them the adoption subsidy it promised to help care for these special needs children. DCS settled for $15.1 million to cover claims of over 1,800 special needs kids whose subsidies were not paid between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014.

Landes v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 49C01-1103-PL-010470 (Marion Cir. Ct. 2014)
‍Vess represented a class of over 1,500 Indiana victims who alleged they were sold inappropriate estate planning documents prepared by a “trust mill” that engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Indiana. Settlement funds were mailed directly to victims.

Raab v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, No. 49D12-1303-PL-008769 (Marion Super. Ct. 2013)
‍Vess represented Indiana drivers who had been overcharged by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles for driver’s licenses. The case settled for $30 million in credits and refund checks to over 4 million drivers in amounts equal to the agreed overcharges.

Geneva-Roth Ventures, Inc. v. Edwards, 956 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh’g denied, trans. denied, 969 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. 2012), & cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 650 (2012). And Apex 1 Processing, Inc. v. Edwards, 962 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied, 969 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. 2012), & cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 650 (2012).
‍Vess represents the plaintiff in two class actions on behalf of Indiana residents who received payday loans from internet lenders. These loans contained interests rates of over 1,000% APR, and the lawsuit alleges that the loans’ interest rates and other provisions violate Indiana’s Small Loans Act and Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. Both of the lenders tried to force the case into individual arbitration so that they would not be held accountable to the many Indiana residents they have allegedly harmed. The trial court, however, accepted Vess’s arguments that the case go forward in court where all of the victims can possibly get relief. The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed, too, in opinions you can read here and here. The lenders then asked the Indiana Supreme Court to hear a further appeal and after it declined, the lenders tried to have the case appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which also declined the lenders’ request. In 2013, Geneva-Roth Ventures, Inc. settled, and the trial court granted preliminary approval to a cash settlement that will return money to thousands of Hoosiers and cancel millions of dollars more in outstanding loans. The case against Apex 1 Processing, Inc. has not settled, and trial is set for 2014.

Goldberg v. Farno, 953 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
‍Vess represented the plaintiff in a class action on behalf of Indiana residents who had prepaid for cemetery goods and services and whose money was looted from trusts designed to ensure the goods could be purchased and provided at death. The trial court approved a class-action settlement that put millions of dollars back into the trusts, and one of the non-settling defendants appealed. In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that a non-settling defendant has no standing to appeal a settlement unless he can show “plain legal prejudice” to his rights, which is more than an injury-in-fact. You can read the opinion here.

Goldberg v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., 35 So.3d 905 (Fla. 2010).
‍Vess represented the plaintiff in a class action on behalf of Florida homeowners seeking to recover “document preparation fees” that mortgage lenders had charged for preparing mortgages and deeds through employees who were not licensed attorneys. The case was argued all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. You can read the briefs submitted in the case here, and view The Florida Supreme Court’s decision here.

Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 912 N.E.2d 567 (Ohio 2009).
‍Vess represented the plaintiff in a class action on behalf of Ohio homeowners seeking to recover “document preparation fees” that mortgage lenders had charged for preparing mortgages and deeds through employees who were not licensed attorneys. The case was argued all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. Read the briefs submitted in the case here, and view The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision here.

Meadows v. Clearwater Bay Marketing, LLC, No. 49C01-0812-PL-054708 (Marion Cir. Ct. Ind. 2009).
‍Vess represented a class of hundreds of Indiana consumers who received payday loans that allegedly violated Indiana law by charging illegal interest rates and continuously renewing.

Dennerline v. Atterholt, 886 N.E.2d 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. dismissed.
‍CohenMalad, LLP, represented the plaintiff in a case involving an insurer that went into liquidation leaving thousands of Indiana residents with millions of dollar in unpaid medical bills. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for over $17 million. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the verdict on appeal. You can read the appellate decision here.

Means v. River Valley Financial Bank, et al., No. 49D12-0704-PL-016504 (Marion Super. Ct. Ind. 2008).
‍Vess represented a class of thousands of Indiana consumers who prepaid for burial services and merchandise and who alleged that their prepayments had been looted from the cemetery trust funds. The case settled with certain defendants, who agreed to provide consumers over $2 million in burial goods and to establish a fund to provide for burial services.

In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:05-cv-979-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind.).
‍Vess worked on the team representing purchasers of ready-mixed concrete who alleged that local concrete companies conspired with one another to illegal fix the price of concrete in the central Indiana area, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Current settlements total over $50 million.

Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes. Case results vary dramatically depending on specific facts and circumstances.

Articles

Vess has co-authored the Indiana Section of the American Bar Association’s Survey of State Class Action Law every year since 2008