Motion for and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees

Transcription

Case 8:05-cv-01070-DOC-MLG Document 576
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Filed 12/21/09 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:6048
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
([email protected])
Allison S. Elgart (State Bar No. 241901)
([email protected])
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Michael A. Caddell (State Bar No. 249469)
([email protected])
Cynthia B. Chapman (State Bar No. 164471)
([email protected])
George Y. Niño (State Bar No. 146623)
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[Additional Counsel listed on signature page]
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
18
TERRI N. WHITE, et al.,
19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
22
24
and Related Cases:
25
05-cv-01073-DOC (MLGx)
05-cv-1172-DOC(MLGx)
27
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES FOR MONETARY RELIEF
SETTLEMENT
Defendant.
23
26
Case No. 05-CV-1070 DOC (MLGx)
(Lead Case)
Date: January 11, 2010
Time: 8:30 a.m.
The Honorable David O. Carter
28
851677.1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR
MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 05-CV-1070 DOC (MLGX)
1
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on January 11, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon
3
thereafter as the matter may be heard by the above-entitled Court, located at the
4
Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street,
5
Santa Ana, California 92701, in the courtroom of the Hon. David O. Carter,
6
Plaintiffs will, and hereby do, move for an Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application
7
For Attorneys’ Fees For Monetary Relief Settlement.
8
Pursuant to the Court’s May 7, 2009 Order preliminarily approving the
9
23(b)(3) Settlement and associated notice plan, notice of this Motion was provided
10
to members of the provisionally certified 23(b)(3) Class on September 28, 2009 by
11
direct U.S. mail and on October 15, 2009 by publication in the nationwide
12
newspaper USA Today.
13
The Plaintiffs’ Motion is based on: (1) this Notice; (2) Plaintiffs’
14
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Motion for Order
15
Granting Application for Attorneys’ Fees for Monetary Relief Settlement; (3) the
16
declarations of Michael W. Sobol, Michael A. Caddell, Stuart T. Rossman, Charles
17
M. Delbaum, Leonard A. Bennett, Mitchell A. Toups, and Lee A. Sherman; (4) the
18
Court’s Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. 423); and all other pleadings and papers
19
on file in this action, and any oral argument the Court permits.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
851677.1
-1-
1
Dated: December 21, 2009
2
Respectfully submitted,
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
3
4
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
By:
5
6
([email protected])
([email protected])
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
7
8
9
10
Stuart T. Rossman (BBO No. 430640)
([email protected])
Charles M. Delbaum (BBO No. 543225)
([email protected])
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
11
12
13
14
15
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
16
17
18
19
20
21
Leonard A. Bennett (VSB No. 37523)
([email protected])
Matthew Erausquin (VSB No. 65434)
([email protected])
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
12515 Warwick Boulevard, Suite 201
Newport News, Virginia 23606
Telephone: (757) 930 3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
851677.1
-2-
1
Mitchell A. Toups (TSB No. 20151600)
([email protected])
WELLER, GREEN, TOUPS & TERRELL, L.L.P.
Bank of America Tower
2615 Calder St., Suite 400
Beaumont Texas 77702
Telephone: (409) 838-0101
Facsimile: (409) 832-8577
2
3
4
5
Attorneys for White/Hernandez Plaintiffs
6
Lee A. Sherman (State Bar No. 172198)
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN &
CAUDILL
111 Fashion Lane
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 730-5700
Facsimile: (714) 730-1642
7
8
9
10
Attorneys for the Acosta/Pike Plaintiffs
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
851677.1
-3-
Case 8:05-cv-01070-DOC-MLG Document 577 Filed 12/21/09 Page 1 of 24 Page ID
#:6052
1
2
3
4
5
6
([email protected])
Allison Elgart (State Bar No. 241901)
([email protected])
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
11
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
12
13
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
22
Defendant.
23
(Lead Case)
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING APPLICATION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR
24
25
26
27
and Related Cases:
05-CV-01073-DOC (MLGx)
Time: 8:30 a.m.
28
848958.3
PLAINTIFFS' MPA ISO MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING
APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
White v. Experian – Case No. 06-CV-01070 DOC/MLG
#:6053
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I.
II.
III.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IV.
13
Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 7
A.
The Requested Fees and Costs Are Reasonable and
Appropriate ................................................................................. 7
1.
The Requested Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable ............. 7
a.
The Attorneys' Fees Sought Are Reasonable
Under the Percentage Method................................ 8
b.
A Cross-Check Using the Lodestar Method
Confirms that the Attorneys’ Fees Sought
Are Reasonable ...................................................... 9
2.
The Costs For Which Class Counsel Seek
Reimbursement Are Reasonable .................................... 16
B.
A Service Award to the Named Plaintiffs Supporting the
Settlement is Appropriate ......................................................... 17
CONCLUSION................................................................................... 19
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
848958.3
-i-
#:6054
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page
3
CASES
4
Acosta v. TransUnion, LLC,
240 F.R.D. 564 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................................... 4
Ballen v. City of Redmond,
466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 10
Blum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886 (1984) ............................................................................................. 9
Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.,
621 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985)......................................................................... 18
Carroll v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass.,
157 F.R.D. 142 (D. Mass. 1994),
aff’d 34 F.3d 1065 (1st Cir. 1994)...................................................................... 18
Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co. Inc.,
224 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 9
Cook v. Niedert,
142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 17
Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles,
879 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 10
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 7, 8
Hensley v. Eckerhart,
461 U.S. 424 (1983) ............................................................................................. 9
Hughes v. Microsoft Corp.,
No. C98-1646C, C93-0178C,
2001 WL 34089697,
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5976 (W.D. Wash. March 26, 2001)............................ 18
In re GNC Shareholder Litig.,
668 F. Supp. 450 (W.D. Pa. 1987) ..................................................................... 16
In re Immune Response Sec. Litig.,
497 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................. 16
In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig.,
913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996)............................................................. 15, 16
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 18
In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec.
Litig.,
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P. 94,376,
Nos. CV 87-3962KN(GX),
CV 86-3538KN(GX),
1989 WL 73211 (C.D.Cal. March 9, 1989)........................................................ 16
In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig.,
19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 10
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
848958.3
- ii -
#:6055
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.,
526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................ 10
Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.,
396 U.S. 375 (1970) ........................................................................................... 16
Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty,
886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 7, 8
Razilov v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
No. 01-CV-1466-BR.,
2006 WL 3312024 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2006) ........................................................ 18
Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers,
904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................ 8, 10
Staton v. Boeing Co.,
327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................7, 16, 17, 18
Steiner v. Am. Broad. Co.,
248 Fed. Appx. 780 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 10
Stevens v. Safeway, Inc.,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17119 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ................................................ 18
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................7, 10, 11
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Conte, Attorneys’ Fee Awards,
§ 2.08 (2d ed. 1977)............................................................................................ 16
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ............................................................................................ 7, 17
TREATISES
Manual for Complex Litig.,
§ 21.62 (4th ed. 2004)......................................................................................... 18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
848958.3
- iii -
#:6056
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I.
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel1 seek reasonable compensation
for having achieved a substantial monetary recovery for a nationwide class of
consumers who allege in this Litigation2 that Defendants3 have erroneously
reported debts discharged in bankruptcy. On May 7, 2009, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement of the monetary relief claims, which establishes a $45
million Settlement Fund that will be used to pay benefits to eligible Class members
who have submitted qualifying claims (the “Settlement”). See Dkt. 423.4 The
Settlement is directed primarily at providing benefits to Class members who can
confirm they believe they suffered harm from errors in their credit reports regarding
debt discharged in bankruptcy, though it still provides some benefit for those Class
members who cannot confirm actual harm but who nonetheless believe that there
were errors in their credit reports.
14
15
16
17
INTRODUCTION
The results achieved by the Settlement warrant the award of attorneys’
fees and costs requested by 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel. Counsel request
reimbursement of $678,521.98 for their expenses and an award of 25% of the
Settlement Fund. That 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel would request a 25% fee
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to the Court’s Order preliminary approving the monetary relief
settlement, the “23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel” are Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP (“Lieff Cabraser”), Caddell & Chapman, National Consumer
Law Center (“NCLC”), Consumer Litigation Associations, P.C., Weller, Green,
Toups & Terrell, LLP, and Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill, LLP. Dkt.
No. 423.
2
Terri N. White, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 05-cv1070 (Lead Case number); Terri N. White, et al. v. Equifax Information Services
LLC, Case No. 05-cv-7821; Terri N. White, et al. v. Trans Union LLC, 05-cv-1073;
Jose Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 06-cv-3924;
Jose L. Acosta et al., v. Trans Union LLC, et al., Case No. 06-cv-5060; and Kathryn
L. Pike v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 05-cv-1172. These cases
are collectively referred to herein as the “Litigation.”
3
“Defendants” are: Equifax Information Services LCC (“Equifax”), Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), and TransUnion LLC (“TransUnion).
4
In August 2008, this Court also approved the historic settlement of the injunctive
relief claims raised in these White v. Experian related cases. (Dkt. 338).
848958.3
-1-
PLTFS’ MPA ISO MOTION FOR ORDER GRANT. APP.
FOR ATTYS' FEES FOR MON. RELIEF STLMT
#:6057
1
award is delineated in the Settlement Agreement, which is the result of extensive,
2
arm’s-length negotiations among Settling Plaintiffs5, individually and as
3
representatives of the 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, and Defendants. The 23(b)(3)
4
Settlement Class Counsel’s requested award falls well within the accepted range of
5
attorneys’ fee awards based upon a percentage of a common fund under the Ninth
6
Circuit benchmark of 25%, and is otherwise eminently reasonable in light of the
7
significant result achieved for the Class. Service awards are also requested in the
8
amount of $5,000 each for the four class representatives supporting the Settlement
9
for the services they have rendered to the Class throughout the Litigation resulting
10
in a valuable Settlement.
11
Accordingly, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel respectfully request
12
that the Court enter an Order: (a) awarding 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel
13
reimbursement of $678,521.98 in expenses; (b) awarding the four 23(b)(3) Class
14
Representatives $5,000 each as a service award; and (c) awarding 23(b)(3)
15
Settlement Class Counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees of $11,075,369.6
16
II.
BACKGROUND
17
These cases having been pending before this Court since the Fall of
18
2005. On or about November 2, 2005, plaintiffs in White filed separate actions in
19
this District against each of the Defendants, alleging that Defendants had violated
20
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by recklessly failing to follow reasonable
21
procedures in the reporting, and reinvestigation of reporting, of debts discharged in
22
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants continued to
23
report such debts as due and owing when in fact they had been discharged in
24
bankruptcy.
25
26
27
28
5
“Settling Plaintiffs” are Jose Hernandez, Robert Randall, Bertram Robinson, and
Kathryn Pike.
6
The fee award for 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel was calculated by first
deducting the amounts of the expense reimbursement and service fee awards from
the total $45 million Settlement Fund (leaving $44,301,478.02) and applying the
25% benchmark to the remainder.
848958.3
-2-
#:6058
1
Prior to the filing of White, on October 3, 2005, Jose Hernandez filed a
2
similar action against Defendants in the Northern District of California. Hernandez
3
was then transferred to this Court, and, on August 11, 2006, was consolidated with
4
White via three separate Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaints,
5
one against each Defendant (herein, “White/Hernandez”).7
Subsequently, White/Hernandez was related to two other actions,
6
7
Acosta and Pike. Jose L. Acosta, Jr. had previously filed an action in California
8
Superior Court against Trans Union on May 12, 2003, and on August 14, 2006, he
9
filed again in this District.8 On October 14, 2005, Kathryn Pike filed an action in
10
California Superior Court against Equifax, which was later removed to this District
11
and transferred to this Court as related to White/Hernandez. Therefore, each of
12
these cases has been either filed, transferred, or removed such that they are in the
13
Central District before the Honorable Judge David O. Carter.
14
In this Litigation, Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant recklessly or
15
negligently violated, and until enjoined by this Court, continued to violate the Fair
16
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to maintain reasonable
17
procedures to assure the accurate reporting of debts that have been discharged in
18
bankruptcy. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ procedures, by which Defendants
19
relied primarily on creditors and public record vendors to report the discharged
20
status of debts and judgments, were unreasonable procedures under the FCRA.
21
They further allege that Defendants failed to employ reasonable reinvestigation
22
procedures pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiffs assert claims for (i) willful and/or
23
negligent violation of Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and its California counterpart,
24
25
26
27
28
7
The remaining named plaintiffs under the White/Hernandez Second Amended
Complaints are Robert Radcliffe, Chester Carter, Maria Falcon, Clifton C. Seale,
III, and Jose Hernandez. Plaintiffs Terri N. White, Alex K. Gidi, and Milagros
Gabrillo were dismissed by court order on October 19, 2007.
8
The remaining named plaintiffs in Acosta are Robert Randall and Bertram
Robison. Plaintiff Acosta was dismissed from the federal court action and has
dismissed his state court action.
848958.3
-3-
#:6059
1
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1785.14(b), for failure to maintain reasonable procedures to
2
assure maximum possible accuracy; (ii) willful and/or negligent violation of
3
Section 1681i of the FCRA and its California counterpart, Cal. Civ. Code
4
Section 1785.16, for failure to reasonably investigate consumer disputes regarding
5
the status of the discharged accounts; and (iii) violation of California's Unfair
6
Competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.
At this Court’s suggestion, all parties to the White/Hernandez and
7
8
Acosta actions went to mediation before the Hon. John K. Trotter (Ret.) to attempt a
9
global resolution. The parties attended a mediation session on September 14, 2006,
10
but no resolution with the White/Hernandez Plaintiffs was reached. In or around
11
September 2006, Defendants also answered the various Second Amended
12
Complaints, denying the allegations therein, denying that the actions are suitable for
13
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and asserting
14
numerous affirmative defenses that Defendants contend are meritorious.
15
The parties then agreed to a briefing and hearing schedule for the
16
preliminary approval of the proposed Acosta and Pike settlements. The
17
White/Hernandez Plaintiffs objected to the approval of the proposed class action
18
settlements. On March 6, 2007, the Court rejected the settlement in a 39-page
19
published decision. See Acosta v. TransUnion, LLC, 240 F.R.D. 564 (C.D. Cal.
20
2007).
21
Thereafter, the parties pursued discovery in anticipation of a motion
22
for class certification by the White/Hernandez plaintiffs, eventually scheduled for a
23
hearing in August 2007. In the midst of class certification briefing, Defendant
24
Experian moved for summary judgment, noticing the motion to be heard together
25
with class certification. On August 13, 2007, the Court issued a tentative ruling
26
denying in part the summary judgment motion, and the Court commenced the
27
hearing on the motion, which continued over the course of the following three days.
28
On the third day of the hearing, the Court encouraged Experian to withdraw its
848958.3
-4-
#:6060
1
motion and pursue, with the other Defendants, a global settlement with the
2
Plaintiffs.
3
In the Court’s rulings and comments to counsel, the Court has urged
4
the parties to proceed to mediation. Since August 15, 2007, the parties have
5
conducted arms-length, contentious, lengthy, and complicated negotiations (with
6
the participation of Defendants’ insurance carriers), including seven in-person
7
sessions with a JAMS mediator, the Hon. Lourdes Baird (Ret.), and five in-person
8
mediation sessions with mediator Randall Wulff, as well as several additional in-
9
person or telephonic sessions involving counsel for the parties.
10
On or about April 3, 2008, the parties entered into the Injunctive Relief
11
Settlement Agreement, in which Defendants agreed to retroactively update the
12
credit files of 23(b)(2) Settlement Class members to reflect the discharge of certain
13
categories of pre-bankruptcy civil judgments and tradelines. Defendants also
14
agreed to adopt new procedures for the update of certain pre-bankruptcy civil
15
judgments and tradelines when a public record entry of the bankruptcy has been
16
added to the consumer’s file. All of the White/Hernandez and Acosta/Pike
17
Plaintiffs submitted declarations supporting and recommending the Injunctive
18
Relief Settlement, expressing to the Court that the changes to Defendants'
19
procedures were very important and were what they expected to achieve when
20
agreeing to participate in the lawsuit. Dkt. 301, Exh. G-O to Declaration of
21
Michael Sobol in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On August
22
19, 2008, the Court approved these new procedures, found them to be reasonable
23
under the FCRA, and entered an Approval Order Regarding Settlement and Release
24
for the Injunctive Relief Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 290). Settlement Class
25
Counsel for the Injunctive Relief Settlement will be seeking approval of an award
26
of fees and expenses for their efforts in connection with obtaining the Injunctive
27
Relief Settlement. That Settlement benefits the overlapping, but distinct proposed
28
monetary relief settlement class, in addition to the millions of consumers filing for
848958.3
-5-
#:6061
1
bankruptcy in the future. In a separate, independently negotiated agreement,
2
Defendants have agreed to pay up to six million dollars for the injunctive relief fees
3
and expenses.
4
The parties’ efforts to resolve the monetary relief portion of the
5
Litigation then resumed with several mediation sessions, but without success. On
6
January 26, 2009, the parties appeared for a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
7
Certification of a 23(b)(3) damages class. Prior to the scheduled hearing, the Court
8
issued a tentative ruling denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification pursuant
9
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), decided not to hear the Motion at that time, and directed
10
the parties to make a final attempt to settle the Litigation. The parties and
11
Defendants’ insurance carriers participated in an additional mediation session
12
before mediator Wulff three days later but did not reach an agreement.
13
The parties and Defendants’ insurance carriers then participated in a
14
mandatory settlement conference at the Court on February 5, 2009. At that
15
conference, Plaintiffs, Equifax, and Experian reached agreement as to the principal
16
terms of a settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Litigation for monetary
17
damages, including statutory and punitive damages. TransUnion agreed to the
18
settlement terms on February 18, 2009. The Settlement establishes a $45 million
19
fund to provide damage award payments to Class members who submit claims to
20
confirm their eligibility. The Fund will also be used to pay costs of notice,
21
administrative costs, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants do not oppose 23(b)(3)
22
Settlement Class Counsel’s requested fee award.
23
On May 7, 2009, this Court preliminarily approved the 23(b)(3)
24
Settlement and conditionally certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25
23(b)(3) a class consisting of all Consumers who have received an order of
26
discharge pursuant to Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and who, at
27
any time between and including March 15, 2002, and May 11, 2009 (or, for
28
California residents in the case of TransUnion, any time between and including
848958.3
-6-
#:6062
1
May 12, 2001 and May 11, 2009), have been the subject of a Post-bankruptcy
2
Credit Report issued by a Defendant that contained possible errors regarding debts
3
discharged in bankruptcy. (Dkt. 423). In compliance with the Preliminary
4
Approval Order and Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notice
5
of 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s fee request was included in the Settlement
6
Notice that was sent to all class members on September 28, 2009. Declaration of
7
Michael W. Sobol In Support of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Order
8
Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees For Monetary Relief
9
Settlement (“Sobol Monet. Fee Decl.”) ¶ 28.
10
III.
11
ARGUMENT
A.
The Requested Fees and Costs Are Reasonable and Appropriate
12
1.
13
“Attorneys’ fees provisions included in proposed class action
The Requested Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable
14
settlement agreements are, like every other aspect of such agreements, subject to
15
the determination whether the settlement is ‘fundamentally fair, adequate, and
16
reasonable.’” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 963 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting
17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)). In “common-fund” cases, where the settlement creates a
18
large fund for the benefit of the class, the court has the discretion to use either a
19
percentage of the common fund or the lodestar method to determine the
20
reasonableness of the requested fees. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
21
1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886
22
F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d
23
1043, 1048-1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Selection of the benchmark or any other rate
24
must be supported by findings that take into account all of the circumstances of the
25
case,” including the results achieved for the class, both monetary and non-
26
monetary, and the risk faced by class counsel in prosecuting the case.)
27
28
The attorneys’ fees are expressly provided for in the Settlement
Agreement and Defendants do not contest the award requested by 23(b)(3)
848958.3
-7-
#:6063
1
Settlement Class Counsel. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 27; Declaration of Michael A.
2
Caddell in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application
3
for Attorneys’ Fees For Monetary Relief Settlement (“Caddell Monet. Fee Decl.”) ¶
4
37; Declaration of Mitchell A. Toups In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order
5
Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees For Monetary Relief
6
Settlement (“Toups Monet. Fee Decl.”) ¶ 30; Declaration of Lee A. Sherman in
7
Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for
8
Attorneys’ Fees For Monetary Relief Settlement (“Sherman Monet. Fee Decl.”) ¶
9
25; Stuart T. Rossman In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting
10
Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees For Monetary Relief Settlement
11
(“Rossman Monet. Fee Decl.”) ¶ 24; Declaration of Charles Delbaum In Support of
12
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees
13
For Monetary Relief Settlement (“Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl.”) ¶ 25. That counsel
14
would request an award of attorneys’ fees was disclosed to Class Members in the
15
Notice. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 28; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 38; Toups
16
Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 31; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 26; Rossman Monet. Fee Decl.
17
¶ 25; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 26.
18
a.
19
20
The Attorneys' Fees Sought Are Reasonable Under the
Percentage Method
In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for reasonableness under the
21
percentage-of-the-recovery method is 25%. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1047; Hanlon,
22
150 F.3d at 1029; Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301,
23
1311 (9th Cir. 1990); Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d at 272.
24
Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $45 million for the benefit of the Class. In
25
this case, considering only monetary relief, Plaintiffs request $11,075,369 in
26
attorneys’ fees for work through final approval of the Settlement. This request is
27
25% of the Settlement Fund (after deducting expenses), in line with the Ninth
28
Circuit benchmark, for years of extensive and hard-fought litigation resulting in
848958.3
-8-
#:6064
1
significant benefits to the Class. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requested fee award is reasonable
2
under the percentage-of-the-recovery method.
3
b.
4
5
A Cross-Check Using the Lodestar Method Confirms
that the Attorneys’ Fees Sought Are Reasonable
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s collective lodestar to date is
6
$13,069,440 for 27,424.75 total hours worked. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 16;
7
Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 25; Declaration of Leonard A. Bennett In Support of
8
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application
9
for Attorneys’ Fees for Monetary Relief Settlement (“Bennett Decl.”) ¶ 20;
10
Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 14; Toups Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 20; Rossman Monet.
11
Fee Decl. ¶ 15; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 17. One-half of the time incurred
12
from inception through the time of the filing of the 23(b)(2) Settlement (April 3,
13
2008) is allocated to the 23(b)(2) Settlement (plus time incurred subsequent to April
14
3, 2008 in connection with the hearing on the approval of that settlement) and the
15
other one-half is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement. With the one-half allocated
16
to the 23(b)(3) Settlement and the time incurred from April 4, 2008 through
17
December 10, 2009 (less any time incurred with respect to the injunctive relief
18
approval hearing), the attorney and staff timekeepers of 23(b)(3) Settlement Class
19
Counsel have billed a total of 17,232.15 hours, for a total lodestar of $8,307,421.75.
20
Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 17-19; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 26-28; Rossman
21
Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 16-18; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 18; Bennett Decl. ¶¶ 21-
22
23; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 15-17; Toups Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 21-23. All of
23
this time is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement because it was incurred after the
24
approval of the 23(b)(2) Settlement.
25
The starting point for computing the lodestar amount is to multiply the
26
number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a
27
reasonable hourly rate. See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co. Inc., 224 F.3d 1014,
28
1028 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). The
848958.3
-9-
#:6065
1
hourly rates used must be “in line with those prevailing in the community for
2
similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
3
reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). In addition, courts
4
typically apply each attorney’s current rates for all hours of work regardless of
5
when performed as a means of compensating for the delay in payment. In re
6
Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994).
7
Once this “raw” lodestar figure has been determined, the court may
8
take into consideration additional factors to enhance the lodestar, including: the
9
time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the
10
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; whether the fee is fixed or
11
contingent; the amount involved and the results obtained; the experience,
12
reputation, and ability of the attorneys; and awards in similar cases. See Ballen v.
13
City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cunningham v. County
14
of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 487 (9th Cir. 1988) and Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild,
15
Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)).
The risk multiplier in this request is approximately 1.33, i.e., the ratio
16
17
of fees requested ($11,075,369) to lodestar incurred ($8,307,421.75). By any
18
measure, the risk multiplier is modest and well within the common practice for
19
similar cases. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 24; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 34. The
20
Court has the discretion to adjust the percentage of the common fund, or replace
21
that calculation method with a lodestar calculation, if special circumstances indicate
22
the percentage recovery is too small or too large. Six Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at
23
1311 (9th Cir. 1990). Cf. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050 n.5 (“The lodestar method is
24
merely a cross-check on the reasonableness of a percentage figure…”). As
25
described above, the requested fee award is 25% of the Settlement Fund (after
26
deducting expenses), which is fully in line with the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark of
27
25%. The lodestar calculation demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ requested fee award is
28
also based on a modest multiplier of 23(b)(3) Class Counsel’s lodestar.
848958.3
- 10 -
#:6066
1
A multiplier of 1.33 is well within the standards in the Ninth Circuit.
2
See Steiner v. Am. Broad. Co., 248 Fed. Appx. 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2007) (common
3
fund settlement with fee based on percentage of 25% held reasonable, and lodestar
4
cross-check indicated a multiplier of approximately 6.85, which was well within the
5
range of multipliers allowed in other cases); see also Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 n.6
6
(noting that a multiplier is frequently awarded in common fund cases when the
7
lodestar method is applied and citing cases with multipliers ranging from 0.6 to
8
19.6, with most of the cases ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 and a bare majority of cases in
9
the 1.5 to 3.0 range).
10
The modest multiplier is justified by the work 23(b)(3) Settlement
11
Class Counsel did while actively prosecuting this case. Plaintiffs in the various
12
cases have undertaken substantial investigation, fact-gathering, and formal
13
discovery (including review of tens of thousands of pages of documents, retention
14
and consultation of numerous experts in the fields of credit reporting and consumer
15
bankruptcies, interviews with numerous consumers, review of thousands of
16
consumer credit reports, and numerous depositions) in support of the Litigation.
17
Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 10; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 19. Plaintiffs have taken
18
or defended more than forty depositions, produced over 50,000 pages of
19
documents, and reviewed over 40,000 pages of documents produced by the
20
Defendants. Id. The depositions taken by Plaintiffs included depositions of each of
21
Defendants’ experts, as well as testimony from Directors, Vice Presidents, other
22
senior officers, and analysts and consultants from Defendants’ departments
23
handling, among other subjects, data acquisition services, consumer relations,
24
consumer fraud, technical, software, and modeling, compliance, decision analytics
25
and predictive services. Id. From these depositions, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class
26
Counsel acquired significant information used to rebut Defendants’ opposition to
27
changing their procedures and meet Defendants’ challenges regarding class
28
certification. For example, Class Counsel learned, inter alia, that Defendants could
848958.3
- 11 -
#:6067
1
identify consumers who had credit reports issued whose files included a Chapter 7
2
bankruptcy discharge, both in current and archived files; that Defendants could
3
screen out consumers whose bankruptcies involved asset cases; that certain types of
4
debts are discharged in a Chapter 7 no-asset bankruptcy; and that Defendants were
5
not engaging in reasonable monitoring and reporting of disputed tradelines to
6
ensure maximum possible accuracy. The depositions also helped 23(b)(3)
7
Settlement Class Counsel challenge the scoring analyses conducted by both
8
Experian and Equifax, as well as Defendants’ arguments concerning alleged scoring
9
benefits to consumers from inaccurate credit reporting. Id.
10
In order to conduct discovery efficiently and avoid duplicating work,
11
the 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel divided into three discovery teams, one for
12
each Defendant. Counsel carefully coordinated discovery efforts to ensure that they
13
were doing identical discovery of each Defendant and held numerous meetings and
14
conference calls to discuss documents and depositions and keep all teams informed
15
of what information they were learning and what discovery was still needed. Id.
16
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel also retained several experts
17
who have filed numerous declarations with the Court. Moreover, the parties have
18
engaged in extensive motion practice before reaching the Settlement Agreement.
19
They have attended several status conferences and multiple-day hearings on
20
settlement approval and summary judgment. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 8; Caddell
21
Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 17. This Court has presided over the hearings and executed no
22
fewer than thirty-seven minute entries, entered at least fifty signed orders, and
23
authored four published opinions. Id.
24
Settlement negotiations in this case were hard fought and Plaintiffs and
25
the Class faced significant risks in continuing the litigation. Since the Court urged
26
the parties to proceed to mediation in August 2007, the parties have conducted
27
extensive arms-length and contentious negotiations during the course of a lengthy
28
and complicated mediation with the Hon. Lourdes Baird (Ret.) and with Randall
848958.3
- 12 -
#:6068
1
Wulff. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 9; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 18. They did so
2
with attorneys on both sides who are very experienced in the prosecution, defense,
3
trial and settlement of class action litigation, including as it relates to FCRA and
4
other consumer cases, and who are well-versed in the legal and factual issues
5
implicated in this action. Id. Moreover, the parties had the benefit of the Court’s
6
guidance from its denial of settlement approval in the Acosta settlement, its
7
tentative ruling denying Experian’s summary judgment motion and, for the most
8
recent mediation sessions, the Court’s tentative ruling denying the
9
White/Hernandez Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
10
The parties participated in seven full days of mediation with the
11
participation of Judge Baird, as well as numerous telephonic conferences with
12
Judge Baird. Id. The mediation sessions with Judge Baird not only led to the
13
Injunctive Relief Settlement approved by the Court on August 19, 2008, but also
14
assisted the parties in making modest progress toward a damages settlement. The
15
parties also participated in five in-person mediation sessions with mediator Randall
16
Wulff, including a mandatory settlement conference at the Court on February 5,
17
2009. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 18, 21.
18
Plaintiffs also engaged in separate settlement discussions with each of the
19
Defendants. The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel coordinated discovery,
20
reviewed documents, appeared at conferences and motion hearings before the
21
Court, prepared for and participated in these numerous mediation sessions, drafted
22
and negotiated the settlement agreement and plan of allocation, and prepared the
23
motions for preliminary and final approval. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 13; Caddell
24
Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 22; Rossman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 12; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl.
25
¶ 14; Bennett Decl. ¶ 17; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 11; Toups Monet. Fee Decl.
26
¶ 17. Counsel have performed this work entirely on a contingent basis and have not
27
been compensated for their time. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 15; Caddell Monet. Fee
28
848958.3
- 13 -
#:6069
1
Decl. ¶ 24; Rossman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 14; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 16;
2
Bennett Decl. ¶ 19; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 13; Toups Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 19.
3
The Settlement provides Class members with benefits they would not
4
enjoy if the case were to proceed to trial. First, the Settlement provides Class
5
members with prompt and efficient relief. Proceeding to trial would add years to
6
the resolution of this case and could be further delayed by appeals. Moreover,
7
because the individual actions would be cost-prohibitive relative to the amount in
8
controversy presented by any individual claim, the Class members receive the
9
benefit of being part of a class action.
10
Second, the Settlement enables Class members to avoid the risks of
11
going to trial. The factual and legal issues in this action are complex, and the trial
12
of Plaintiffs’ claims under the FCRA and related state laws would require
13
substantial preparation and ultimately involve the presentation of dozens of
14
witnesses and numerous experts. Although Plaintiffs and the Class believe their
15
claims have merit, they also recognize that they would face significant legal,
16
factual, and procedural obstacles to recovering damages on their claims. Where, as
17
here, the Court issued a tentative ruling on January 26, 2009 denying Plaintiffs’
18
Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and directed the
19
parties to make a final attempt to settle the Litigation, certifying a class could
20
present some difficulties. Moreover, the outcome of a trial is uncertain. The
21
Defendants deny that they willfully violated FCRA or related state laws, and they
22
would challenge Plaintiffs’ claims at every stage of the Litigation. Among other
23
things, as evidence of their good faith, they would point to the fact that they have
24
completely revised the challenged procedures independently of any monetary
25
settlement. The Settlement ensures that Class members will be granted relief if
26
they submit timely qualified claims.
27
28
Third, the Settlement negates the extraordinary time and expense that
would be incurred if this case were to proceed to trial. The Settlement commits
848958.3
- 14 -
#:6070
1
Defendants to each pay $15 million into a Settlement Fund to be distributed among
2
the Class according to their claims. Even if the Class was successful in winning at
3
trial, it would not see any relief until after many potential appeals and many years.
4
The results of the Settlement will benefit the parties and the court system.
5
In this case, 23(b)(2) Settlement Class Counsel have extensive
6
experience in the area of consumer class actions, other complex class actions, and
7
FCRA litigation. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 3-6; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 3-
8
15; Rossman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 4-9; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 4-12; Bennett
9
Decl. ¶¶ 5-11; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Toups Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 2-11.
10
In fact, members of Settlement Class Counsel are responsible for three of the four
11
largest recoveries ever in FCRA class actions, and have litigated more individual
12
FCRA cases than any lawyers in the country. Class Counsels’ customary rates,
13
which were used for purposes of calculating lodestar here, are based on prevailing
14
fees in this District and have been approved in the Central District of California and
15
other Courts. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 22; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 31;
16
Rossman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 20; Delbaum Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 21; Bennett Decl.
17
¶ 26; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 20; Toups Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 26. That these
18
rates are reasonable is further confirmed by the fact that LCHB and Caddell &
19
Chapman also represent plaintiffs on an hourly basis and are paid according to their
20
current hourly rates, the same rates used to calculate the lodestar in this matter.
21
Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 23; Caddell Monet. Fee Decl. ¶ 32.
22
Based on these hours and rates, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s
23
lodestar for the monetary relief settlement is $8,307,421.75. The Settlement
24
Agreement provides that Counsel may seek an award for 25% of the Settlement
25
Fund in attorneys’ fees. The award provides for a modest multiplier of Counsel’s
26
lodestar, which is reasonable, given the risks of continued litigation and the
27
substantial benefit to the Class.
28
848958.3
- 15 -
#:6071
1
2.
2
The Costs For Which Class Counsel Seek Reimbursement
Are Reasonable
“Reasonable costs and expenses incurred by an attorney who creates or
3
4
preserves a common fund are reimbursed proportionately by those class members
5
who benefit by the settlement.” In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp.
6
1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375,
7
391-392 (1970)); see also Staton, 327 F.3d at 974. The requested costs must be
8
relevant to the litigation and reasonable in amount. In re Media Vision, 913 F.
9
Supp. at 1366.
Throughout the course of this litigation, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class
10
11
Counsel have incurred substantial out-of-pocket expenses totaling $678,521.98 for
12
the monetary relief settlement. Sobol Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 25-26; Caddell Monet.
13
Fee Decl. ¶¶ 35-36; Rossman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 22-23; Delbaum Monet. Fee
14
Decl. ¶¶ 23-24; Bennett Decl. ¶¶ 27-28; Sherman Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 23-24; Toups
15
Monet. Fee Decl. ¶¶ 28-29. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Counsel seek
16
reimbursement for these costs.
17
The costs incurred included filing fees; expenses associated with the
18
research, preparation, filing, and responding to the pleadings in this matter; costs
19
associated with copying, uploading, and analyzing documents; fees and expenses
20
for experts; and mediation fees. Id. All of these costs and expenses were advanced
21
by 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel with no guarantee they would ultimately be
22
recovered, and most were “hard” costs paid out of pocket to third-party vendors,
23
court reporters, and experts. Id. These costs were necessary in conjunction with
24
this Litigation and its resolution for the benefit of the 23(b)(3) Settlement Class.
25
Accordingly, these costs are reimbursable. See In re Immune Response Sec. Litig.,
26
497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177-78 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (finding that costs such as filing
27
fees, photocopy costs, travel expenses, postage, telephone and fax costs,
28
computerized legal research fees, and mediation expenses are relevant and
848958.3
- 16 -
#:6072
1
necessary expenses in a class action litigation); see also In re United Energy Corp.
2
Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec. Litig., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P. 94,376, Nos.
3
CV 87-3962KN(GX), CV 86-3538KN(GX), 1989 WL 73211, at * 6 (C.D.Cal.
4
March 9, 1989); In re GNC Shareholder Litig., 668 F. Supp. 450, 452 (W.D. Pa.
5
1987); Conte, Attorneys’ Fee Awards, § 2.08 at 50-51 (2d ed. 1977).
6
B.
7
8
Settlement is Appropriate
The Settlement Agreement provides for $5,000 incentive awards for
9
the class representatives who support the Settlement in recognition of their service
10
to and efforts on behalf of the Class. See Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 384, Exhibit
11
1, § 7.5. These incentive awards are in addition to the relief the class representatives
12
will be entitled to under the terms of the Settlement. Throughout the Litigation,
13
these Class Representatives have participated in discovery, including extensive and
14
probing depositions and responding to interrogatories and requests for production
15
of documents. They all were kept informed of the Litigation as it developed and all
16
were kept abreast of, and signed off on, the proposed Settlement.
In Staton v. Boeing, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “named
17
18
plaintiffs . . . are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.” 327 F.3d at 977.
19
Under Staton, such awards should be evaluated using “‘relevant factors, includ[ing]
20
the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to
21
which the class has benefited from those actions, . . . the amount of time and effort
22
the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation . . . and reasonabl[e] fear[s of]
23
workplace retaliation.’” Id. at 977 (citing Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016
24
(7th Cir. 1998)) (ellipses in original).
25
Enhancement awards like the ones requested here are appropriate.
26
Unlike unnamed Class members, who will enjoy the benefits of the
27
Representatives’ efforts without taking any personal action, the named Class
28
Representatives made themselves available as witnesses at deposition and subjected
848958.3
- 17 -
#:6073
1
themselves to all the obligations of named parties, including participating in
2
discovery and following the Litigation. Small incentive awards, which serve as
3
premiums in addition to any claims-based recovery from the settlement, promote
4
the public policy of encouraging individuals to undertake the responsibility of
5
representative lawsuits. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454,
6
463 (9th Cir. 2000); Staton, 327 F.3d at 977; Stevens v. Safeway, Inc., 2008 U.S.
7
Dist. LEXIS 17119 (C.D. Cal. 2008); see also Manual for Complex Litig., § 21.62
8
n. 971 (4th ed. 2004) (incentive awards may be “merited for time spent meeting
9
with class members, monitoring cases, or responding to discovery”).
10
Each of the class representatives participated actively in the litigation.
11
See Declarations of Jose Hernandez, Bertram Robison, Robert Randall, and
12
Kathryn Pike In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of
13
Proposed Class Action Settlement, Dkt. Nos. 385, 386, 387, and 412. Such
14
incentive payments are therefore appropriate here. Staton, 327 F.3d at 977; In re
15
Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d at 463.
16
Moreover, the $5,000 payments requested here are at the modest end
17
of the spectrum, especially considering the total amount of the Settlement Fund.
18
See, e.g., Hughes v. Microsoft Corp., No. C98-1646C, C93-0178C, 2001 WL
19
34089697, at *12-13, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5976, at *36-38 (W.D. Wash. March
20
26, 2001) (approving incentive awards of $7,500, $20,000, and $40,000); Carroll v.
21
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., 157 F.R.D. 142, 143 (D. Mass. 1994), aff’d 34
22
F.3d 1065 (1st Cir. 1994) (“the class representatives shall receive payments of
23
$7,500 each as compensation for services rendered to the class in initiating and
24
prosecuting this action”); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27, 32 (E.D. Pa.
25
1985) (stating “the propriety of allowing modest compensation to class
26
representatives seems obvious,” and awarding $20,000 to two named class
27
representatives). See also In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d at 457, 463
28
(approving service awards of $5,000 from a total settlement of $1,725,000);
848958.3
- 18 -
#:6074
1
Razilov v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 01-CV-1466-BR., 2006 WL 3312024, *3-
2
*4 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2006) (approving $10,000 award to each class representative).
3
In light of Plaintiffs’ considerable effort and risk undertaken to obtain the
4
outstanding result for the Class, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel request that the
5
Court approve the payments of service awards to each of the named Plaintiffs.
6
IV.
7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel
8
respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for an Order (a) awarding
9
23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel reimbursement of $678,521.98 in expenses;
10
(b) awarding the four 23(b)(3) Class Representatives $5,000 each as a service
11
award; and (c) awarding 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel a reasonable attorneys’
12
fee of $11,075,369.
13
Dated: December 21, 2009
14
Respectfully submitted,
BERNSTEIN, LLP
15
16
By:
17
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
([email protected])
Allison Elgart (State Bar No. 241901)
([email protected])
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,
LLP
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
18
19
20
21
22
23
Stuart T. Rossman (BBO No. 430640)
([email protected])
Charles M. Delbaum (BBO No. 543225)
([email protected])
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
24
25
26
27
28
848958.3
- 19 -
#:6075
1
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
2
3
4
5
6
7
Leonard A. Bennett (VSB No. 37523)
([email protected])
Matthew Erausquin (VSB No. 65434)
([email protected])
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC
12515 Warwick Boulevard, Suite 201
Newport News, VA 23606
Telephone: (757) 930 3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
8
9
10
11
12
Mitchell A. Toups (TSB No. 20151600)
([email protected])
WELLER, GREEN, TOUPS & TERRELL, LLP
Bank of America Tower
2615 Calder St., Suite 400
Beaumont, Texas 77702
Telephone: (409) 838-0101
Facsimile: (409) 832-8577
13
14
15
16
17
21
For the Acosta/Pike Plaintiffs:
Lee A. Sherman (State Bar No. 172198)
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN &
CAUDILL
111 Fashion Lane
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 730-5700
Facsimile: (714) 730-1642
22
Attorneys for the Acosta/Pike Plaintiffs
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
848958.3
- 20 -
Case 8:05-cv-01070-DOC-MLG Document 577-2
#:6076
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Filed 12/21/09 Page 1 of 17 Page ID
([email protected])
([email protected])
BERNSTEIN, LLP
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
15
16
17
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
18
19
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
v.
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
24
and Related Cases:
25
27
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR MONETARY
RELIEF SETTLEMENT
Defendant.
23
26
(Lead Case)
Time: 8:30 a.m.
28
851675.1
CASE NO. 05-CV-1070 DOC
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT
#:6077
1
2
This matter came to be heard upon the Plaintiffs’ Application for
Attorneys’ Fees for Monetary Relief Settlement.
3
4
After consideration thereof, it is hereby ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED as follows:
5
6
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s Application for
reimbursement of $678,521.98 in expenses is GRANTED.
7
Counsel’s Application for service awards of $5,000 each to the four
8
class representatives supporting the Settlement for the services they have rendered
9
to the Class throughout the litigation resulting in a valuable Settlement is
10
GRANTED.
Counsel’s Application for attorneys’ fees of $11,075,3691 is
11
12
GRANTED.
13
Counsel’s requested common fund award is well within the typical
14
range of attorneys’ fee award percentages, is in line with the Ninth Circuit
15
benchmark of 25%, and is eminently reasonable in light of the significant result
16
23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel achieved for the Class.
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
These cases having been pending before this Court since the Fall of
19
2005. On or about November 2, 2005, plaintiffs in White filed separate actions in
20
this District against each of the Defendants, alleging that Defendants had violated
21
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by recklessly failing to follow reasonable
22
procedures in the reporting, and reinvestigation of reporting, of debts discharged in
23
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants continued to
24
report such debts as due and owing when in fact they had been discharged in
25
bankruptcy.
26
1
27
28
This fee award for 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel was calculated by first
deducting the amounts of the expense reimbursement and service fee awards from
the total $45 million Settlement Fund (leaving $44,301,478.02) and applying the
25% benchmark to the remainder.
851675.1
-1-
#:6078
1
Prior to the filing of White, on October 3, 2005, Jose Hernandez filed a
2
similar action against Defendants in the Northern District of California. Hernandez
3
was then transferred to this Court, and, on August 11, 2006, was consolidated with
4
White via three separate Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaints,
5
one against each Defendant (herein, “White/Hernandez”).2
Subsequently, White/Hernandez was related to two other actions,
6
7
Acosta and Pike. Jose L. Acosta, Jr. had previously filed an action in California
8
Superior Court against Trans Union on May 12, 2003, and on August 14, 2006, he
9
filed again in this District.3 On October 14, 2005, Kathryn Pike filed an action in
10
California Superior Court against Equifax, which was later removed to this District
11
and transferred to this Court as related to White/Hernandez. Therefore, each of
12
these cases has been either filed, transferred, or removed such that they are in the
13
Central District before this Court.
14
In this Litigation, Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant recklessly or
15
negligently violated, and until enjoined by this court, continued to violate the Fair
16
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to maintain reasonable
17
18
bankruptcy. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ procedures, by which Defendants
19
relied primarily on creditors and public record vendors to report the discharged
20
status of debts and judgments, were unreasonable procedures under the FCRA.
21
They further allege that Defendants failed to employ reasonable reinvestigation
22
procedures pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiffs assert claims for (i) willful and/or
23
negligent violation of Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and its California counterpart,
24
2
25
26
27
28
The remaining named plaintiffs under the White/Hernandez Second Amended
Complaints are Robert Radcliffe, Chester Carter, Maria Falcon, Clifton C. Seale,
III, and Jose Hernandez. Plaintiffs Terri N. White, Alex K. Gidi, and Milagros
Gabrillo were dismissed by court order on October 19, 2007.
3
The remaining named plaintiffs in Acosta are Robert Randall and Bertram
Robison. Plaintiff Acosta was dismissed from the federal court action and has
dismissed his state court action.
851675.1
-2-
#:6079
1
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1785.14(b), for failure to maintain reasonable procedures to
2
assure maximum possible accuracy; (ii) willful and/or negligent violation of
3
Section 1681i of the FCRA and its California counterpart, Cal. Civ. Code
4
Section 1785.16, for failure to reasonably investigate consumer disputes regarding
5
the status of the discharged accounts; and (iii) violation of California's Unfair
6
Competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.
At this Court’s suggestion, all parties to the White/Hernandez and
7
8
Acosta actions went to mediation before the Hon. John K. Trotter (Ret.) to attempt a
9
global resolution. The parties attended a mediation session on September 14, 2006,
10
but no resolution with the White/Hernandez Plaintiffs was reached. In or around
11
September 2006, Defendants also answered the various Second Amended
12
Complaints, denying the allegations therein, denying that the actions are suitable for
13
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and asserting
14
numerous affirmative defenses that Defendants contend are meritorious.
15
The parties then agreed to a briefing and hearing schedule for the
16
preliminary approval of the proposed Acosta and Pike settlements. The
17
White/Hernandez Plaintiffs objected to the approval of the proposed class action
18
settlements. On March 6, 2007, the Court rejected the settlement in a 39-page
19
published decision. See Acosta v. TransUnion, LLC, 240 F.R.D. 564 (C.D. Cal.
20
2007).
21
Thereafter, the parties pursued discovery in anticipation of a motion
22
for class certification by the White/Hernandez plaintiffs, eventually scheduled for a
23
hearing in August 2007. In the midst of class certification briefing, Defendant
24
Experian moved for summary judgment, noticing the motion to be heard together
25
with class certification. On August 13, 2007, the Court issued a tentative ruling
26
denying in part the summary judgment motion, and the Court commenced the
27
hearing on the motion, which continued over the course of the following three days.
28
On the third day of the hearing, the Court encouraged Experian to withdraw its
851675.1
-3-
#:6080
1
motion and pursue, with the other Defendants, a global settlement with the
2
Plaintiffs.
3
In the Court’s rulings and comments to counsel, the Court has urged
4
the parties to proceed to mediation. Since August 15, 2007, the parties have
5
conducted arms-length, contentious, lengthy, and complicated negotiations (with
6
7
8
9
person or telephonic sessions involving counsel for the parties.
10
On or about April 3, 2008, the parties entered into the Injunctive Relief
11
Settlement Agreement, in which Defendants agreed to retroactively update the
12
credit files of 23(b)(2) Settlement Class members to reflect the discharge of certain
13
categories of pre-bankruptcy civil judgments and tradelines. Defendants also
14
agreed to adopt new procedures for the update of certain pre-bankruptcy civil
15
judgments and tradelines when a public record entry of the bankruptcy has been
16
added to the consumer’s file. All of the White/Hernandez and Acosta/Pike
17
Plaintiffs submitted declarations supporting and recommending the Injunctive
18
Relief Settlement, expressing to the Court that the changes to Defendants'
19
procedures were very important and were what they expected to achieve when
20
agreeing to participate in the lawsuit. Dkt. 301, Exh. G-O to Declaration of
21
Michael Sobol in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On August
22
19, 2008, the Court approved these new procedures, found them to be reasonable
23
under the FCRA, and entered an Approval Order Regarding Settlement and Release
24
for the Injunctive Relief Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 290). Settlement Class
25
Counsel will also be seeking approval of an award of fees and expenses for their
26
efforts in connection with obtaining the Injunctive Relief Settlement. That
27
Settlement benefits the overlapping, but distinct proposed monetary relief
28
settlement class, in addition to the millions of consumers filing for bankruptcy in
851675.1
-4-
#:6081
1
the future. In a separate, independently negotiated agreement, Defendants have
2
agreed to pay up to six million dollars for the injunctive relief fees and expenses.
3
4
Litigation then resumed with several mediation sessions, but without success. On
5
January 26, 2009, the parties appeared for a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
6
Certification of a 23(b)(3) damages class. Prior to the scheduled hearing, the Court
7
issued a tentative ruling denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification pursuant
8
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), decided not to hear the Motion at that time, and directed
9
the parties to make a final attempt to settle the Litigation. The parties and
10
Defendants’ insurance carriers participated in an additional mediation session
11
before mediator Wulff three days later but did not reach an agreement.
12
The parties and Defendants’ insurance carriers then participated in a
13
mandatory settlement conference at the Court on February 5, 2009. At that
14
conference, Plaintiffs, Equifax, and Experian reached agreement as to the principal
15
terms of a settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Litigation for monetary
16
damages, including statutory and punitive damages. TransUnion agreed to the
17
settlement terms on February 18, 2009. The Settlement establishes a $45 million
18
fund to provide damage award payments to Class members who submit claims to
19
confirm their eligibility. The Fund will also be used to pay costs of notice,
20
administrative costs, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants do not oppose 23(b)(3)
21
Settlement Class Counsel’s requested fee award.
22
On May 7, 2009, this Court preliminarily approved the 23(b)(3)
23
Settlement and conditionally certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24
23(b)(3) a class consisting of all Consumers who have received an order of
25
discharge pursuant to Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and who, at
26
any time between and including March 15, 2002, and May 11, 2009 (or, for
27
California residents in the case of TransUnion, any time between and including
28
May 12, 2001 and May 11, 2009), have been the subject of a Post-bankruptcy
851675.1
-5-
#:6082
1
Credit Report issued by a Defendant that contained possible errors regarding debts
2
discharged in bankruptcy. (Dkt. 423). In compliance with the Preliminary
3
Approval Order and Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notice
4
of 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s fee request was included in the Settlement
5
Notice that was sent to all class members on September 28, 2009.
6
II.
7
A.
8
9
The Requested Fees and Costs Are Reasonable and Appropriate
The Requested Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable
“Attorneys’ fees provisions included in proposed class action
settlement agreements are, like every other aspect of such agreements, subject to
10
the determination whether the settlement is ‘fundamentally fair, adequate, and
11
reasonable.’” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 963 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)). In “common-fund” cases, where the settlement creates a
13
large fund for the benefit of the class, the court has the discretion to use either a
14
percentage of the common fund or the lodestar method to determine the
15
reasonableness of the requested fees. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
16
1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886
17
F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d
18
1043, 1048-1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Selection of the benchmark or any other rate
19
must be supported by findings that take into account all of the circumstances of the
20
case,” including the results achieved for the class, both monetary and non-
21
monetary, and the risk faced by class counsel in prosecuting the case.)
22
The attorneys’ fees are expressly provided for in the Settlement
23
Agreement and Defendants do not contest the award requested by 23(b)(3)
24
Settlement Class Counsel. That counsel would request an award of attorneys’ fees
25
was disclosed to Class Members in the Notice.
26
1.
27
The Attorneys' Fees Sought Are Reasonable Under the
Percentage Method
In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for reasonableness under the
28
851675.1
-6-
#:6083
1
percentage-of-the-recovery method is 25%. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; Six Mexican
2
Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990); Paul,
3
Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d at 272. Defendants have agreed to
4
pay a total of $45 million for the benefit of the Class. In this case, considering only
5
monetary relief, Plaintiffs request $11,075,369 in attorneys’ fees for work through
6
final approval of the Settlement. This request is 25% of the Settlement Fund (after
7
deducting expenses), in line with the Ninth Circuit benchmark, for years of
8
extensive and hard-fought litigation resulting in significant benefits to the Class.
9
Thus, Plaintiffs’ requested fee award is reasonable under the percentage-of-the-
10
recovery method.
11
2.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A Cross-Check Using the Lodestar Method Confirms that
the Attorneys’ Fees Sought Are Reasonable
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s collective lodestar to date is
$13,069,440 for 27,424.75 total hours worked. One-half of the time incurred from
inception through the time of the filing of the 23(b)(2) Settlement (April 3, 2008) is
allocated to the 23(b)(2) Settlement (plus time incurred subsequent to April 3, 2008
in connection with the hearing on the approval of that settlement) and the other onehalf is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement. With the one-half allocated to the
23(b)(3) Settlement and the time incurred from April 4, 2008 through December 10,
2009, the attorney and staff timekeepers of 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel have
billed a total of 17,232.15 hours for a total lodestar of $8,307,421.75. All of this
time is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement because it was incurred after the
approval of the 23(b)(2) Settlement.
The starting point for computing the lodestar amount is to multiply the
number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a
reasonable hourly rate. See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co. Inc., 224 F.3d 1014,
1028 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). The
hourly rates used must be “in line with those prevailing in the community for
851675.1
-7-
#:6084
1
similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
2
reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). In addition, courts
3
typically apply each attorney’s current rates for all hours of work regardless of
4
when performed as a means of compensating for the delay in payment. In re Wash.
5
Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994).
6
Once this “raw” lodestar figure has been determined, the court may
7
take into consideration additional factors to enhance the lodestar, including: the
8
time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the
9
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; whether the fee is fixed or
10
contingent; the amount involved and the results obtained; the experience,
11
reputation, and ability of the attorneys; and awards in similar cases. See Ballen v.
12
City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cunningham v. County
13
of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 487 (9th Cir. 1988) and Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild,
14
Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)).
The risk multiplier in this request is approximately 1.33, i.e., the ratio
15
16
of fees requested ($11,075,369) to the lodestar incurred ($8,307,431.75). By any
17
measure, the risk multiplier is modest and well within the common practice for
18
similar cases. The Court has the discretion to adjust the percentage of the common
19
fund, or replace that calculation method with a lodestar calculation, if special
20
circumstances indicate the percentage recovery is too small or too large. Six
21
Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). Cf. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050
22
n.5 (“The lodestar method is merely a cross-check on the reasonableness of a
23
percentage figure…”). As described above, the requested fee award is
24
approximately 25% of the Settlement Fund (after deducting expenses), which is
25
fully in line with the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark of 25%. The lodestar calculation
26
demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ requested fee award is also based on a modest
27
multiplier of 23(b)(3) Class Counsel’s lodestar, well within the standards in
28
common fund cases.
851675.1
-8-
#:6085
1
A multiplier of 1.33 is well within the standards in the Ninth Circuit.
2
See Steiner v. Am. Broad. Co., 248 Fed. Appx. 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2007) (common
3
fund settlement with fee based on percentage of 25% held reasonable, and lodestar
4
cross-check indicated a multiplier of approximately 6.85, which was well within the
5
range of multipliers allowed in other cases); see also Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 n.6
6
(noting that a multiplier is frequently awarded in common fund cases when the
7
lodestar method is applied and citing cases with multipliers ranging from 0.6 to
8
19.6, with most of the cases ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 and a bare majority of cases in
9
the 1.5 to 3.0 range).
10
The modest multiplier is justified by the work 23(b)(3) Settlement
11
Class Counsel did while actively prosecuting this case. Plaintiffs in the various
12
cases have undertaken substantial investigation, fact-gathering, and formal
13
discovery (including review of tens of thousands of pages of documents, retention
14
and consultation of numerous experts in the fields of credit reporting and consumer
15
bankruptcies, interviews with numerous consumers, review of thousands of
16
consumer credit reports, and numerous depositions) in support of the Litigation.
17
Plaintiffs have taken or defended forty depositions, produced over 50,000 pages of
18
documents, and reviewed over 40,000 pages of documents produced by the
19
Defendants.
20
The 28 depositions taken by 23(b)(3) Settlement Counsel included
21
depositions of each of Defendants’ experts, as well as testimony from Directors,
22
Vice Presidents, other senior officers, and analysts and consultants from
23
Defendants’ departments handling, among other subjects, data acquisition services,
24
consumer relations, consumer fraud, technical, software, and modeling,
25
compliance, decision analytics and predictive services. In order to conduct
26
discovery efficiently and avoid duplicating work, the 23(b)(3) Settlement Class
27
Counsel divided into three discovery teams, one for each Defendant. Counsel
28
carefully coordinated discovery efforts to ensure that they were doing identical
851675.1
-9-
#:6086
1
discovery of each Defendant and held numerous meetings and conference calls to
2
discuss documents and depositions and keep all teams informed of what
3
information they were learning and what discovery was still needed.
4
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel also retained several experts
5
who have filed numerous declarations with the Court. Moreover, the parties have
6
engaged in extensive motion practice before reaching the Settlement Agreement.
7
They have attended several status conferences and multiple-day hearings on
8
settlement approval and summary judgment. This Court has presided over the
9
hearings and executed no fewer than thirty-seven minute entries, entered at least
10
fifty signed orders, and authored four published opinions.
11
Settlement negotiations in this case were hard fought and Plaintiffs and
12
the Class faced significant risks in continuing the litigation. Since the Court urged
13
the parties to proceed to mediation in August 2007, the parties have conducted
14
extensive arms-length and contentious negotiations during the course of a lengthy
15
and complicated mediation with the Hon. Lourdes Baird (Ret.) and with Randall
16
Wulff. They did so with attorneys on both sides who are very experienced in the
17
prosecution, defense, trial and settlement of class action litigation, including as it
18
relates to FCRA and other consumer cases, and who are well-versed in the legal and
19
factual issues implicated in this action. Id. Moreover, the parties had the benefit of
20
the Court’s guidance from its denial of settlement approval in the Acosta settlement,
21
its tentative ruling denying Experian’s summary judgment motion, and for the most
22
recent mediation sessions, the Court’s tentative ruling denying the
23
White/Hernandez Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
24
The parties participated in seven full days of mediation with the
25
participation of Judge Baird, as well as numerous telephonic conferences with
26
Judge Baird. The mediation sessions with Judge Baird not only led to the
27
Injunctive Relief Settlement approved by the Court on August 19, 2008, but also
28
assisted the parties in making modest progress toward a damages settlement. The
851675.1
- 10 -
#:6087
1
parties also participated in five in-person mediation sessions with mediator Randall
2
Wulff, including a mandatory settlement conference at the Court on February 5,
3
2009. Plaintiffs also engaged in separate settlement discussions with each of the
4
Defendants. The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel conducted discovery, reviewed
5
documents, appeared at conferences and motion hearings before this Court,
6
prepared for and participated in these numerous mediation sessions, drafted and
7
negotiated the settlement agreement and plan of allocation, and prepared the
8
motions for preliminary and final approval. Counsel have performed this work
9
entirely on a contingent basis and have not been compensated for their time.
10
The Settlement provides Class members with benefits they would not
11
enjoy if the case were to proceed to trial. First, the Settlement provides Class
12
members with prompt and efficient relief. Proceeding to trial would add years to
13
the resolution of this case and could be further delayed by appeals. Moreover,
14
because the individual actions would be cost prohibitive relative to the amount in
15
controversy presented by any individual claim, the Class members receive the
16
benefit of being part of a class action.
17
Second, the Settlement enables Class members to avoid the risks of
18
going to trial. The factual and legal issues in this action are complex, and the trial
19
of Plaintiffs’ claims under the FCRA and related state laws would require
20
substantial preparation and ultimately involve the presentation of dozens of
21
witnesses and numerous experts. Although Plaintiffs and the Class believe their
22
claims have merit, they also recognize that they would face significant legal,
23
factual, and procedural obstacles to recovering damages on their claims. Where, as
24
here, the Court issued a tentative ruling on January 26, 2009 denying Plaintiffs’
25
Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and directed the
26
parties to make a final attempt to settle the Litigation, certifying a class could
27
present some difficulties. Moreover, the outcome of a trial is uncertain. The
28
Defendants deny that they willfully violated FCRA or related state laws, and they
851675.1
- 11 -
#:6088
1
would challenge Plaintiffs’ claims at every stage of the Litigation. Among other
2
things, as evidence of their good faith, they would point to the fact that they have
3
completely revised the challenged procedures independently of any monetary
4
settlement. The Settlement ensures that Class members will be granted relief if
5
they submit timely qualified claims.
6
Third, the Settlement negates the extraordinary time and expense that
7
would be incurred if this case were to proceed to trial. The Settlement commits
8
Defendants to each pay $15 million into a Settlement Fund to be distributed among
9
the Class according to their claims. Even if the Class were successful in winning at
10
trial, it would not see any relief until after many potential appeals and many years.
11
The results of the Settlement will benefit the parties and the court system.
12
In this case, 23(b)(2) Settlement Class Counsel have extensive
13
experience in the area of consumer class actions, other complex class actions, and
14
FCRA litigation. Class Counsels’ customary rates, which were used for purposes
15
of calculating lodestar here, are based on prevailing fees in this District and have
16
been approved in the Central District of California and other Courts. That these
17
rates are reasonable is further confirmed by the fact that LCHB and Caddell &
18
Chapman also represent plaintiffs on an hourly basis and are paid according to their
19
current hourly rates, the same rates used to calculate its lodestar in this matter.
20
Based on these hours and rates, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s
21
lodestar is $8,307,421.75. The Settlement Agreement provides that Counsel may
22
seek an award for 25% of the Settlement Fund in attorneys’ fees. The award
23
provides for a modest multiplier of Counsel’s lodestar, which is reasonable, given
24
the risks of continued litigation and the substantial benefit to the Class.
25
B.
26
27
28
The Costs For Which Class Counsel Seek Reimbursement Are
Reasonable
“Reasonable costs and expenses incurred by an attorney who creates or
preserves a common fund are reimbursed proportionately by those class members
851675.1
- 12 -
#:6089
1
who benefit by the settlement.” In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp.
2
1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375,
3
391-392 (1970)); see also Staton, 327 F.3d at 974. The requested costs must be
4
relevant to the litigation and reasonable in amount. In re Media Vision, 913 F.
5
Supp. at 1366.
6
Throughout the course of this litigation, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class
7
Counsel have incurred substantial out-of-pocket expenses totaling $678,521.98 for
8
the monetary relief settlement. These costs included filing fees; expenses
9
associated with the research, preparation, filing, and responding to the pleadings in
10
this matter; costs associated with copying, uploading, and analyzing documents;
11
fees and expenses for experts; and mediation fees. Id. All of these costs and
12
expenses were advanced by 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel with no guarantee
13
they would ultimately be recovered, and most were “hard” costs paid out of pocket
14
to third-party vendors, court reporters, and experts. Id. These costs were necessary
15
in conjunction with this litigation and its resolution for the benefit of the 23(b)(3)
16
Settlement Class. Accordingly, these costs are reimbursable. See In re Immune
17
Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177-78 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (finding that
18
costs such as filing fees, photocopy costs, travel expenses, postage, telephone and
19
fax costs, computerized legal research fees, and mediation expenses are relevant
20
and necessary expenses in a class action litigation); see also In re United Energy
21
Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec. Litig., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P.
22
94,376, Nos. CV 87-3962KN(GX), CV 86-3538KN(GX), 1989 WL 73211, at * 6
23
(C.D.Cal. March 9, 1989); In re GNC Shareholder Litig., 668 F. Supp. 450, 452
24
(W.D. Pa. 1987); Conte, Attorneys’ Fee Awards, § 2.08 at 50-51 (2d ed. 1977).
25
C.
26
27
28
Settlement is Appropriate
The Settlement Agreement provides for $5,000 incentive awards for
the class representatives who support the Settlement in recognition of their service
851675.1
- 13 -
#:6090
1
to and efforts on behalf of the Class. See Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 384, Exhibit
2
1, § 7.5. These incentive awards are in addition to the relief the class
3
representatives will be entitled to under the terms of the Settlement. Throughout
4
the Litigation, these Class Representatives have participated in discovery, including
5
extensive and probing depositions and responding to interrogatories and requests
6
for production of documents. They all were kept informed of the Litigation as it
7
developed and all were kept abreast of, and signed off on, the proposed Settlement.
In Staton v. Boeing, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “named
8
9
plaintiffs . . . are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.” Staton, 327 F.3d at
10
977. Under Staton, such awards should be evaluated using “‘relevant factors,
11
includ[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the
12
degree to which the class has benefited from those actions, . . . the amount of time
13
and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation . . . and reasonabl[e]
14
fear[s of] workplace retaliation.’” Staton, 327 F.3d at 977 (citing Cook v. Niedert,
15
142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998)) (ellipses in original).
16
Enhancement awards like the ones requested here are appropriate.
17
Unlike unnamed Class members, who will enjoy the benefits of the
18
Representatives’ efforts without taking any personal action, the named Class
19
Representatives made themselves available as witnesses at deposition and subjected
20
themselves to all the obligations of named parties, including participating in
21
discovery and following the Litigation. Small incentive awards, which serve as
22
premiums in addition to any claims-based recovery from the settlement, promote
23
the public policy of encouraging individuals to undertake the responsibility of
24
representative lawsuits. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454,
25
463 (9th Cir. 2000); Staton, 327 F.3d at 977; Stevens v. Safeway, Inc., 2008 U.S.
26
Dist. LEXIS 17119 (C.D. Cal. 2008); see also Manual for Complex Litig., § 21.62
27
n.971 (4th ed. 2004) (incentive awards may be “merited for time spent meeting with
28
class members, monitoring cases, or responding to discovery”).
851675.1
- 14 -
#:6091
1
Each of the class representatives participated actively in the litigation.
2
Such incentive payments are therefore appropriate here. Staton, 327 F.3d at 977; In
3
re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d at 463. Moreover, the $5,000 payments
4
requested here are at the modest end of the spectrum, especially considering the
5
total amount of the Settlement Fund. See, e.g., Hughes v. Microsoft Corp., No.
6
C98-1646C, C93-0178C, 2001 WL 34089697, at *12-13, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7
5976, at *36-38 (W.D. Wash. March 26, 2001) (approving incentive awards of
8
$7,500, $20,000, and $40,000); Carroll v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., 157
9
F.R.D. 142, 143 (D. Mass. 1994), aff’d 34 F.3d 1065 (1st Cir. 1994) (“the class
10
representatives shall receive payments of $7,500 each as compensation for services
11
rendered to the class in initiating and prosecuting this action”); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil
12
Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27, 32 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (stating “the propriety of allowing
13
modest compensation to class representatives seems obvious,” and awarding
14
$20,000 to two named class representatives). See also In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec.
15
Litig., 213 F.3d at 457, 463 (approving service awards of $5,000 from a total
16
settlement of $1,725,000); Razilov v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 01-CV-1466-
17
BR., 2006 WL 3312024, *3-*4 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2006) (approving $10,000 award
18
to each class representative).
19
20
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
21
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel’s Application for
22
reimbursement of $678,521.98 in expenses is GRANTED.
23
Counsel’s Application for service awards of $5,000 each to the four
24
class representatives supporting the Settlement for the services they have rendered
25
to the Class throughout the Litigation resulting in a valuable Settlement is
26
GRANTED.
27
28
Counsel’s Application for attorneys’ fees of $11,075,369 is
GRANTED.
851675.1
- 15 -
#:6092
1
2
______________________________
David O. Carter
United States District Court Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
851675.1
- 16 -
#:6093
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
([email protected])
([email protected])
BERNSTEIN, LLP
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
15
16
17
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
18
19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
22
Defendant.
23
24
and Related Cases:
25
26
27
(Lead Case)
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION
FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
SOBOL DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
#:6094
1
I, Michael W. Sobol, declare as follows:
2
1.
I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and
3
a partner in the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (“LCHB”).
4
The Court has provisionally appointed me class counsel for the 23(b)(3) Settlement
5
Class. I also serve as class counsel for the 23(b)(2) Settlement Class. I have
6
personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and could and would testify
7
competently thereto if called upon to do so. I submit this Declaration in support of
8
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees for
9
Monetary Relief Settlement.
10
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
11
2.
I am a 1989 graduate of Boston University School of Law. I
12
practiced law in Massachusetts from 1989 to 1997. From 1995 through 1997, I was
13
a Lecturer in Law at Boston University School of Law. In 1997, I left my position
14
as partner in the Boston firm of Shafner, Gilleran & Mortensen, P.C. to move to
15
San Francisco, where I joined LCHB. Since joining LCHB in 1997, I have almost
16
exclusively represented plaintiffs in consumer protection class actions. I have been
17
a partner with LCHB since 1999. I have served as plaintiffs’ class counsel in
18
numerous nationwide consumer class action cases.
19
3.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is one of the oldest,
20
largest, most respected, and most successful law firms in the country representing
21
plaintiffs in class actions, and brings to the table a wealth of class action
22
experience. LCHB has been repeatedly recognized over the years as one of the top
23
plaintiffs’ law firms in the country by both The National Law Journal and The
24
American Lawyer. See, e.g., M. Moline, The Plaintiffs’ Hot List, National Law
25
Journal (Oct. 5, 2009) (LCHB received this same award each year from 2003
26
through 2009); J. Triedman, A New Lieff, The American Lawyer (Dec. 2006), at 13
27
(“one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms”); A. Frankel, Sweet Sixteen,
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-1-
#:6095
1
Litigation 2004, Supplement to The American Lawyer & Corporate Counsel (Dec.
2
2004), at 8-10.
3
4.
I am in my eighth year as chair of LCHB’s consumer practice
4
group, and as such am involved in and oversee a wide range of consumer protection
5
litigation. During this time, LCHB has vindicated the rights of and recovered
6
hundreds of millions of dollars for consumers in class litigation, including, by way
7
of example, the results in the following consumer protection cases:
8
Auto Lending Cases. In a series of lawsuits against automobile financing
9
companies alleging violations of the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act
10
and related state laws, we obtained settlements requiring that two defendants
11
establish a refinance program applicable to $1 billion of their respective
12
existing loan portfolio under which African and Hispanic Americans are
13
eligible for a reduction on their auto loan interest rate. It also limits the
14
amount of “mark-up” lenders can impose on interest rates, putting it in a
15
range to alleviate the discriminatory impact and other injunctive relief. The
16
monetary benefit to the affected groups is estimated to be about $96 to $120
17
million.
18
Predatory Lending Cases. Over the past several years LCHB has
19
successfully litigated numerous cases alleging predatory lending and unfair
20
mortgage practices. Settlements in these cases include: (a) Citigroup Loan
21
Cases, recovering $240 million in relief for a nationwide class against a
22
“sub-prime” lender for cramming unwanted and unnecessary insurance
23
products onto mortgage loans and engaging in improper loan refinancing
24
practices; (b) Reverse Mortgage Cases against Transamerica Corporation for
25
allegedly selling senior citizens misleading and unfair “reverse mortgages,”
26
resulting in a nationwide settlement providing relief to approximately 1600
27
members of the class and averaging about $5,000 per class member; (c)
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-2-
#:6096
1
Curry v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation, where a nationwide settlement
2
provided $55 million and injunctive relief to the class.
3
Credit Card Lending Cases. In Providian Credit Card Cases, a case alleging
4
unlawful, excessive interest and late charges, we achieved a national
5
settlement for a $105 million fund in addition to injunctive relief.
6
Insurance Practices. In Kline v. The Progressive Corporation, challenging
7
insurance sales practices which allegedly concealed the availability of lower
8
priced insurance, we reached a settlement valued at approximately $450
9
million, which included both cash and equitable relief.
10
Uninsured Hospital Patient Cases. In several litigations on behalf of
11
uninsured patients treated at major hospital services providers who were
12
allegedly charged substantially more than patients with private or public
13
insurance, settlements were reached providing for several hundred million
14
dollars in benefits for class members as well as significant injunctive relief
15
reforming these practices.
16
Qui Tam Litigation. In a suit alleging that the University of Phoenix
17
defrauded the U.S. Department of Education in obtaining federal student loan
18
and Pell Grant monies from the federal government based on false statements
19
of compliance with the Higher Education Act, we obtained a cash settlement
20
for $78.5 million settlement, the second-largest settlement ever in a False
21
Claims Act case in which the federal government declined to intervene.
22
Real Estate Closing Practices. LCHB’s consumer protection litigation also
23
includes representing rights of residential home purchasers facing unfair real
24
estate closing practices. In the California Title Insurance Industry Litigation,
25
alleging that the title companies received interest payments on customer
26
escrow funds that were never reimbursed to their customers, settlements
27
reached in coordination with parallel litigation brought by the Attorney
28
General resulted in about $50 million in restitution to California consumers,
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-3-
#:6097
1
including cash payments. In Berger v. Property I.D. Corp., et al., alleging
2
violations of RESPA, a settlement was reached resulting in restitution of
3
$39.4 million to consumers.
4
5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of LCHB’s firm resume,
5
which describes in further detail the cases referenced above, as well as some of the
6
firm’s other experience in class action and other complex litigation. As set forth
7
therein, LCHB represents plaintiffs in securities, employment, antitrust, civil rights,
8
and mass tort cases. LCHB has served as class counsel in hundreds of class actions
9
nationwide, resulting in hundreds of judgments and settlements which have
10
recovered billions of dollars for its clients.
11
6.
Allison Elgart is, and has been, the primary LCHB associate
12
litigating this case. Ms. Elgart graduated magna cum laude from Brown University
13
in 2000, and from Harvard Law School in 2005, where she was Editor-in-Chief of
14
the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and a practicing member of
15
the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. Immediately after graduating from law school, Ms.
16
Elgart clerked for the Honorable Robert P. Patterson, Jr. of the United States
17
District Court for the Southern District of New York. At LCHB, she has focused
18
on representing plaintiffs in employment discrimination litigation and consumer
19
protection class action cases.
20
THE LITIGATION
21
7.
Plaintiffs in the consolidated and coordinated actions pending in
22
this Court (the “Litigation”) allege that Defendants Experian Information Solutions,
23
Inc. (“Experian”), Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), and TransUnion
24
LLC (“TransUnion”) recklessly or negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting
25
Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to maintain reasonable
26
27
bankruptcy.
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-4-
#:6098
1
8.
The Litigation has been pending before this Court since the Fall
2
of 2005. The cases have been vigorously litigated; the parties have engaged in
3
extensive discovery, motion practice, and class certification briefing. The parties
4
have made numerous court appearances, including several management conferences
5
and multiple-day hearings on settlement approval and summary judgment. This
6
Court has presided over the hearings and executed no fewer than thirty-seven
7
minute entries, entered at least fifty signed orders, and authored four published
8
opinions.
9
9.
In the Court’s rulings and comments to counsel, the Court has
10
urged the parties to proceed to mediation. Since August 15, 2007, the parties have
11
conducted arm’s-length, contentious, lengthy, and complicated negotiations (with
12
13
14
15
person or telephonic sessions involving counsel for the parties. The negotiations
16
involved attorneys on both sides who have extensive experience in the prosecution,
17
defense, trial and settlement of class action litigation, including as it relates to
18
FCRA, bankruptcy, and other consumer cases, and who are well-versed in the legal
19
and factual issues implicated in this action.
20
10.
In the litigation process leading to the Settlement Agreement,
21
Plaintiffs’ counsel undertook substantial investigation, fact-gathering, and formal
22
discovery to evaluate the merits of Plaintiffs’ case. This discovery included review
23
of over 40,000 pages of documents produced by Defendants, the retention and
24
consultation of credit reporting and consumer bankruptcy experts (who have each
25
filed several declarations with this Court), interviews with numerous consumers,
26
review of thousands of consumer credit reports, the production of over 50,000
27
pages of documents by Plaintiffs, and more than forty depositions taken and
28
defended in support of the litigation.
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-5-
#:6099
1
The 28 depositions included depositions of each of Defendants’
2
experts, as well as testimony from Directors, Vice Presidents, other senior officers,
3
and analysts and consultants from Defendants’ departments handling, among other
4
subjects, data acquisition services, consumer relations, consumer fraud, technical,
5
software, and modeling, compliance, decision analytics and predictive services.
6
From these depositions, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel acquired significant
7
information used to rebut Defendants’ opposition to changing their procedures and
8
meet Defendants’ challenges regarding class certification. For example, Class
9
Counsel learned, inter alia, that Defendants could identify consumers who had
10
credit reports issued whose files included a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge, both in
11
current and archived files; that Defendants could screen out consumers whose
12
bankruptcies involved asset cases; that certain types of debts are discharged in a
13
Chapter 7 no-asset bankruptcy; and that Defendants were not engaging in
14
reasonable monitoring and reporting of disputed tradelines to ensure maximum
15
possible accuracy. The depositions also helped 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel
16
challenge the scoring analyses conducted by both Experian and Equifax, as well as
17
Defendants’ arguments concerning alleged scoring benefits to consumers from
18
inaccurate credit reporting.
19
In order to conduct discovery efficiently and avoid duplicating work,
20
the 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel divided into three discovery teams, one for
21
each Defendant. Counsel carefully coordinated discovery efforts to ensure that they
22
were doing identical discovery of each Defendant and held numerous meetings and
23
conference calls to discuss documents and depositions and keep all teams informed
24
of what information they were learning and what discovery was still needed.
25
11.
On or about April 3, 2008, the parties entered into the Injunctive
26
Relief Settlement Agreement, by which Defendants agreed to retroactively update
27
the credit files of 23(b)(2) Settlement Class members to reflect the discharge of
28
certain categories of pre-bankruptcy civil judgments and tradelines. Defendants
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-6-
#:6100
1
also agreed to adopt new procedures for the update of certain pre-bankruptcy civil
2
judgments and tradelines when a public record entry of the bankruptcy is added to
3
the consumer’s file. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved these new
4
procedures, found them to be reasonable under the FCRA, and entered an Approval
5
Order Regarding Settlement and Release for the Injunctive Relief Settlement
6
Agreement (Dkt. 338). The 23(b)(2) Settlement Class Counsel will be seeking
7
approval of an award of fees and expenses for their efforts in connection with
8
obtaining this Injunctive Relief Settlement. In a separate, independently negotiated
9
agreement, Defendants have agreed to pay up to six million dollars for the
10
injunctive relief fees and expenses.
11
12.
12
Litigation resumed after the successful completion of the 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief
13
Settlement. The parties proceeded with several mediation sessions, but without
14
success. On January 26, 2009, the parties appeared for a hearing on Plaintiffs’
15
Motion for Class Certification of a 23(b)(3) damages class. Prior to the scheduled
16
hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
17
Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), decided not to hear the Motion at
18
that time, and directed the parties to make a final attempt to settle the monetary
19
claims raised in the Litigation. The parties and Defendants’ insurance carriers
20
participated in an additional mediation session before mediator Wulff three days
21
later but did not reach an agreement. The parties and Defendants’ insurance
22
carriers then participated in a mandatory settlement conference at the courthouse on
23
February 5, 2009. At that conference, Plaintiffs, Equifax, and Experian reached
24
agreement as to the principal terms of a settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the
25
Litigation for monetary damages, including statutory and punitive damages.
26
TransUnion agreed to the settlement terms on February 18, 2009. The Settlement
27
establishes a $45 million fund to provide damage award payments to Class
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-7-
#:6101
1
members who submit claims to confirm their eligibility. The fund will also be used
2
to pay costs of notice, administrative costs, and attorneys’ fees.
3
COUNSEL’S TIME AND EXPENSES
4
13.
I am the partner at LCHB that supervises its associates,
5
paralegals and litigation support personnel in connection with their work regarding
6
the Litigation. In addition, I have personally conducted discovery, taken fact and
7
expert depositions, reviewed documents, appeared at conferences and motion
8
hearings before the Court, and actively participated in the mediation sessions
9
concerning the Litigation. Since around the time that the White and Hernandez
10
actions were consolidated into a single proceeding, my co-counsel Michael A.
11
Caddell and I have effectively served during the Litigation as co-lead counsel on
12
behalf of all the White/Hernandez plaintiffs.
13
14.
LCHB has spent time on this litigation that could have been
14
spent on other matters. At various times during the Litigation, the active
15
prosecution of the claims has consumed a substantial percentage of my billable time
16
that could otherwise have been spent on other fee-generating work. In addition to a
17
substantial percentage of my time, this case has also required work by other lawyers
18
in my firm, as well as by our law clerks, paralegals, investigators, and computer
19
database personnel.
20
15.
The time my firm has spent on this case has been completely
21
contingent on the outcome of the action. LCHB has not been paid for any of the
22
time spent on the action.
23
16.
In connection with the Litigation, the attorney and staff
24
timekeepers at LCHB have billed a total of 8,431.70 hours from inception to
25
December 10, 2009. However, this time was incurred prosecuting and resolving
26
both the injunctive relief claims resulting in the 23(b)(2) Settlement and the
27
monetary relief claims resulting in the 23(b)(3) Settlement. While both sets of
28
claims were pending, the work performed with respect to those claims was
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
-8-
Case 8:05-cv-01070-DOC-MLG Document 577-3 Filed 12/21/09 Page 10 of 105 Page ID
#:6102
1
substantially indistinguishable from one another. For example, success on the
2
merits of the claims is a necessary precursor to obtaining either injunctive or
3
monetary relief, and the efforts involved with respect to demonstrating success on
4
the merits involved the same discovery and proof for both types of relief, whether
5
presented in mediation or in court. As the Court has noted in this case, “[t]hese fees
6
and costs are so intertwined with the injunctive relief portion of the lawsuit, and
7
this Court would spend an inordinate amount of time in disagreements about what
8
portion of plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours were billed to strictly injunctive relief and
9
what the carryover is to class cert and the remaining claims.” August 19, 2008
10
Hearing Tr. at 19.
11
17.
12
through the time of the filing of the 23(b)(2) Settlement (April 3, 2008) is allocated
13
to the 23(b)(2) Settlement (plus time incurred subsequent to April 3, 2008 in
14
connection with the hearing on the approval of that settlement) and the other one-
15
half is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement. The attorney and staff timekeepers at
16
LCHB have billed a total of 5,350.50 hours from the inception of the Litigation to
17
April 3, 2008, for a total lodestar of $ 2,664,237.00. Half of those hours amounts to
18
2,675.25 hours and one-half that lodestar is $1,332,118.50.
19
18.
From April 4, 2008 through December 10, 2009, the attorney
20
and staff timekeepers at LCHB have billed a total of 3,081.20 hours, for a total
21
lodestar of $ 1,417,169.50, minus time incurred subsequent to April 4, 2008 in
22
connection with the hearing on the approval of the injunctive relief settlement (26.3
23
hours and $ 16,958.00 in lodestar), for a total of 30,504.90 hours and $1,400,211.50
24
lodestar. All of this time is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement because it was
25
incurred after the approval of the 23(b)(2) Settlement.
26
19.
Therefore, adding one-half of the lodestar incurred before the
27
injunctive relief settlement to the total lodestar incurred post-injunctive relief
28
towards the monetary settlement, LCHB’s attorney and staff timekeepers have
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
Accordingly, one-half of the time incurred from inception
-9-
#:6103
1
billed a total of 5,730.15 hours for a total lodestar of $ 2,732,330.00 for the
2
monetary relief Settlement. All these hours were incurred in connection with the
3
Litigation and are reasonably connected to the prosecution of the monetary relief
4
claims and procuring the 23(b)(3) Settlement.
5
20.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a summary listing each lawyer,
6
law clerk, and legal assistant for which LCHB is seeking compensation for legal
7
services in connection with the 23(b)(3) Settlement, the hours each individual
8
expended, and the hourly rate at which compensation is sought for each individual.
9
For individuals who have left the employ of LCHB, the hourly rate at the time
10
when employment concluded is used.
11
21.
Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I
12
believe that the time expended by LCHB in connection with this litigation, when
13
compared to the result achieved for the Class, is reasonable in amount and was
14
necessary to ensure the successful monetary relief obtained on behalf of the Class.
15
22.
LCHB’s customary rates, which were used for purposes of
16
calculating lodestar here, are based on prevailing fees in this District and have been
17
approved in the Central District of California and other Courts in this Circuit. See,
18
e.g., Grays Harbor Adventist Church Sch. v. Carrier Corp., No. C05-5437-RBL,
19
2008 WL 1901988, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2008); Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser
20
Co., No. 08-0334, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1803, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2009);
21
Transcript of Proceedings on January 26, 2009, Berger v. Property ID Corporation,
22
CV 05-5373-GHK (Cwx) (C.D. Cal.), at 53-54, attached as Exhibit C.
23
23.
LCHB sets its hourly rates according to prevailing market rates,
24
bills its hourly paying clients according to those rates, and is routinely awarded fees
25
according to those rates. LCHB primarily represents clients on a contingent fee
26
basis, both in class and individual cases. However, LCHB also represents plaintiffs
27
on an hourly basis and is paid according to its then current hourly rates. LCHB
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
- 10 -
#:6104
1
currently is retained by such clients who pay LCHB’s current hourly rates, the same
2
rates used to calculate its lodestar in this matter.
3
24.
4
award of 25% of the Settlement Fund after deducting the amounts of the expense
5
reimbursement and the service awards for class representatives, in line with the
6
Ninth Circuit’s benchmark. The lodestar calculation demonstrates that Plaintiffs’
7
requested fee award is also based on a multiplier of approximately 1.33 of 23(b)(3)
8
Class Counsel’s lodestar. By any measure, the risk multiplier is modest and well
9
within the common practice for similar cases.
10
25.
LCHB has expended a total of $ 334,228.76 in un-reimbursed
11
expenses that were necessarily incurred in connection with the prosecution of the
12
Litigation. From inception through April 3, 2008 (i.e., the date of the filing of the
13
23(b)(2) Settlement Agreement), LCHB expended a total of $ 104,051.62 in un-
14
reimbursed expenses, one-half of which is attributable to the monetary relief
15
Settlement for a total of $ 52,025.81. From April 4, 2008 through December 10,
16
2009, LCHB expended a total of $ 230,177.14 in un-reimbursed expenses (less the
17
$548.50 in expenses incurred in connection with the injunctive relief settlement
18
approval hearing). Therefore, the total amount of LCHB expenses that can be
19
allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement is $ 281,654.45.
20
26.
The foregoing expenses were incurred solely in connection with
21
this Litigation and are reflected on LCHB’s books and records as maintained in the
22
ordinary course of business. These books and records are prepared from invoices,
23
receipts, expense vouchers, check records and other records, and are an accurate
24
record of the expenses incurred in this case. The rates charged for all internal
25
expenses incurred by my firm (e.g., photocopying) are the same irrespective of
26
whether the case is billable or contingent. As a result, the rates charged are
27
necessarily market-sensitive and market-competitive since they are subject to and
28
controlled by an overriding “check” imposed by the firm’s cost paying clients.
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel are requesting a fee
- 11 -
#:6105
1
27.
The attorneys’ fees are expressly provided for in the 23(b)(3)
2
Settlement Agreement and Defendants do not contest the award requested by Class
3
Counsel.
4
5
28.
The fee request was also disclosed to Class Members in the
Notice regarding the monetary relief settlement sent on September 28, 2009.
6
7
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct
8
and that this Declaration was signed in San Francisco, California, on December 21,
9
2009.
10
11
Michael W. Sobol
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
850560.3
852006_1.PDF
- 12 -
#:6106
EXHIBIT A
852006_1.PDF
#:6107
Embarcadero Center West
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
250 Hudson Street
8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
One Nashville Place
150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
Nashville, TN 37219-2415
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.lieffcabraser.com
FIRM PROFILE:
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a fifty-plus attorney, AV-rated law firm
founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Lieff Cabraser has a
diversified practice, successfully representing plaintiffs in the fields of personal injury and mass
torts, securities and investment fraud, employment discrimination and unlawful employment
practices, product defect, antitrust, consumer protection, aviation, environmental and toxic
exposure, and human rights. Our clients include individuals, classes or groups of persons,
businesses, and public and private entities.
Lieff Cabraser has served as court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Lead or Class Counsel in state
and federal coordinated, multi-district, and complex litigation throughout the United States.
With co-counsel, we have represented clients across the globe in cases filed in American courts.
We have litigated and resolved thousands of individual lawsuits and hundreds of class and group
actions, including some of the most important civil cases in the United States over the last fifteen
years.
Lieff Cabraser is among the largest firms in the United States that only represent
plaintiffs. Described by The American Lawyer as “one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms,”
Lieff Cabraser enjoys a national reputation for professional integrity and the successful
prosecution of our clients’ claims. We possess sophisticated legal skills and the financial
resources necessary for the handling of large, complex cases, and for litigating against some of
the nation’s largest corporations. We take great pride in the leadership roles our firm plays in
many of this country’s major cases, including those resulting in landmark decisions and
precedent-setting rulings.
In the 2009 edition of its annual list of the top plaintiffs’ law firms, The National Law
Journal again selected Lieff Cabraser. In compiling the list, The National Law Journal examines
recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the
plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Lieff Cabraser is one of
only two plaintiffs' law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last seven years.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
#:6108
CASE PROFILES:
A.
Consumer Protection
1.
White v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 05-CV-1070 DOC (C.D.
Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a nationwide class
action lawsuit against the nation’s three major repositories of consumer
credit information, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union,
LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC. Plaintiffs charge that
defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”) by recklessly
failing to follow reasonable procedures in the reporting, and
reinvestigation of reporting, of debts discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceedings. Plaintiffs allege that millions of Americans were denied
loans or were forced to pay higher interest rates because defendants
continued to report discharged debts as due and owing.
In August 2008, the Court granted final approval to a historic settlement
for injunctive relief requiring detailed procedures for the retroactive
correction and updating of consumers' credit file information concerning
discharged debt as well as new procedures to ensure that debts subject to
future discharge orders will be similarly treated.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
2.
Berger v. Property I.D. Corporation, No. CV 05-5373-GHK (C.D. Cal.).
In January 2009, the Court granted final approval to a $39.4 million
settlement with several of the nation’s largest real estate brokerages,
including companies doing business as Coldwell Banker, Century 21, and
ERA Real Estate, and California franchisors for RE/MAX and Prudential
California Realty, in an action under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act on behalf of California home sellers. Plaintiffs charged
that the brokers and Property I.D. Corporation set up straw companies as a
way to disguise kickbacks for referring their California clients ' natural
hazard disclosure report business to Property I.D. (the report is required to
sell a home in California). Under the settlement, hundreds of thousands of
California home sellers were eligible to receive a full refund of the cost of
their report, typically about $100.
3.
United States of America ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v.
University of Phoenix, No. 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Lead Counsel representing the plaintiffs in a
whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claim Act against the
University of Phoenix. The complaint alleged that the University of
Phoenix defrauded the U.S. Department of Education by obtaining federal
student loan and Pell Grant monies from the federal government based on
false statements of compliance with the Higher Education Act. That Act
prohibits universities receiving federal student aid monies from making
incentive payments to recruiters based "directly or indirectly" on the
number of students they recruit or enroll. In December 2009, the parties
-2-
#:6109
announced a $78.5 million settlement. The settlement constitutes the
second-largest settlement ever in a False Claims Act case in which the
federal government declined to intervene in the action.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
4.
Catholic Healthcare West Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4453 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).
Plaintiff alleged that Catholic Healthcare West (“CHW”) charged
uninsured patients excessive fees for treatment and services, at rates far
higher than the rates charged to patients with private insurance or on
Medicare. In January 2007, the Court approved a settlement that provides
discounts, refunds and other benefits for CHW patients valued at $423
million. The settlement requires that CHW lower its charges and end
price discrimination against all uninsured patients, maintain generous
charity case policies allowing low-income uninsureds to receive free or
heavily discounted care, and protect uninsured patients from unfair
collections practices. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in the
coordinated action.
5.
Estate of Holman, et al. v. Noble Energy, Inc., No. 03 CV 9 (Dist. Ct.,
Weld County, Co.); Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development
Corporation, No. 07 CV 2508 JLK (D. Co.); Anderson v. Merit Energy
Co., No. 07 CV 00916 LTB (D. Co.); Holman v. Petro-Canada
Resources (USA), Inc., N. 07 CV 416 (Dist. Ct., Weld County, Co.).
Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent owners of natural gas royalties in
a number of lawsuits filed against gas producers and operators. Plaintiffs
allege that defendants improperly deducted from royalty payments certain
costs associated with defendants' extraction and processing of natural gas
from wells owned by plaintiffs. Since 2007, our clients have recovered
more than $150 million.
6.
Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4388 (Cal. Supr.
Ct.). Plaintiffs alleged that they and a Class of uninsured patients treated
at Sutter hospitals were charged substantially more than patients with
private or public insurance, and many times above the cost of providing
their treatment. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a
comprehensive and groundbreaking settlement of the action. As part of
the settlement, Class members will be entitled to make a claim for refunds
or deductions of between 25% to 45% from their prior hospital bills, at an
estimated total value of $276 million. For the next three years, Sutter will
maintain discounted pricing policies for uninsureds that will make Sutter’s
pricing for uninsureds comparable to or better than the pricing for patients
with private insurance. In addition, Sutter agreed to maintain more
compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds who fall
behind in their payments. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in the
coordinated action.
7.
In re John Muir Uninsured Healthcare Cases, JCCP No. 4494 (Cal.
Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represented nearly 53,000 uninsured patients
-3-
#:6110
who received care at John Muir hospitals and outpatient centers and were
charged inflated prices and then subject to overly aggressive collection
practices when they failed to pay. On November 19, 2008, the Court
approved a final settlement of the John Muir litigation. John Muir agreed
to provide refunds or bill adjustments of 40-50% to uninsured patients that
received medical care at John Muir over a six year period, bringing their
charges to the level of patients with private insurance, at a value of $115
million. No claims were required, so every class member received a
refund or bill adjustment. Furthermore, John Muir was required to (1)
maintain charity care policies to give substantial discounts – up to 100% –
to low income, uninsured patients who meet certain income requirements;
(2) maintain an Uninsured Patient Discount Policy to give discounts to all
uninsured patients, regardless of income, so that they pay rates no greater
than those paid by patients with private insurance; (3) enhance
communications to uninsured patients so they are better advised about
John Muir’s pricing discounts, financial assistance, and financial
counseling services; and (4) limit the practices for collecting payments
from uninsured patients.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
8.
Cincotta v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, No.
07359096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel for
nearly 100,000 uninsured patients that alleged they were charged
excessive and unfair rates for emergency room service across 55 hospitals
throughout California. The settlement, approved on October 31, 2008,
provided complete debt elimination, 100% cancellation of the bill, to
uninsured patients treated by California Emergency Physicians Medical
Group during the 4-year class period. These benefits were valued at
$27 million. No claims were required, so all of these bills were cancelled.
In addition, the settlement required California Emergency Physicians
Medical Group prospectively to (1) maintain certain discount policies for
all charity care patients; (2) inform patients of the available discounts by
enhanced communications; and (3) limit significantly the type of
collections practices available for collecting from charity care patients.
9.
Ricci v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, No. 27-CV-05-2546 (Minn.
District Court). Lieff Cabraser serves as Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel for a
certified class of Minnesota property owners who obtained mortgage loans
from Ameriquest Mortgage Company. Plaintiffs charge that Ameriquest
has engaged in a deceptive and unlawful business practices in violation of
Minnesota law. Plaintiffs allege that Ameriquest trains its sales force to
target economically vulnerable persons in a predatory lending scheme
based on the sale of loans with illegal and undisclosed fees and terms.
10.
R.M. Galicia v. Franklin; Franklin v. Scripps Health, No. IC 859468
(San Diego Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Lead Class Counsel in a
certified class action lawsuit on behalf of 60,750 uninsured patients who
alleged that the Scripps Health hospital system imposed excessive fees and
-4-
#:6111
charges for medical treatment. The class action originated in July 2006,
when uninsured patient Phillip Franklin filed a class action crosscomplaint against Scripps Health after Scripps sued Mr. Franklin through
a collection agency. Mr. Franklin alleged that he, like all other uninsured
patients of Scripps Health, was charged unreasonable and unconscionable
rates for his medical treatment. In June 2008, the Court granted final
approval to a settlement of the action which includes refunds or discounts
of 35% off of medical bills, collectively worth $73 million. The
settlement also requires Scripps Health to modify its pricing and
collections practices by (1) following an Uninsured Patient Discount
Policy, which includes automatic discounts from billed charges for
Hospital Services; (2) following a Charity Care Policy, which provides
uninsured patients who meet certain income tests with discounts on Health
Services up to 100% free care, and provides for charity discounts
under other special circumstances; (3) informing uninsured patients about
the availability and terms of the above financial assistance policies; and
(4) restricting certain collections practices and actively monitoring
outside collection agents. The prospective future discounts are worth
many millions more in savings to uninsureds over the next four years.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
11.
Brazil v. Dell, No. C-07-01700 RMW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves
as counsel for consumers that charge Dell has engaged in a scheme to
deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers. The complaint charges
that Dell advertises “limited time” specific-dollar discounts from expressly
referenced former prices, but that the discounts are false because the
reference prices are inflated beyond Dell’s true regular prices. In 2007,
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied Dell’s motions to
enforce a class action waiver clause and to compel arbitration. The Court
found that the provisions in Dell's purchase agreement requiring disputes
to be resolved through individual arbitration proceedings and prohibiting
class actions are unconscionable under California law.
12.
Schaffer v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CV 05-07673 (C.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs, all homeowners with a mortgage loan serviced by Litton Loan
Servicing, charge that Litton has engaged in a scheme by which it fails to
accurately service its borrowers’ loans, including misapplying or failing to
apply payments made. In July 2007, the Court certified a nationwide class
of borrowers who have claims against Litton for violation of 12 U.S.C. §
2605(d), a provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. This
provision creates a 60-day grace period following the transfer of servicing
of a mortgage loan, and prohibits loan servicers from imposing late fees or
otherwise treating as late any payment that was "received by the transferor
servicer (rather than the transferee servicer who should properly receive
payment) before the due date applicable to such payment." 12 U.S.C. §
2605(d).
-5-
#:6112
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
13.
In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation, MDL No. 1467 (N.D. Ga.). In
March 2004, Lieff Cabraser delivered opening statements and began
testimony in a class action by families whose loved ones were improperly
cremated and desecrated by Tri-State Crematory in Noble, Georgia. The
families also asserted claims against the funeral homes that delivered the
decedents to Tri-State Crematory for failing to ensure that the crematory
performed cremations in the manner required under the law and by human
decency. One week into trial, settlements with the remaining funeral
home defendants were reached and brought the settlement total to
approximately $37 million. Trial on the class members’ claims against the
operators of crematory began in August 2004. Soon thereafter, these
defendants entered into a $80 million settlement with plaintiffs. As part of
the settlement, all buildings on the Tri-State property were razed. The
property will remain in a trust so that it will be preserved in peace and
dignity as a secluded memorial to those whose remains were mistreated,
and to prevent crematory operations or other inappropriate activities from
ever taking place there. Earlier in the litigation, the Court granted
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a published order. 215 F.R.D.
660 (2003).
14.
Morris v. AT&T Wireless Services, No. C-04-1997-MJP (W.D. Wash.).
Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel for a nationwide settlement class of
cell phone customers subjected to an end of billing cycle cancellation
policy implemented by AT&T Wireless in 2003 and alleged to have
breached customers’ service agreements. In May 2006, the New Jersey
Superior Court granted final approval to a class settlement that guarantees
delivery to the class of $40 million in benefits. Class members received
cash-equivalent calling cards automatically, and had the option of
redeeming them for cash. Lieff Cabraser had been prosecuting the class
claims in the Western District of Washington when a settlement in New
Jersey state court was announced. Lieff Cabraser objected to that
settlement as inadequate because it would have only provided $1.5 million
in benefits without a cash option, and the court agreed, declining to
approve it. Thereafter, Lieff Cabraser negotiated the new settlement
providing $40 million to the class, and the settlement was approved.
15.
Strugano v. Nextel Communications, Inc., No. BC 288359 (Los Angeles
Supr. Crt). In May 2006, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final
approval to a class action settlement on behalf of all California customers
of Nextel from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002, for
compensation for the harm caused by Nextel’s alleged unilateral (1)
addition of a $1.15 monthly service fee and/or (2) change from second-bysecond billing to minute-by-minute billing, which caused “overage”
charges (i.e., for exceeding their allotted cellular plan minutes). The total
benefit conferred by the Settlement directly to Class Members was
between approximately $13.5 million and $55.5 million, depending on
which benefit Class Members selected. Class Counsel secured these
-6-
#:6113
benefits for a Class of approximately 308,000 customers with 1.1 million
cell phone plans.
16.
Thompson, et al. v. WFS Financial, Inc., No. 3-02-0570 (M.D. Tenn.);
Pakeman, et al. v. American Honda Finance Corporation, No. 3-020490 (M.D. Tenn.); Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. CGC
03-419 230 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). For the past five years, Lieff
Cabraser with co-counsel litigated against several of the largest
automobile finance companies in the country to compensate victims of –
and stop future instances of – racial discrimination in the setting of interest
rates in automobile finance contracts. The litigation led to substantial
changes in the way Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (“TMCC”),
American Honda Finance Corporation (“American Honda”) and WFS
Financial, Inc., sell automobile finance contracts, limiting the
discrimination that can occur.
TMCC, American Honda and WFS Financial allow independent
automobile dealers to add a discretionary markup (often several
percentage points) to the objective, credit-based interest rates determined
by the finance company. Plaintiffs charged that African-American and
Latino customers paid more in finance charges than similarly situated nonminority customers due to the practice by TMCC, American Honda and
WFS Financial of allowing dealers to increase, or “mark up,” a customer’s
Annual Percentage Rate (“APR”) on contracts. The discretionary markup
amounts were not based on objective credit-worthiness information, but
were wholly subjective. Statistical analyses showed that the discretionary
markups had a disparate impact on African American and Latino
customers.
In the nationwide class action litigation against TMCC, American Honda
and WFS Financial, the respective parties entered into landmark
settlements for African American and Latino consumers which
collectively provided:
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
•
Cash or credit payments of up to $400 per class member.
•
Broad refinancing programs reducing rates charged to
existing African-American and Latino customers whose
markups were 1% or more. These benefits were valued at
$1 billion in the WFS Financial case alone.
•
New pre-approved offers of credit (that cannot be marked
up) to 1.5 million African American and Latino consumers.
•
Limits on discretionary markups on new loans of 1.75% to
2.50% (depending on the length of the loan). This
compression of the discretionary range substantially
-7-
#:6114
reduced the likelihood that any markups in the future will
occur as the result of racial discrimination.
•
New disclosures on all contracts explaining that the interest
rate may be negotiable.
•
Donations of $1.9 million to non-profit organizations
involved in consumer education and assistance.
In approving the settlement in Thompson v. WFS Financial, the Court
recognized the “innovative” and “remarkable settlement” achieved on
behalf of the nationwide class. In 2006 in Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide class action
settlement on behalf of all African-American and Hispanic customers of
TMCC who entered into retail installment contracts that were assigned to
TMCC from 1999 to 2006. The monetary benefit to the class was
estimated to be between $159 and $174 million.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
17.
Providian Credit Card Cases, No. JCCP 4085 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.).
Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified national
Settlement Class of Providian credit cardholders who alleged that
Providian had engaged in widespread misconduct by charging cardholders
unlawful, excessive interest and late charges, and by promoting and selling
to cardholders “add-on products” promising illusory benefits and services.
In November 2001, the Court granted final approval to a $105 million
settlement of the case, which also required Providian to implement
substantial changes in its business practices. The $105 million settlement,
combined with an earlier settlement by Providian with Federal and state
agencies, represents the largest settlement ever by a U.S. credit card
company in a consumer protection case.
18.
California Title Insurance Industry Litigation. Lieff Cabraser, in
coordination with parallel litigation brought by the Attorney General,
reached settlements in 2003 and 2004 with the leading title insurance
companies in California, resulting in historic industry-wide changes to the
practice of providing escrow services in real estate closings. The
settlements brought a total of $50 million in restitution to California
consumers, including cash payments. In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged,
among other things, that the title companies received interest payments on
customer escrow funds that were never reimbursed to their customers.
The defendant companies include Lawyers’ Title, Commonwealth Land
Title, Stewart Title of California, First American Title, Fidelity National
Title, and Chicago Title.
19.
Kline v. The Progressive Corporation, Circuit No. 02-L-6 (Circuit Court
of the First Judicial Circuit, Johnson County, Illinois). Lieff Cabraser
served as settlement class counsel in a nationwide consumer class action
-8-
#:6115
challenging Progressive Corporation’s private passenger automobile
insurance sales practices. Plaintiffs alleged that the Progressive
Corporation wrongfully concealed from class members the availability of
lower priced insurance for which they qualified. In 2002, the Court
approved a settlement valued at approximately $450 million, which
included both cash and equitable relief. The claims program, implemented
upon a nationwide mail and publication notice program, was completed in
2003.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
20.
Citigroup Loan Cases, JCCP No. 4197 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). In
2003, the Court approved a settlement that provided approximately $240
million in relief to former Associates’ customers across America. Prior to
its acquisition in November 2000, Associates First Financial, referred to as
The Associates, was one of the nation’s largest “subprime” lenders. Lieff
Cabraser represented former customers of The Associates charging that
the company added on mortgage loans unwanted and unnecessary
insurance products and engaged in improper loan refinancing practices.
Lieff Cabraser served as nationwide Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel.
21.
In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL
No. 1604 (Northern District of Illinois). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs’ Counsel in a nationwide class action against Ocwen Financial
Corporation, Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, and their affiliates (“Ocwen”).
This lawsuit arises out of charges against Ocwen of misconduct in
servicing its customers’ mortgage loans and in its provision of certain
related services, including debt collection and foreclosure services.
22.
Curry v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation, No. 03-10895-DPW (D. Mass.).
In 2004, the Court approved a $55 million settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Fairbanks Capital Corporation arising out of charges
against Fairbanks of misconduct in servicing its customers’ mortgage
loans. The settlement also required substantial changes
in Fairbanks’ business practices and established a default resolution
program to limit the imposition of fees and foreclosure proceedings
against Fairbanks’ customers. Lieff Cabraser served as nationwide CoLead Counsel for the homeowners.
23.
In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, MDL No. 1182 (N.D. Ill.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for the purchasers of the thyroid
medication Synthroid in litigation against Knoll Pharmaceutical, the
manufacturer of Synthroid. The lawsuits charged that Knoll misled
physicians and patients into keeping patients on Synthroid despite
knowing that less costly, but equally effective drugs, were available. In
2000, the District Court gave final approval to a $87.4 million settlement
with Knoll and its parent company, BASF Corporation, on behalf of a
class of all consumers who purchased Synthroid at any time from 1990 to
1999. In 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld the order approving the
-9-
#:6116
settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings. 264 F. 3d 712
(7th Circ. 2001). The settlement proceeds were distributed in 2003.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
24.
Reverse Mortgage Cases, JCCP No. 4061 (San Mateo County Supr Ct.,
Cal.). Transamerica Corporation, through its subsidiary Transamerica
Homefirst, Inc., sold “reverse mortgages” marketed under the trade name
“Lifetime.” The Lifetime reverse mortgages were sold exclusively to
seniors, i.e., persons 65 years or older. Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel,
filed suit on behalf of seniors alleging that the terms of the reverse
mortgages were unfair, and that borrowers were misled as to the loan
terms, including the existence and amount of certain charges and fees. In
2003, the Court granted final approval to an $8 million settlement of the
action.
25.
In re American Family Enterprises, MDL No. 1235 (D.N.J.). Lieff
Cabraser served as co-lead counsel for a nationwide class of persons who
received any sweepstakes materials sent under the name “American
Family Publishers.” The class action lawsuit alleged that
defendants deceived consumers into purchasing magazine subscriptions
and merchandise in the belief that such purchases were necessary to win
an American Family Publishers’ sweepstakes prize or enhanced their
chances of winning a sweepstakes prize. In September 2000, the Court
granted final approval of a $33 million settlement of the class action. In
April 2001, over 63,000 class members received refunds averaging over
$500 each, representing 92% of their eligible purchases. In addition,
American Family Publishers agreed to make significant changes to the
way it conducts the sweepstakes.
26.
In re Sears Automotive Center Consumer Litigation, Civ. No. C-92-2227
RHS (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel
for a certified nationwide class of Sears auto center customers for
purposes of approval of a combined injunctive relief/refund settlement.
As part of the settlement, Sears distributed to class members merchandise
coupons valued at $25 million.
27.
Roberts v. Bausch & Lomb, Civ. No. 94-C-1144-W (N.D. Ala.). Lieff
Cabraser was designated as one of several Class Counsel in November
1994 in this nationwide consumer fraud class action involving deceptive
marketing of contact lenses. In 1996, the Court approved a settlement
valued at $68 million ($34 million cash and $34 million in eye care
products).
28.
In re Miracle Ear Consumer Litigation, Civ. No. 94-1696 (4th Jud. Dist.
Minn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in a nationwide
class action certified in late 1994 involving claims arising from
misrepresentations regarding performance of a hearing aid device. State
- 10 -
#:6117
courts in Minnesota and Alabama granted final approval to the nationwide
settlement.
B.
Personal Injury and Products Liability Litigation
Lieff Cabraser has obtained over $400 million in verdicts, judgments and settlements for
our clients in individual personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Since 1995, and working
with co-counsel, we have achieved verdicts, judgments and settlements in excess of $15 billion
in product liability class action lawsuits.
We only represent plaintiffs. In many of these cases, we assisted our clients in
persuading the corporate defendants to issue recalls or improve their safety procedures for the
protection of all consumers and patients. For their outstanding service to their clients and
advancing the rights of all persons injured by defective products in Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler
(described below), Lieff Cabraser partners Robert J. Nelson and Scott P. Nealey received the
2008 California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) Award in the field of personal injury law, and were
also selected as finalists for attorney of the year by the Consumer Attorneys of California and the
San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.
Currently, we are prosecuting scores of lawsuits involving injuries and deaths from all
types of negligent conduct, manufacturing errors and design defects. Our cases range from
vehicle and aviation accidents to faulty medical devices. We also represent patients prescribed
drugs with dangerous, undisclosed side effects and consumers sickened by contaminated food
products.
Our successful personal injury and products liability cases, with the exception of aviation
cases which are profiled separately, include:
29.
Individual Vehicle Injury Lawsuits. Lieff Cabraser has an active practice
prosecuting claims for clients injured, or the families of loved ones who
have died, by the wrongful conduct of other drivers or due to unsafe and
defective vehicles, tires and other automotive equipment. We are
representing clients in actions involving fatalities and serious injuries due
to rollover accidents of fifteen passenger vans and sports utility vehicles.
Plaintiffs allege that the vans and SUVs were defectively designed
because they pose an unreasonable risk of rollover during foreseeable
driving conditions.
We also represent clients in many other vehicle cases including ones
where defective cruise control switches resulted in fires and transmission
defects that caused the vehicle to shifted suddenly from park into reverse.
In March 2007, in Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler, No. BC 332487 (Cal. Supr.
Ct.), we obtained a $54.4 million verdict, including $50 million in punitive
damages, against DaimlerChrysler for intentionally failing to cure a
known defect in millions of its vehicles that led to the death of Richard
Mraz, a young father. Mr. Mraz suffered fatal head injuries when the
1992 Dodge Dakota pickup truck he had been driving at his work site ran
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 11 -
#:6118
him over after he exited the vehicle believing it was in park. The jury
found that a defect in the Dodge Dakota’s automatic transmission, called a
park-to-reverse defect, played a substantial factor in Mr. Mraz’s death and
that DaimlerChrysler was negligent in the design of the vehicle for failing
to warn of the defect and then for failing to adequately recall or retrofit the
vehicle.
In March 2008, a Louisiana-state jury found DaimlerChrysler liable for
the death of infant Collin Guillot and injuries to his parents Juli and
August Guillot and their then 3 year old daughter Madison. The jury
returned a unanimous verdict of $5,080,000 in compensatory damages.
The jury found that a defect in the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s transmission,
called a park-to-reverse defect, played a substantial factor in Collin
Guillot’s death and the severe injuries suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Guillot
and their daughter. Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel in the trial.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
30.
In Re Yamaha Motor Corp. Rhino ATV Products Liability Litigation.
MDL No. 2016 (W.D. Ky.) Lieff Cabraser serves as Plaintiffs’ Lead
Counsel in the litigation in federal court arising out of the hundreds of
serious injuries and scores of deaths in rollover accidents involving the
Yamaha Rhino. The complaints charge that the Yamaha Rhino contains
multiple design and engineering flaws. The allegations include that the
Rhino is equipped with defective doors, inadequate seat belts, and a
dangerous roll cage. In many accidents, occupants have been ejected from
their Rhino due to its deficient seat belt system and then suffered a fatal or
catastrophic injury because they were struck by the vehicle's heavy,
unpadded, steel roll cage. The complaints further alleges that the Yamaha
Rhino is dangerously unstable due to a top-heavy design, dangerously
narrow track width, high center of gravity, wheels that are too small to
maintain stability, and steering geometry that facilitates rollovers and tip
overs even at low speeds and on flat terrain.
31.
Multi-State Tobacco Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented the
Attorneys’ General of Massachusetts, Louisiana and Illinois, several
additional states, and 21 cities and counties in California, in litigation
against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other cigarette manufacturers.
The suits were part of the landmark $206 billion settlement announced in
November 1998 between the tobacco industry and the states’ attorneys
general. The states, cities and counties sought both to recover the public
costs of treating smoking-related diseases and require the tobacco industry
to undertake extensive modifications of its marketing and promotion
activities in order to reduce teenage smoking. In California alone, Lieff
Cabraser’s clients were awarded an estimated $12.5 billion to be paid over
the next 25 years.
32.
Fen-Phen (“Diet Drugs”) Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents
individuals pursuing personal injury claims due to injuries from the “Fen- 12 -
#:6119
Phen” diet drugs fenfluramine (sold as Pondimin) and/or dexfenfluramine
(sold as Redux). We served as counsel for the plaintiff that filed the first
nationwide class action lawsuit against the diet drug manufacturers
alleging that they had failed to adequately warn physicians and consumers
of risks associated with the drugs. Since the recall was announced in
1997, Lieff Cabraser has represented over 400 persons in individual
actions who have suffered heart and/or lung damage, most often consisting
of cardiac valve damage and/or Primary Pulmonary Hypertension, after
ingesting Pondimin or Redux. In In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine /
Fenfluramine / Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1203 (E.D. Pa.), the Court appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser to the
Plaintiffs’ Management Committee which organized and directed the FenPhen diet drugs litigation filed across the nation in federal courts. In
August 2000, the Court approved a $4.75 billion settlement offering both
medical monitoring relief for persons exposed to the drug and
compensation for persons with qualifying damage. Lieff Cabraser also
served on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the California
Coordinated Proceedings in California state court, and as class counsel in
the State of Washington certified medical monitoring action.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
33.
In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1845 (N.D. Ga.). In September 2007, the federal court appointed
Elizabeth Cabraser as Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in the litigation arising out
of the recall of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter. Tens of
thousands of consumers nationwide contracted Salmonella poisoning from
eating contaminated peanut butter produced at a single ConAgra plant in
Sylvester, Georgia. In February 2007, the FDA confirmed the presence of
Salmonella in opened jars of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter
obtained from inflected persons.
34.
In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.).
Lieff Cabraser represents patients that suffered heart attacks or strokes,
and the families of loved ones who died, after having being prescribed the
arthritis and pain medication Vioxx. In individual personal injury lawsuits
against Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, our clients allege that Merck
falsely promoted the safety of Vioxx and failed to disclose the full range
of the drug’s dangerous side effects. In April 2005, in the federal
multidistrict litigation, the Court appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser to the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, which has the responsibility of conducting
all pretrial discovery of Vioxx cases in Federal court and pursuing all
settlement options with Merck. In August 2006, Lieff Cabraser was cocounsel in Barnett v. Merck, tried in the federal Court in New Orleans.
Lieff Cabraser attorneys Don Arbitblit and Jennifer Gross participated in
the trial, working closely with attorneys Mark Robinson and Andy
Birchfield. The jury reached a verdict in favor of Mr. Barnett, finding that
Vioxx caused his heart attack, and that Merck's conduct justified an award
of punitive damages. In November 2007, Merck announced that it has
- 13 -
#:6120
entered into an agreement with the executive committee of the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee as well as representatives of plaintiffs' counsel in state
coordinated proceedings. Merck will pay a fixed amount of $4.85 billion
into a settlement fund for qualifying claims already filed against Merck.
35.
In re Bextra/Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, MDL 1699 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’
Liaison Counsel and Elizabeth J. Cabraser chaired the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee (PSC) charged with overseeing all personal injury and
consumer litigation in Federal courts nationwide arising out of the sale and
marketing of the COX-2 inhibitors Bextra and Celebrex, manufactured by
Pfizer, Inc and its predecessor companies Pharmacia Corporation and G.D.
Searle, Inc.
The litigation presented unique challenges, including two drugs with
different regulatory histories and different liability issues, and the risk of
dismissal on preemption grounds. Discovery was extensive, involving
tens of millions of documents and over a hundred multi-day depositions.
Under the global resolution of the multidistrict tort and consumer litigation
announced in October 2008, Pfizer is paying at least $850 million,
including over $750 million to resolve death and injury claims.
In a report adopted by the Court on common benefit work performed by
the PSC, the Special Master stated:
[L]eading counsel form both sides, and the attorneys from
the PSC who actively participated in this litigation,
demonstrated the utmost skill and professionalism in
dealing with numerous complex legal and factual issues.
The briefing presented to the Special Master, and also to
the Court, and the development of evidence by both sides
was exemplary. The Special Master particularly wishes to
recognize that leading counsel for both sides worked
extremely hard to minimize disputes, and when they arose,
to make sure that they were raised with a minimum of
rancor and a maximum of candor before the Special Master
and Court.
36.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
In re ReNu With MoistureLoc Contact Lens Solution Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1785 (D. S.C.). Lieff Cabraser partner Wendy R.
Fleishman serves on Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in litigation in
federal court arising out of Bausch & Lomb’s recall in 2006 of its product
ReNu with MoistureLoc. Consumers nationwide allege that the contact
lens solution caused Fusarium keratitis, a rare and dangerous fungal eye
infection , as well as other serious eye infections because the solution
failed to disinfect and cleanse contact lenses, contrary to its claims. Many
contact lens wearers were forced to undergo painful corneal transplant
- 14 -
#:6121
surgery to save their vision; others have lost all or part of their vision
permanently.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
37.
In re Guidant Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 1708. Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel
Committee in litigation in federal court arising out of the recall of Guidant
cardiac defibrillators implanted in patients because of potential
malfunctions in the devices. At the time of the recall, Guidant admitted it
was aware of 43 reports of device failures, and two patient deaths. Guidant
subsequently acknowledged that the actual rate of failure may be higher
than the reported rate and that the number of associated deaths may be
underreported, since implantable cardio-defibrillators are not routinely
evaluated after death. In January 2008, the parties reached a global
settlement of the action. Guidant's settlements of defibrillator-related
claims will total $240 million.
38.
Fallquist et al. v. Advanced Medical Optics and Allergan, No. SC
096041 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.); Martin et al v. Advanced Medical
Optics and Allergan, No. KC 051267H (Los Angeles Super. Ct.). Lieff
Cabraser represents 31 consumers nationwide in several separate
consolidated personal injury lawsuits filed against Advanced Medical
Optics in August and November of 2007. AMO's Complete MoisturePlus
Multi Purpose Contact Lens Solution was recalled in May 2007 due to
reports of a link between a rare, but serious eye infection, Acanthamoeba
keratitis, caused by a parasite and use of AMO's contact lens solution.
Plaintiffs charge that though AMO aggressively promoted Complete
MoisturePlus Multi Purpose as "effective against the introduction of
common ocular microorganisms," the lens solution was ineffective and
vastly inferior to other multipurpose solutions on the market. Plaintiffs
were forced to undergo painful corneal transplant surgery to save their
vision and some have lost all or part of their vision permanently.
39.
Luisi et al. v. Medtronic Inc., No. 07 CV 4250 (D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser
currently represents over a hundred heart patients nationwide who were
implanted with recalled Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads manufactured by
Medtronic Inc. Plaintiffs charge that Medtronic has misrepresented the
safety of the Sprint Fidelis leads and a defect in the device triggered their
receiving massive, unnecessary electrical shocks.
40.
Blood Factor VIII And Factor IX Litigation. Working with counsel in
Asia, Europe, Central and South America and the Middle East, Lieff
Cabraser represents hundreds of hemophiliacs worldwide, or their
survivors and estates, who contracted HIV and/or Hepatitis C (HCV), and
Americans with hemophilia who contracted HCV, from contaminated and
defective blood factor products produced by American pharmaceutical
companies. In 2004, Lieff Cabraser was appointed Plaintiffs’ Lead
Counsel of the “second generation” Blood Factor MDL litigation presided
- 15 -
#:6122
over by Judge Grady in the Northern District of Illinois. This
groundbreaking litigation follows upon a two-month trial directed by
Richard M. Heimann in 2003 in California state court on behalf of a
person with hemophilia who is HIV-positive.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
41.
Sulzer Hip and Knee Implants Litigation. In December 2000, Sulzer
Orthopedics, Inc., announced the recall of approximately 30,000 units of
its Inter-Op Acetabular Shell Hip Implant, followed in May 2001 with a
notification of failures of its Natural Knee II Tibial Baseplate Knee
Implant. In coordinated litigation in California state court, In re Hip
Replacement Cases, JCCP 4165, Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Co-Lead Counsel. In the federal litigation,
In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation, MDL
1410, Lieff Cabraser played a significant role in negotiating a revised
settlement with Sulzer valued at more than $1 billion. In May 2002, the
Court granted final approval to the revised settlement. Lieff Cabraser
serves as Class Counsel for Subclass V of the settlement (class members
with unrevised reprocessed Inter-Op shells).
42.
In re Baycol Products Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn.). Baycol was
one of a group of drugs called statins, intended to reduce cholesterol. In
August 2001, Bayer A.G. and Bayer Corporation, the manufacturers of
Baycol, withdrew the drug from the worldwide market based upon reports
that Baycol was associated with serious side effects and linked to the
deaths of over 100 patients worldwide. In the federal multi-district
litigation, Lieff Cabraser serves as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee (PSC) and the Executive Committee of the PSC. In addition,
Lieff Cabraser represented approximately 200 Baycol patients who have
suffered injuries or family members of patients who died allegedly as a
result of ingesting Baycol. In these cases, our clients reached confidential
favorable settlements with Bayer.
43.
In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 926 (N.D. Ala.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee and was one of five members of the negotiating committee
which achieved a $4.25 billion global settlement with certain defendants
of the action. This was renegotiated in 1995, and is referred to as the
Revised Settlement Program (“RSP”). Over 100,000 recipients have
received initial payments, reimbursement for the explanation expenses
and/or long term benefits.
44.
In re Telectronics Pacing Systems Inc., Accufix Atrial “J” Leads
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1057 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser
served on the court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a
nationwide products liability action alleging that defendants placed into
the stream of commerce defective pacemaker leads. In April 1997, the
district court re-certified a nationwide class of “J” Lead implantees with
- 16 -
#:6123
subclasses for the claims of medical monitoring, negligence and strict
product liability. A summary jury trial utilizing jury instructions and
interrogatories designed by Lieff Cabraser occurred in February 1998. A
partial settlement was approved thereafter by the district court, but
reversed by the Court of Appeals. In March 2001, the district court
approved a renewed settlement that included a $58 million fund to satisfy
all past, present and future claims by patients for their medical care,
injuries, or damages arising from the lead.
C.
45.
In re Felbatol Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1048 (N.D. Cal.).
Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Liaison
Counsel in this nationwide litigation asserting medical monitoring,
compensatory and punitive damages claims on behalf of 100,000 users of
the anti-epilepsy drug Felbatol, who alleged present and potential injuries
from its serious adverse effects, including liver failure and aplastic
anemia. The nationwide Plaintiff class was certified in 1995; certification
was vacated for further findings by the Ninth Circuit in Valentino v.
Carter-Wallace, 97 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1996), which affirmed the viability
of nationwide mass tort class actions. In 1997, the litigation was settled
favorably on behalf of all major injury claimants.
46.
In re Cordis Pacemaker Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 850 (S.D.
Ohio). Lieff Cabraser represented a certified nationwide class of Cordis
pacemaker recipients on personal injury, emotional distress, fraud,
equitable relief, and pacemaker explant compensation claims. In 1995,
shortly before trial, Lieff Cabraser negotiated and obtained Court approval
of a $21 million settlement of the action.
47.
In re Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., “Albuterol” Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1013 (D. Wyo.). Lieff Cabraser served on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a class action lawsuit against Copley
Pharmaceutical, which manufactured Albuterol, a bronchodilator
prescription pharmaceutical. Albuterol was the subject of a nationwide
recall in January 1994 after a microorganism was found to have
contaminated the solution, allegedly causing numerous injuries including
bronchial infections, pneumonia, respiratory distress and, in some cases,
death. In October 1994, the district court certified a nationwide class on
liability issues. In re Copley Pharmaceutical, 161 F.R.D. 456 (D. Wyo.
1995). In November 1995, the district court approved a $150 million
settlement of the litigation.
Securities and Investment Fraud
1.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
In re Scorpion Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation I, No. C-9320333-EAI (N.D. Cal.); Dietrich v. Bauer, No. C-95-7051-RWS
(S.D.N.Y.); Claghorn v. Edsaco, No. 98-3039-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in class action suits arising out of an
- 17 -
#:6124
alleged fraudulent scheme by Scorpion Technologies, Inc., certain of its
officers, accountants, underwriters and business affiliates to inflate the
company’s earnings through reporting fictitious sales. In Scorpion I, the
Court found plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence of liability under
Federal securities acts against the accounting firm Grant Thornton for the
case to proceed to trial. In re Scorpion Techs., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22294 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 1996). In 1988, the court approved a $5.5
million settlement with Grant Thornton. In 2000, the Court approved a
$950,000 settlement with Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. In April
2002, a federal jury in San Francisco, California returned a $170.7 million
verdict against Edsaco Ltd. The jury found that Edsaco aided Scorpion in
setting up phony European companies as part of a scheme in which
Scorpion reported fictitious sales of its software to these companies,
thereby inflating its earnings. Included in the jury verdict, one of the
largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2002, was $165 million in punitive damages.
Richard M. Heimann conducted the trial for plaintiffs.
On June 14, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston commented on
Lieff Cabraser’s representation: “[C]ounsel for the plaintiffs did a very
good job in a very tough situation of achieving an excellent recovery for
the class here. You were opposed by extremely capable lawyers. It was
an uphill battle. There were some complicated questions, and then there
was the tricky issue of actually collecting anything in the end. I think
based on the efforts that were made here that it was an excellent result for
the class… [T]he recovery that was achieved for the class in this second
trial is remarkable, almost a hundred percent.”
2.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Fund and Merrill Lynch Global
Value Fund, Inc., v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., et al., No. 02-405792 (Cal.
Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as counsel for two Merrill Lynch
sponsored mutual funds in a private lawsuit alleging that a massive
accounting fraud occurred at HBOC & Company (“HBOC”) before and
following its 1999 acquisition by McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”).
The funds charged that defendants, including the former CFO of
McKesson HBOC, the name McKesson adopted after acquiring HBOC,
artificially inflated the price of securities in McKesson HBOC, through
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the financial condition of
HBOC, resulting in approximately $135 million in losses for plaintiffs. In
a significant discovery ruling in 2004, the California Court of Appeal held
that defendants waived the attorney-client and work product privileges in
regard to an audit committee report and interview memoranda prepared in
anticipation of shareholder lawsuits by disclosing the information to the
U.S. Attorney and SEC. McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Supr. Court, 115 Cal.
App. 4th 1229 (2004). Lieff Cabraser’s clients recovered approximately
$145 million, representing nearly 104% of damages suffered by the funds.
This amount was approximately $115-120 million more than the Merrill
- 18 -
#:6125
Lynch funds would have recovered had they participated in the federal
class action settlement.
3.
In re Broadcom Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. CV 06-3252-R
(C.D. Cal.). On December 14, 2009, U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real
of the Central District of California granted final approval to a partial
settlement in which Broadcom Corporation's insurance carriers will pay
$118 million to Broadcom. The settlement releases certain individual
director and officer defendants covered by Broadcom's directors' and
officers' policy. If given final approval by the Court, the settlement would
be the second largest in a derivative action involving stock options
backdating.
The settlement does not resolve the claims against three individual
defendants who are criminally charged in connection with their conduct
relating to stock options backdating at Broadcom. The suit alleges
defendants intentionally manipulated their stock option grant dates
between 1998 and 2003 at the expense of Broadcom and Broadcom
shareholders. By making it seem as if stock option grants occurred on
dates when Broadcom stock was trading at a comparatively low per share
price, stock option grant recipients were able to exercise their stock option
grants at exercise prices that were lower than the fair market value of
Broadcom stock on the day the options were actually granted. Richard M.
Heimann is serving as court-appointed Lead Counsel in the action, and
assisted by Lieff Cabraser attorney Joy A. Kruse.
4.
Alaska State Department of Revenue, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et
al., No. 1JU-04-503 (Alaska Supr. Ct.). In December 2006, a $50 million
settlement was reached in a securities fraud action brought by the Alaska
State Department of Revenue, Alaska State Pension Investment Board and
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation against defendants America Online,
Inc. ("AOL"), Time Warner Inc. (formerly known as AOL Time Warner
("AOLTW")), Historic TW Inc. When the action was filed, the Alaska
Attorney General estimated total losses at $70 million. The recovery on
behalf of Alaska was approximately 50 times what the state would have
received as a member of the class in the federal securities class action
settlement. The lawsuit, filed in 2004 in Alaska State Court, alleged that
defendants misrepresented advertising revenues and growth of AOL and
AOLTW along with the number of AOL subscribers, which artificially
inflated the stock price of AOL and AOLTW to the detriment of Alaska
State funds.
The Alaska Department of Law retained Lieff Cabraser to lead the
litigation efforts under its direction. "We appreciate the diligence and
expertise of our counsel in achieving an outstanding resolution of the
case," said Mark Morones, spokesperson for the Department of Law,
following announcement of the settlement.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 19 -
#:6126
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
5.
In re Qwest Communications International, Inc. Securities and
“ERISA” Litigation (No. II), No. 06-cv-17880-REB-PAC (MDL
No.1788) (D. Col.). Lieff Cabraser represented the New York State
Common Retirement Fund, Fire and Police Pension Association of
Colorado, Denver Employees' Retirement Plan, San Francisco Employees'
Retirement System, and over thirty BlackRock managed mutual funds in
individual securities fraud actions ("opt out" cases) against Qwest
Communications International, Inc., Philip F. Anschutz, former cochairman of the Qwest board of directors, and other senior executives at
Qwest. In each action, the plaintiffs charged defendants with massively
overstating Qwest's publicly-reported growth, revenues, earnings, and
earnings per share from 1999 through 2002. The cases were filed in the
wake of a $400 million settlement of a securities fraud class action against
Qwest that was announced in early 2006. The cases brought by Lieff
Cabraser's clients settled in October 2007 for recoveries totaling more than
$85 million, or more than 13 times what the clients would have received
had they remained in the class.
6.
In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 06cv-4130-DGT-AKT (E.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead
Counsel in a shareholders’ derivative action against the board of directors
and numerous officers of Cablevision. The suit alleges that defendants
intentionally manipulated stock option grant dates to Cablevision
employees between 1997 and 2002 in order to enrich certain officer and
director defendants at the expense of Cablevision and Cablevision
shareholders. According to the complaint, Defendants made it appear as if
stock options were granted earlier than they actually were in order to
maximize the value of the grants. In September 2008, the Court granted
final approval to a $34.4 million settlement of the action. Over $24
million of the settlement was contributed directly by individual defendants
who either received backdated options or participated in the backdating
activity.
7.
BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc., et al. v. Tyco International
Ltd., et al., No. 2:08-cv-519 (D. N.J.); Nuveen Balanced Municipal and
Stock Fund, et al. v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., No. 2:08-cv-518 (D.
N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represents multiple funds of the investment firms
BlackRock Inc. and Nuveen Asset Management in separate, direct
securities fraud actions against Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Electronics
Ltd., Covidien Ltd, Covidien (U.S.), L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H.
Swartz, and Frank E. Walsh, Jr. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged
in a massive criminal enterprise that combined the theft of corporate assets
with fraudulent accounting entries that concealed Tyco’s financial
condition from investors. As a result, Plaintiffs purchased Tyco common
stock and other Tyco securities at artificially inflated prices and suffered
losses upon disclosures revealing Tyco’s true financial condition and
defendants’ misconduct.
- 20 -
#:6127
In May 2009, the parties settled the claims against the corporate
defendants (Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Electronics Ltd., Covidien Ltd.,
and Covidien (U.S.)). The combined settlement in both cases was $54
million. Litigation is ongoing as to the remaining defendants.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
8.
In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. Investment
Litigation, MDL 1565 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser serves as outside
counsel for the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’
Retirement System for the City of New York, New York City Police
Pension Fund, and New York City Fire Department Pension Fund in this
multidistrict litigation arising from fraud in connection with NCFE’s
issuance of notes backed by healthcare receivables. The New York City
Pension Funds suffered approximately $89 million in losses resulting from
the massive NCFE fraud. Having successfully resolved their claims
against numerous parties, the Funds continue to pursue claims against
several NCFE founders. To date, the Funds have recovered approximately
70% of their losses, primarily through settlements achieved on their behalf
by Lieff Cabraser.
9.
Albert, et al. v. Alex. Brown Management Services, Inc., et al.; Baker , et
al. v. Alex. Brown Management Services, Inc., et al. (Del. Ch. Ct.). In
May 2004, on behalf of investors in two investment funds controlled,
managed and operated by Deutsche Bank and advised by DC Investment
Partners, Lieff Cabraser filed lawsuits for alleged fraudulent conduct that
resulted in an aggregate loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. The suits
named as defendants Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries Alex Brown
Management Services and Deutsche Bank Securities, members of the
funds’ management committee, as well as DC Investments Partners and
two of its principals. Among the plaintiff-investors were 70 high net
worth individuals. In the fall of 2006, the cases settled by confidential
agreement.
10.
Kofuku Bank Ltd. and Namihaya Bank Ltd. v. Republic New York
Securities Corp., et al., No. 00 CIV 3298 (S.D.N.Y.); and Kita Hyogo
Shinyo-Kumiai v. Republic New York Securities Corp., et al., No. 00
CIV 4114 (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented Kofuku Bank,
Namihaya Bank and Kita Hyogo Shinyo-Kumiai (a credit union) in
individual lawsuits against, among others, Martin A. Armstrong and
HSBC, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Republic New York Corporation,
Republic New York Bank and Republic New York Securities Corporation
for alleged violations of federal securities and racketeering laws. Through
a group of interconnected companies owned and controlled by Armstrong
– the Princeton Companies – Armstrong and the Republic Companies
promoted and sold promissory notes, known as the “Princeton Notes,” to
more than eighty of the largest companies and financial institutions in
Japan. Lieff Cabraser’s lawsuits, as well as the lawsuits of dozens of other
Princeton Note investors, alleged that the Princeton and Republic
- 21 -
#:6128
Companies made fraudulent misrepresentations and non-disclosures in
connection with the promotion and sale of Princeton Notes, and that
investors’ moneys were commingled and misused to the benefit of
Armstrong, the Princeton Companies and the Republic Companies. In
December 2001, the claims of our clients and those of the other Princeton
Note investors were settled. As part of the settlement, our clients
recovered more than $50 million, which represented 100% of the value of
their principal investments less money they received in interest or other
payments.
11.
Allocco, et al. v. Gardner, et al., No. GIC 806450 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff
Cabraser represents Lawrence L. Garlick, the co-founder and former Chief
Executive Officer of Remedy Corporation and 24 other former senior
executives and directors of Remedy Corporation in a private (non-class)
securities fraud lawsuit against Stephen P. Gardner, the former Chief
Executive Officer of Peregrine Systems, Inc., John J. Moores, Peregrine’s
former Chairman of the Board, Matthew C. Gless, Peregrine’s former
Chief Financial Officer, Peregrine’s accounting firm Arthur Andersen and
certain entities that entered into fraudulent transactions with Peregrine.
The lawsuit, filed in California state court, arises out of Peregrine’s
August 2001 acquisition of Remedy. Plaintiffs charge that they were
induced to exchange their Remedy stock for Peregrine stock on the basis
of false and misleading representations made by defendants. Within
months of the Remedy acquisition, Peregrine began to reveal to the public
that it had grossly overstated its revenue during the years 2000-2002, and
eventually restated more than $500 million in revenues.
After successfully defeating demurrers brought by defendants, including
third parties who were customers of Peregrine who aided and
abetted Peregrine's accounting fraud under California common law,
plaintiffs reached a series of settlements. The settling defendants included
Arthur Andersen, all of the director defendants, three officer defendants
and the third party customer defendants KPMG, British Telecom, Fujitsu,
Software Spectrum and Bindview. The total amount received in
settlements is approximately $45 million.
12.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
Lehman Brothers/First Alliance Mortgage Litigation, No. SA CV 01971 (C.D. Cal.). On June 16, 2003, a federal jury in California held
Lehman Brothers, Inc., liable for knowingly assisting First Alliance
Mortgage Corporation in committing fraud. First Alliance was accused of
misrepresenting the true cost of home loans and of charging borrowers as
much as 24% in loan origination and other fees. The jury found that First
Alliance systematically defrauded borrowers, and that Lehman Brothers
aided and abetted the fraudulent scheme. The verdict showed that the
community will hold Wall Street responsible for knowingly serving as a
financial backer to abusive lenders. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed class wide liability against Lehman Brothers.
- 22 -
#:6129
13.
In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-99-1729WHA (N.D. Cal.). Following a competitive bidding process, the Court
appointed Lieff Cabraser as Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the
class of investors. The complaint alleged that Network Associates
improperly accounted for acquisitions in order to inflate its stock price. In
May 2001, the Court granted approval to a $30 million settlement.
In reviewing the Network Associates settlement, U.S. District Court Judge
William H. Alsup observed, “[T]he class was well served at a good price
by excellent counsel . . . We have class counsel who’s one of the most
foremost law firms in the country in both securities law and class actions.
And they have a very excellent reputation for the conduct of these kinds of
cases and their experience and views . . .”
14.
In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation, No. C-94-2817VRW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Liaison Counsel for the
Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association and the California
State Teachers’ Retirement System, and the class they represented. Prior
to 2001, the Court approved $19 million in settlements. In May 2001, the
Court approved an additional settlement of $12 million, which, combined
with the earlier settlements, provided class members an almost complete
return on their losses. The settlement with the company included multimillion dollar contributions by the former Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer.
Commenting in 2001 on Lieff Cabraser’s work in Cal Micro Devices, U.S.
District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated, “It is highly unusual for a
class action in the securities area to recover anywhere close to the
percentage of loss that has been recovered here, and counsel and the lead
plaintiffs have done an admirable job in bringing about this most
satisfactory conclusion of the litigation.” One year later, in a related
proceeding and in response to the statement that the class had received
nearly a 100% recovery, Judge Walker observed, “That’s pretty
remarkable. In these cases, 25 cents on the dollar is considered to be a
magnificent recovery, and this is [almost] a hundred percent.”
15.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
In re Brooks Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06 CA 11068
(D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Court-Appointed Lead Counsel for
Lead Plaintiff the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association and co-plaintiff Sacramento County Employees' Retirement
System in a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Brooks Automation. Plaintiff charges that Brooks
Automation, its senior corporate officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by backdating company stock options over a six year
period, and failed to disclose the scheme in publicly filed financial
statements. Subsequent to Lieff Cabraser's filing of a consolidated
amended complaint in this action, both the Securities and Exchange
- 23 -
#:6130
Commission and the United States Department of Justice filed complaints
against the Company's former C.E.O., Robert Therrien, related to the same
alleged practices. In October 2008, the Court granted final approval to a
$7.75 million settlement of the action.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
16.
In re FPI/Agretech Securities Litigation, MDL No. 763 (D. Haw.,
Real, J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel on behalf of
multiple classes of investors defrauded in a limited partnership investment
scheme. The Court approved $15 million in partial pretrial settlements.
At trial, the jury returned a $25 million verdict, which included
$10 million in punitive damages plus costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees,
against non-settling defendant Arthur Young & Co. on securities and tort
claims arising from its involvement in the fraud. Richard M. Heimann
served as Lead Trial Counsel in the class action trial. On appeal, the
compensatory damages judgment was affirmed and the case was
remanded for retrial on punitive damages. In 1994, the Court approved a
$17 million class settlement with Ernst & Young.
17.
Informix/Illustra Securities Litigation, No. C-97-1289-CRB (N.D. Cal.).
Lieff Cabraser represented Richard H. Williams, the former Chief
Executive Officer and President of Illustra Information Technologies, Inc.
(“Illustra”), and a class of Illustra shareholders in a class action suit on
behalf of all former Illustra securities holders who tendered their Illustra
preferred or common stock, stock warrants or stock options in exchange
for securities of Informix Corporation (“Informix”) in connection with
Informix’s 1996 purchase of Illustra. Pursuant to that acquisition, Illustra
stockholders received Informix securities representing approximately 10%
of the value of the combined company. The complaint alleged claims for
common law fraud and violations of Federal securities law arising out of
the acquisition. In October 1999, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Breyer
approved a global settlement of the litigation for $136 million, constituting
one of the largest settlements ever involving a high technology company
alleged to have committed securities fraud. Our clients, the Illustra
shareholders, received approximately 30% of the net settlement fund.
18.
In re Media Vision Technology Securities Litigation, No. CV-94-1015
(N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action
lawsuit which alleged that certain of Media Vision’s officers, outside
directors, accountants and underwriters engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
inflate the company’s earnings, and issued false and misleading public
statements about the company’s finances, earnings and profits. By 1998,
the Court had approved several partial settlements with many of Media
Vision’s officers and directors, accountants and underwriters which
totaled $31 million. The settlement proceeds have been distributed to
eligible class members. The evidence that Lieff Cabraser developed in the
civil case led prosecutors to commence an investigation and ultimately file
criminal charges against Media Vision’s former Chief Executive Officer
- 24 -
#:6131
and Chief Financial Officer. The civil action against Media Vision’s CEO
and CFO was stayed pending the criminal proceedings against them. In
the criminal proceedings, the CEO pled guilty on several counts, and the
CFO was convicted at trial. In October, 2003, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor
of the class against these two defendants in the amount of $188 million.
D.
19.
Nguyen v. FundAmerica, No. C-90-2090 MHP (N.D. Cal., Patel, J.),
1990 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶¶ 95,497, 95,498 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Lieff
Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in this securities/RICO/tort
action seeking an injunction against alleged unfair “pyramid” marketing
practices and compensation to participants. The District Court certified a
nationwide class for injunctive relief and damages on a mandatory basis
and enjoined fraudulent overseas transfers of assets. The Bankruptcy
Court permitted class proof of claims. Lieff Cabraser obtained dual
District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval of settlements distributing
over $13 million in FundAmerica assets to class members.
20.
In re First Capital Holdings Corp. Financial Products Securities
Litigation, MDL No. 901 (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead
Counsel in a class action brought to recover damages sustained by
policyholders of First Capital Life Insurance Company and Fidelity
Bankers Life Insurance Company policyholders resulting from the
insurance companies’ allegedly fraudulent or reckless investment and
financial practices, and the manipulation of the companies’ financial
statements. This policyholder settlement generated over $1 billion in
restored life insurance policies, and was approved by both federal and
state courts in parallel proceedings and then affirmed by the Ninth Circuit
on appeal.
Employment Discrimination and Unfair Employment Practices
1.
Butler v. Home Depot, No. C94-4335 SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and
co-counsel represented a class of approximately 25,000 female employees
and applicants for employment with Home Depot’s West Coast Division
who alleged gender discrimination in connection with hiring, promotions,
pay, job assignment, and other terms and conditions of employment. The
class was certified in January 1995. In January 1998, the court approved a
$87.5 million settlement of the action that included comprehensive
injunctive relief over the term of a five-year Consent Decree. Under the
terms of the settlement, Home modified its hiring, promotion, and
compensation practices to ensure that interested and qualified women
were hired for, and promoted to, sales and management positions.
On January 14, 1998, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston commented that
the settlement provides “a very significant monetary payment to the class
members for which I think they should be grateful to their counsel… Even
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 25 -
#:6132
more significant is the injunctive relief that’s provided for . . .” By 2003,
the injunctive relief had created thousands of new job opportunities in
sales and management positions at Home Depot, generating the equivalent
of over approximately $100 million per year in wages for female
employees.
In 2002, Judge Illston stated that the injunctive relief has been a “win/win
. . . for everyone, because . . . the way the Decree has been implemented
has been very successful and it is good for the company as well as the
company’s employees.”
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
2.
Amochaev et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., d/b/a Smith Barney,
No. C 05-1298 PJH (N.D. Cal.). On August 13, 2008, the Court granted
final approval to a settlement of the gender discrimination case against
Smith Barney. Lieff Cabraser represented Female Financial Advisors who
charged that Smith Barney, the retail brokerage unit of Citigroup,
discriminated against them in account distributions, business leads,
referral business, partnership opportunities, and other terms of
employment. The Court approved a four-year settlement agreement that
provides for comprehensive injunctive relief and significant monetary
relief of $33 million for the 2,411 members of the Settlement Class. The
comprehensive injunctive relief provided under the settlement is
designed to increase business opportunities and promote equality in
compensation for female brokers.
3.
Wynne, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc., No.
C 06-3153 CW (N.D. Cal.). In August 2008, the Court granted final
approval to a settlement valued at $2.1 million, including substantial
injunctive relief, for a class of African American restaurant-level hourly
employees. The consent decree created hiring benchmarks to increase the
number of African Americans employed in front of the house jobs (e.g.,
server, bartender, host/hostess, waiter/waitress, and cocktail server), a
registration of interest program to minimize discrimination in promotions,
improved complaint procedures, and monitoring and enforcement
mechanisms.
4.
Rosenburg, et al. v. IBM, No. C 06-0430 PJH (N.D. Cal.). In July 2007,
the Court granted final approval to a $65 million settlement of a class
action suit by current and former technical support workers for IBM
seeking unpaid overtime. The settlement constitutes a record amount in
litigation seeking overtime compensation for employees in the computer
industry. Plaintiffs alleged that IBM illegally misclassified its employees
who install or maintain computer hardware or software as “exempt” from
the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws.
5.
Satchell, et al. v. FedEx Express, No. C 03-2659 SI; C 03-2878 SI (N.D.
Cal.). In 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $54.9 million
- 26 -
#:6133
settlement of the race discrimination class action lawsuit by African
American and Latino employees of FedEx Express. The settlement
requires FedEx to reform its promotion, discipline, and pay practices.
Under the settlement, FedEx will implement multiple steps to promote
equal employment opportunities, including making its performance
evaluation process less discretionary, discarding use of the "Basic Skills
Test" as a prerequisite to promotion into certain desirable positions, and
changing employment policies to demonstrate that its revised practices do
not continue to foster racial discrimination. The settlement, covering
20,000 hourly employees and operations managers who have worked in
the western region of FedEx Express since October 1999, was approved
by the Court in August 2007.
6.
Barnett v. Wal-Mart, No. 01-2-24553-SNKT (Wash.). On July 21, 2009,
the Court gave final approval to a settlement valued at up to $35 million
on behalf of workers in Washington State who alleged they were deprived
of meal and rest breaks and forced to work off-the-clock at Wal-Mart
stores and Sam's Clubs. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement
provided injunctive relief benefiting all employees. Wal-Mart was
required to undertake measures to prevent wage and hour violations at its
50 stores and clubs in Washington, measures that included the use of new
technologies and compliance tools.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2001. Three years later, the Court
certified a class of approximately 40,000 current and former Wal-Mart
employees. The eight years of litigation were intense and adversarial.
Wal-Mart, currently the world’s third largest corporation, vigorously
denied liability and spared no expense in defending itself.
This lawsuit and similar actions filed against Wal-Mart across America
served to reform the pay procedures and employment practices for WalMart’s 1.4 million employees nationwide. In a press release announcing
the Court’s approval of the settlement, Wal-Mart spokesperson Daphne
Moore stated, “This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations are not
representative of the company we are today.” Lieff Cabraser served as
court-appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel.
7.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 05-0585 CW (N.D. Cal.). In
January 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $12.8 million
settlement of a class action suit by current and former business systems
employees of Wells Fargo seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that
Wells Fargo illegally misclassified those employees, who maintained and
updated Wells Fargo’s business tools according to others’ instructions, as
“exempt” from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor
laws.
- 27 -
#:6134
8.
Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., No. C 07-2813 JW (N.D. Cal.).
In July 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $7.664 million
settlement of a class action suit by current and former technical support
workers for Cadence seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that
Cadence illegally misclassified its employees who install, maintain, or
support computer hardware or software as “exempt” from the overtime
pay requirements of federal and state labor laws.
9.
Gonzalez et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al., No. C03-2817
SI (N.D. Cal.). In April 2005, the Court approved a settlement, valued at
approximately $50 million, which requires the retail clothing giant
Abercrombie & Fitch to provide monetary benefits of $40 million to the
class of Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants
and employees who charged the company with discrimination. The
settlement also requires the company to institute a range of policies and
programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent
discrimination based on race or gender. Lieff Cabraser serves as Lead
Class Counsel and prosecuted the case with a number of co-counsel firms,
including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the
Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc. Implementation of the consent decree continues
into 2011.
10.
Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., No. C-92-0692 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser and co-counsel obtained a $36.5 million settlement in February
2004 for a class of female flight attendants who were required to weigh
less than comparable male flight attendants.
Former U.S. District Court Judge Charles B. Renfrew (ret.), who served as
a mediator in the case, stated, “As a participant in the settlement
negotiations, I am familiar with and know the reputation, experience and
skills of lawyers involved. They are dedicated, hardworking and able
counsel who have represented their clients very effectively.” U.S. District
Judge Martin J. Jenkins, in granting final approval to the settlement, found
“that the results achieved here could be nothing less than described as
exceptional,” and that the settlement “was obtained through the efforts of
outstanding counsel.”
11.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00235 (M.D. Tenn.).
Lieff Cabraser serves as co-counsel representing retirees in a nationwide
class action lawsuit against Caterpillar, Inc. In October 2004, Caterpillar
began charging monthly premiums despite longstanding contracts that
promise free healthcare to certain participants and their spouses. The
lawsuit seeks to end these charges and restore the plaintiffs and similarly
situated retirees to the position they would have been but for Caterpillar’s
contractual violations. In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ class
certification motion.
- 28 -
#:6135
12.
In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime
Pay Litigation, MDL No. 1439 (D. Or.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel
represent personal lines claims representatives of Farmers’ Insurance
Exchange seeking unpaid overtime. In November 2003, after a threeweek liability phase trial, the court held that Farmers’ claims adjusters
who handle auto and low level property claims are entitled to overtime.
300 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (2003). The court further found that Farmers’
actions were willful and were not taken in good faith, entitling the workers
to liquidated damages. In January and May 2005, the court entered
judgments totaling $52.5 million against Farmers, the largest judgments
ever entered in as the result of the trial of a Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) trial. In October 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the judgment for plaintiffs under the FLSA and certain state laws,
and remanded the case for further proceedings under the laws of
Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado.
13.
Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy, No. C05-5056 PJH (N.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser, with co-counsel, represents a proposed class of current and
former employees of Best Buy in a federal class action civil rights lawsuit.
Plaintiffs allege that Best Buy stores nationwide discriminate against
women and minorities, specifically African Americans and Latinos. These
employees charge that they are assigned to less desirable positions
and denied promotions, and that those women and minorities who attain
managerial positions are paid less than white males. The suit also alleges
that Best Buy discriminates against African Americans in entry-level
hiring decisions.
14.
Giannetto v. Computer Sciences Corporation, 03-CV-8201 (C.D. Cal.).
In one of the largest overtime pay dispute settlements ever in the
information technology industry, the Court in July 2005 granted final
approval to a $24 million settlement with Computer Sciences Corporation.
Plaintiffs charged that the global conglomerate had a common practice of
refusing to pay overtime compensation to its technical support workers
involved in the installation and maintenance of computer hardware and software
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California’s Unfair
Competition Law, and the wage and hour laws of 13 states.
15.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
Foster v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (“A&P”),
No. 99 Civ. 3860 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.); LaMarca v. A&P, Index No.:
04601973 (NY. Supreme Court, First Department). Lieff Cabraser, along
with co-counsel, represented approximately 870 current and former
employees of New York area supermarkets suing under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Opt-In Plaintiffs in the certified collective action
sought unpaid overtime compensation resulting from Defendants’ alleged
failure to compensate employees for work performed “off-the-clock.” In
May 2004, the Court approved a settlement providing $3.11 million to the
- 29 -
#:6136
Opt-In Plaintiffs. In June 2004, current and former full-time hourly
employees of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company filed a new
lawsuit against defendants in New York state court. The plaintiffs allege
that defendants systematically failed to pay overtime wages and deleted
hours worked from time records in violation of New York labor law. In
July 2007, the Court certified the class of thousands of cashiers, clerks,
bakers, deli and other hourly-paid workers. The order granting
certification was affirmed on appeal.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
16.
Goddard, et al. v. Longs Drug Stores Corporation, et al., No.
RG04141291 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Store managers and assistant store
managers of Longs Drugs charged that the company misclassified them as
exempt from overtime wages. Managers regularly worked in excess of 8
hours per day and 40 hours per week without compensation for their
overtime hours. Following mediation, in 2005, Longs Drugs agreed to
settle the claims for a total of $11 million. Over 1,000 current and former
Longs Drugs managers and assistant managers were eligible for
compensation under the settlement, over 98% of the class submitted
claims.
17.
Zuckman v. Allied Group, No. 02-5800 SI (N.D. Cal.). In September
2004, the Court approved a settlement with Allied Group and Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company of $8 million plus Allied/Nationwide’s share
of payroll taxes on amounts treated as wages, providing plaintiffs a 100%
recovery on their claims. Plaintiffs, claims representatives of Allied /
Nationwide, alleged that the company misclassified them as exempt
employees and failed to pay them and other claims representatives in
California overtime wages for hours they worked in excess of eight hours
or forty hours per week. In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court
Judge Susan Illston commended counsel for their “really good lawyering”
and stated that they did “a splendid job on this” case.
18.
Trotter v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. C 99-893-RRM (JJF) (MPT) (D. Del.).
Lieff Cabraser represented a class of chicken processing employees of
Perdue Farms, Inc., one of the nation’s largest poultry processors, for
wage and hour violations. The suit challenged Perdue’s failure to
compensate its assembly line employees for putting on, taking off, and
cleaning protective and sanitary equipment in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, various state wage and hour laws, and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act. Under a settlement approved by the
Court in 2002, Perdue paid $10 million for wages lost by its chicken
processing employees and attorneys’ fees and costs. The settlement was
in addition to a $10 million settlement of a suit brought by the Department
of Labor in the wake of Lieff Cabraser’s lawsuit.
19.
Sandoval v. Mountain Center, Inc., et al. No. 03CC00280 (Cal. Supr.
Ct.). Cable installers in California charged that defendants owed them
- 30 -
#:6137
overtime wages, as well as damages for missed meal and rest breaks and
reimbursement for expenses incurred on the job. In 2005, the Court
approved a $7.2 million settlement of the litigation, which was distributed
to the cable installers who submitted claims.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
20.
Gottlieb v. SBC Communications, No. CV-00-04139 AHM (MANx)
(C.D. Cal.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented current and
former employees of SBC and Pacific Telesis Group (“PTG”) who
participated in AirTouch Stock Funds, which were at one time part of
PTG’s salaried and non-salaried savings plans. After acquiring PTG,
SBC sold AirTouch, which PTG had owned, and caused the AirTouch
Stock Funds that were included in the PTG employees’ savings plans to be
liquidated. Plaintiffs alleged that in eliminating the AirTouch Stock
Funds, and in allegedly failing to adequately communicate with employees
about the liquidation, SBC breached its duties to 401k plan participants
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In 2002, the Court
granted final approval to a $10 million settlement.
21.
Thomas v. California State Automobile Association, No. CH217752
(Cal. Supr. Ct.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented 1,200
current and former field claims adjusters who worked for the California
State Automobile Association (“CSAA”). Plaintiffs alleged that CSAA
improperly classified their employees as exempt, therefore denying them
overtime pay for overtime worked. In May 2002, the Court approved an
$8 million settlement of the case.
22.
Church v. Consolidated Freightways, No. C90-2290 DLJ (N.D. Cal.).
Lieff Cabraser was the Lead Court-appointed Class Counsel in this class
action on behalf of the exempt employees of Emery Air Freight, a freight
forwarding company acquired by Consolidated Freightways in 1989. On
behalf of the employee class, Lieff Cabraser prosecuted claims for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the securities
laws, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The case settled in
1993 for $13.5 million.
23.
Buttram v. UPS, Inc., No. C-97-01590 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser
and several co-counsel represented a class of approximately 14,000
African-American part-time hourly employees of UPS’s Pacific and
Northwest Regions alleging race discrimination in promotions and job
advancement. In 1999, the Court approved a $12.14 million settlement of
the action. Under the injunctive relief portion of the settlement, among
other things, Class Counsel continues to monitor the promotions of
African-American part-time hourly employees to part-time supervisor and
full-time package car driver.
24.
Lyon v. TMP Worldwide, Inc., No. 993096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel for a class of certain non-supervisory
- 31 -
#:6138
employees in an advertising firm. The settlement, approved in 2000,
provided almost a 100% recovery to class members. The suit alleged that
TMP failed to pay overtime wages to these employees.
25.
Kahn v. Denny’s, No. BC177254 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser brought
a lawsuit alleging that Denny’s failed to pay overtime wages to its General
Managers and Managers who worked at company-owned restaurants in
California. The Court approved a $4 million settlement of the case in
2000.
26.
Giles v. Allstate, JCCP Nos. 2984 and 2985. Lieff Cabraser represented a
class of Allstate insurance agents seeking reimbursement of out-of-pocket
costs. The action settled for approximately $40 million.
27.
Bogan v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., No. CIV 00-0440-S-BLW (D.
Idaho). Lieff Cabraser, along with co-counsel, represents a nationwide
class of women production associates who allegedly have been
discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to promotions and
compensation, and who allegedly have been subjected to rampant sexual
harassment. In 2002, the Court approved a settlement that included
comprehensive injunctive relief.
28.
Vedachalam v. Tata America Int’l Corp., C 06-0963 VRW (N.D. Cal.)
Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent a proposed class of non-U.S.citizen employees in a nationwide class action lawsuit against Tata.
Plaintiffs allege that Tata unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its
non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and
state tax refund checks to Tata. The suit also alleges other violations of
California and federal law, including that Tata did not pay its non-U.S.citizen employees the amount promised to those employees before they
came to the United States. In 2007 and again in 2008, the Court denied
Tata’s motions to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims in India. The
Court held that no arbitration agreement existed because the documents
purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of rules to the
Plaintiffs and another set to Tata.
Lieff Cabraser attorneys have also had experience working on several other employment
cases, including cases involving race, gender, and age discrimination, ERISA, breach of contract
claims, and wage/hour claims. Lieff Cabraser attorneys frequently write amici briefs on cuttingedge legal issues involving employment law. Lieff Cabraser is currently investigating charges of
race, gender and/or age discrimination, and wage/hour violations against several companies.
In 2004, Kelly M. Dermody, who oversees the firm’s employment law practice, was
included by The Recorder in a list of the best employment lawyers in the San Francisco Bay
Area, and has also been selected as a Northern California Super Lawyer. In 2007, the Daily
Journal recognized Ms. Dermody as one of the “Top Women Litigators in California,” and she
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 32 -
#:6139
also received a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award from California Lawyer
magazine.
E.
Antitrust/Trade Regulation/Intellectual Property
1.
Microsoft Private Antitrust Litigation. Representing businesses and
consumers, Lieff Cabraser prosecuted multiple private antitrust cases
against Microsoft Corporation in state courts across the country, including
Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs alleged that
Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive conduct, violated state
deceptive and unfair business practices statutes, and overcharged
businesses and consumers for Windows operating system software and for
certain software applications, including Microsoft Word and Microsoft
Office. In August 2006, the New York Supreme Court granted final
approval to a settlement that made available up to $350 million in benefits
for New York businesses and consumers. In August 2004, the Court in
the North Carolina action granted final approval to a settlement valued at
over $89 million. In June 2004, the Court in the Tennessee action granted
final approval to a $64 million settlement. In November 2003, in the
Florida Microsoft litigation, the Court granted final approval to a $202
million settlement, one of the largest antitrust settlements in Florida
history. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in the New York,
North Carolina and Tennessee cases, and held leadership roles in the
Florida case.
2.
Natural Gas Antitrust Cases, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228
(Cal. Supr. Ct.). In 2003, the Court approved a landmark of $1.1 billion
settlement in class action litigation against El Paso Natural Gas Co.
for manipulating the market for natural gas pipeline transmission capacity
into California. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and
Co-Liaison Counsel in the Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV
In June 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $67.39 million
settlement of a series of class action lawsuits brought by California
business and residential consumers of natural gas against a group of
natural gas suppliers, Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Duke Energy Trading
and Marketing LLC, CMS Energy Resources Management Company, and
Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.
Plaintiffs charged defendants with manipulating the price of natural gas in
California during the California energy crisis of 2000-2001 by a variety of
means, including falsely reporting the prices and quantities of natural gas
transactions to trade publications, which compiled daily and monthly
natural gas price indices; prearranged wash trading; and, in the case of
Reliant, “churning” on the Enron Online electronic trading platform,
which was facilitated by a secret netting agreement between Reliant and
Enron.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 33 -
#:6140
The 2007 settlement followed a settlement reach in 2006 for $92 million
partial settlement with Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; Dynegy Inc. and
affiliates; EnCana Corporation; WD Energy Services, Inc.; and The
Williams Companies, Inc. and affiliates.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
3.
Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4204 & 4205
(Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as co-lead counsel in the private
class action litigation against Duke Energy Trading & Marketing Reliant
Energy, and The Williams Companies for claims that the companies
manipulated California’s wholesale electricity markets during the
California energy crisis of 2000-2001. Extending the landmark victories
for California residential and business consumers of electricity, in
September 2004, plaintiffs reached a $206 million settlement with Duke
Energy Trading & Marketing, and in August 2005, plaintiffs reached a
$460 million settlement with Reliant Energy, settling claims that the
companies manipulated California’s wholesale electricity markets during
the California energy crisis of 2000-01. Lieff Cabraser earlier entered into
a settlement for over $400 million with The Williams Companies.
4.
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D.
Cal.). Representing direct purchasers of flat-panel TV screens and other
products incorporating liquid crystal displays, Lieff Cabraser serves as
one of two Interim Lead Counsel in nationwide class action litigation
against the world’s leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid
Crystal Displays. TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as
computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital
assistants and other devices. The plaintiffs allege that from at least
January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2005 defendants conspired to raise,
fix and stabilize the prices of TFT-LCDs.
5.
Azizian v. Federated Department Stores, 3:03 CV 03359 SBA (N.D.
Cal.). In March 2005, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that
Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel reached with numerous department store
cosmetics manufacturers and retailers. The settlement is valued at $175
million and includes significant injunctive relief, for the benefit of a
nationwide class of consumers of department store cosmetics. The
complaint alleged the manufacturers and retailers violated antitrust law by
engaging in anticompetitive practices to prevent discounting of department
store cosmetics.
6.
Sullivan v. DB Investments, No. 04-02819 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser
served as class counsel for consumers who purchased diamonds from 1994
through March 31, 2006, in a class action lawsuit against the De Beers
group of companies. Plaintiffs charged that De Beers conspired to
monopolize the sale of rough diamonds. In May 2008, the Court granted
final approval of a settlement that provides $295 million to purchasers of
diamonds and diamond jewelry, including $130 million to consumers.
- 34 -
#:6141
The settlement also prevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business
practices and requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court
to enforce the settlement.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
7.
In re ATM Antitrust Litigation, No. C-04-2676 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser represents a putative class of ATM users against a number of
banks comprising the Star ATM Network, alleging that those banks
conspired to fix the price of ATM interchange fees, thereby unlawfully
inflating fees paid by ATM users in the network.
8.
In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that from November 1, 1996
through December 31, 2006, the defendant manufacturers conspired to fix
and maintain artificially high prices for SRAM, a type of memory used in
many products including smartphones and computers. In February 2008,
U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken denied most aspects of
defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints. In November 2009,
the Court certified a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief and twentyseven state classes seeking damages. Lieff Cabraser serves as one of three
members of the Steering Committee for consumers and other indirect
purchasers of SRAM.
9.
In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1852. Lieff Cabraser
is class counsel for purchasers of flash memory, which is commonly used
in a variety of applications, including circuit boards, memory cards, digital
cameras, USB storage devices, portable music players, mobile wireless
technology, game consoles and personal computers. Plaintiffs allege that
they have been deprived of free and open competition, and that prices for
flash memory sold by defendants have been fixed, raised, maintained and
stabilized at artificially high levels throughout the United States.
10.
In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1631 (D. Conn.).
Lieff Cabraser serves as class counsel in this nationwide antitrust class
action on behalf of printing companies. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants, who are among the world’s largest paper manufacturers,
conspired illegally to fix the price of publication paper that is used to print
magazines.
11.
Spectrum Stores, Inc., et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., H-06-3569 (S.D.
Tex.). Lieff Cabraser serves as class counsel on behalf of direct
purchasers of gasoline and other oil-based products from Citgo. The
plaintiffs allege antitrust damages for Citgo’s participation in OPEC’s oil
cartel.
12.
In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1368
(S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as Trial Counsel on behalf of a class of
- 35 -
#:6142
direct purchasers of high pressure laminates. The case in 2006 was tried
to a jury verdict. The case settled for over $40 million.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
13.
In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1413 (S.D.N.Y.). In
November 2003, Lieff Cabraser obtained a $90 million cash settlement for
individual consumers, consumer organizations, and third party payers that
purchased BuSpar, a drug prescribed to alleviate symptoms of anxiety.
Plaintiffs alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS), Danbury
Pharmacal, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc.
entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade under which BMS
paid a potential generic manufacturer of BuSpar to drop its challenge to
BMS’ patent and refrain from entering the market. Lieff Cabraser served
as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel.
14.
In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1430
(D. Mass.). In May 2005, the Court granted final approval to a settlement
of a class action lawsuit by patients, insurance companies and health and
welfare benefit plans that paid for Lupron, a prescription drug used to treat
prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty. The settlement
requires the defendants, Abbott Laboratories, Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, and TAP Pharmaceuticals, to pay $150 million,
inclusive of costs and fees, to persons or entities who paid for Lupron
from January 1, 1985 through March 31, 2005. Plaintiffs charged that the
defendants conspired to overstate the drug’s average wholesale price
(“AWP”), which resulted in plaintiffs paying more for Lupron than they
should have paid. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
15.
California Vitamin Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4076 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Co-Chairman of the Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee on behalf of a class of California indirect vitamin
purchasers in every level of the chain of distribution. In January 2002, the
Court granted final approval of a $96 million settlement with certain
vitamin manufacturers in a class action alleging that these and other
manufacturers engaged in price fixing of particular vitamins. In
December 2006, the Court granted final approval to over $8.8 million in
additional settlements.
16.
Ciprofloxacin Federal and State Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1383
(E.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for consumers
who purchased Cipro, the top selling antibiotic in the world. Plaintiffs
allege that Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, two other generic drug
companies, and other defendants entered into an unlawful agreement to
keep a generic version of the drug off the market that allowed Bayer to sell
Cipro at inflated prices. Lieff Cabraser also represents purchasers of
Cipro in a class action lawsuit filed in California state court. In July 2004,
the California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s grant of class
- 36 -
#:6143
certification of an antitrust and unfair competition action against
defendants.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
17.
Pharmaceutical Cases I, II, and III, J.C.C.P. Nos. 2969, 2971 & 2972
(Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead and Co-Liaison
Counsel representing a certified class of indirect purchasers (consumers)
on claims against the major pharmaceutical manufacturers for violations
of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act. The class alleged
that defendants unlawfully fixed discriminatory prices on prescription
drugs to retail pharmacists in comparison with the prices charged to
certain favored purchasers, including HMOs and mail order houses. In
April 1999, the Court approved a settlement providing $148 million in
free, brand-name prescription drugs to health agencies that serve
California’s poor and uninsured. In October 2001, the Court approved a
settlement with the remaining defendants in the case, which provided an
additional $23 million in free, brand-name prescription drugs to these
agencies.
18.
Quantegy Recording Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Toda Kogyo Corp., et al.,
No. C-02-1611 (PJH). In August 2006 and January 2009, the Court
approved the final settlements in antitrust litigation against manufacturers,
producers, and distributors of magnetic iron oxide ("MIO"). MIO is used
in the manufacture of audiotape, videotape, and data storage tape.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by
conspiring to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices and to allocate the
worldwide markets for MIO from 1991 to October 12, 2005. The value of
all settlements reached in the litigation was $6.35 million. Lieff Cabraser
served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel.
19.
Coalition for Elders’ Independence, Inc. v. Biovail Corporation, No.
CV023320 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for
class of consumers who purchased the drug Adalat, also known as
Nifedipine. Plaintiffs allege that two generic manufacturers of Adalat
entered into an agreement to allocate the dosages markets for generic
Adalat, thereby substantially reducing competition and unlawfully
inflating prices on both generic and brand-name Adalat, in violation of
state antitrust laws.
20.
In re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1514
(D.N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represents the City and County of San Francisco
and a class of direct purchasers of carbon brushes and carbon collectors on
claims that producers fixed the price of carbon brushes and carbon
collectors in violation of the Sherman Act.
21.
Electrical Carbon Products Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4294 (San Francisco
Supr. Court). Lieff Cabraser represents the City and County of San
Francisco and a class of indirect purchasers of carbon brushes and carbon
- 37 -
#:6144
collectors on claims that producers fixed the price of carbon brushes and
carbon collectors in violation of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair
Competition Law. Lieff Cabraser also represents the People of the State
of California in claims arising from the Unfair Competition Law.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
22.
In re Compact Disc Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1216 (C.D. Cal.).
Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for the direct purchasers of
compact discs on claims that the producers fixed the price of CDs in
violation of the federal antitrust laws.
23.
In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075 (N.D. Ga.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel and a member of the trial team for a
class of direct purchasers of twenty-ounce level loop polypropylene
carpet. Plaintiffs, distributors of polypropylene carpet, alleged that
Defendants, seven manufacturers of polypropylene carpet, conspired to fix
the prices of polypropylene carpet by agreeing to eliminate discounts and
charge inflated prices on the carpet. In 2001, the Court approved a $50
million settlement of the case.
24.
In re Lasik/PRK Antitrust Litigation, No. CV 772894 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).
Lieff Cabraser served as a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in
class actions brought on behalf of persons who underwent Lasik/PRK eye
surgery. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, the manufacturers of the laser
system used for the laser vision correction surgery, manipulated fees
charged to ophthalmologists and others who performed the surgery, and
that the overcharges were passed onto consumers who paid for laser vision
correction surgery. In December 2001, the Court approved a $12.5
million settlement of the litigation.
25.
In re Toys ‘R’ Us Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1211 (E.D.N.Y.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel representing a class of direct
purchasers (consumers) who alleged that Toys ‘R’ Us conspired with the
major toy manufacturers to boycott certain discount retailers in order to
restrict competition and inflate toy prices. In February 2000, the Court
approved a settlement of cash and product of over $56 million.
26.
In re Travel Agency Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1058
(D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified class
of U.S. travel agents on claims against the major U.S. air carriers, who
allegedly violated the federal antitrust laws by fixing the commissions
paid to travel agents. In 1997, the Court approved an $82 million
settlement.
27.
Sanitary Paper Cases I & II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4019 & 4027 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).
Lieff Cabraser served as Liaison Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers
of commercial paper products. Plaintiffs alleged that from 1993 to 2000
Defendants fixed the price of commercial tissue, toilet paper, toilet seat
- 38 -
#:6145
covers, and other commercial paper products in violation of the Cartwright
Act and Unfair Competition Act. In February 2001, the Court approved a
$3 million settlement of the case.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
28.
Schwartz v. National Football League, No. 97-CV-5184 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff
Cabraser served as counsel for individuals who purchased the “NFL
Sunday Ticket” package of private satellite transmissions in litigation
against the National Football League for allegedly violating the Sherman
Act by limiting the distribution of television broadcasts of NFL games by
satellite transmission to one package. In August 2001, the Court approved
of a class action settlement that included: (1) the requirement that
defendants provide an additional weekly satellite television package
known as Single Sunday Ticket for the 2001 NFL football season, under
certain circumstances for one more season, and at the defendants’
discretion thereafter; (2) a $7.5 million settlement fund to be distributed to
class members; (3) merchandise coupons entitling class members to
discounts at the NFL’s Internet store which the parties value at
approximately $3 million; and (4) $2.3 million to pay for administering
the settlement fund and notifying class members.
29.
In re Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1093 (D.
Utah). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of direct
purchasers of explosives used in mining operations. In 1998, the Court
approved a $77 million settlement of the litigation.
30.
In re California Indirect-Purchaser X-Ray Antitrust Litigation, No.
960886 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf
of indirect purchasers (consumers) of medical x-ray film who alleged
violations of the Cartwright and Unfair Competition Acts. In 1998, the
Court approved a $3.75 million settlement of the litigation.
31.
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs, MDL No. 997 (N.D. Ill.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel for a class of tens of thousands of retail
pharmacies against the leading pharmaceutical manufacturers and
wholesalers of brand name prescription drugs for alleged price-fixing from
1989 to 1995 in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs charged
that defendants engaged in price discrimination against retail pharmacies
by denying them discounts provided to hospitals, health maintenance
organizations, and nursing homes. In 1996 and 1998, the Court approved
settlements with certain manufacturers totaling $723 million.
32.
In re K-Dur Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1419.
Lieff Cabraser serves as Class Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of
K-Dur, a potassium supplement often prescribed in conjunction with high
blood pressure medication. K-Dur is the fourth most frequently prescribed
drug to seniors. The complaint alleges the defendants, The lawsuits allege
that Schering-Plough, privately held Upsher-Smith Laboratories and
- 39 -
#:6146
American Home Products Corporation (now Wyeth) entered into illegal
agreements aimed at blocking the introduction of low-cost generic forms
of K-Dur to the market. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is
pending.
F.
33.
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1200 (W.D. Pa.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers
of flat glass.
34.
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers
of linerboard. The court recently approved a settlement totaling $202
million.
35.
Carbon Fiber Cases I, II, III, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4212, 4216 & 4222 (Cal.
Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel on behalf of
indirect purchasers of carbon fiber. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
illegally conspired to raise prices of carbon fiber. Settlements have been
reached with all of the defendants.
36.
Methionine Cases I and II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4090 & 4096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).
Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers
of methionine, an amino acid used primarily as a poultry and swine feed
additive to enhance growth and production. Plaintiffs alleged that the
companies illegally conspired to raise methionine prices to supercompetitive levels. The case settled.
37.
McIntosh v. Monsanto, No. 4:01CV65RSW (E.D. Mo.). Lieff Cabraser
served as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto
Company and others alleging that a conspiracy to fix prices on genetically
modified Roundup Ready soybean seeds and Yieldgard corn seeds. The
case settled.
38.
Tortola Restaurants, L.P. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, No.
314281 (Cal. Supr. Ct). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel on
behalf of indirect purchasers of Scotch-brand invisible and transparent
tape. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant 3M conspired with certain retailers
to monopolize the sale of Scotch-brand tape in California. This case has
been resolved as part of a nationwide settlement that Lieff Cabraser
negotiated, along with co-counsel.
Non-Personal Injury Defective Products
1.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
Richison v. American Cemwood Corp., No. 005532 (San Joaquin Supr.
Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-lead Class Counsel for an
estimated nationwide class of 30,000 owners of homes and other
structures on which defective Cemwood Shakes were installed. In
November 2003, the Court granted final approval to a $75 million Phase 2
- 40 -
#:6147
settlement in the American Cemwood roofing shakes national class action
litigation. This amount was in addition to a $65 million partial settlement
approved by the Court in May 2000, and brought the litigation to a
conclusion. The claims period runs through 2015.
2.
Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corporation, No.
05-05437 (W.D. WA.) In April 2008, the Court granted final approval to
a nationwide settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by current and past
owners of high-efficiency furnaces manufactured and sold by Carrier
Corporation and equipped with polypropylene-laminated condensing heat
exchangers ("CHXs"). Carrier sold the furnaces under the Carrier, Bryant,
Day & Night and Payne brand-names. Plaintiffs alleged that starting in
1989 Carrier began manufacturing and selling high efficiency condensing
furnaces manufactured with a secondary CHX made of inferior materials.
Plaintiffs alleged that as a result, the CHXs, which Carrier warranted and
consumers expected to last for 20 years, failed prematurely. The
settlement provides an enhanced 20-year warranty of free service and free
parts for consumers whose furnaces have not yet failed. The settlement
also offers a cash reimbursement for consumers who already paid to repair
or replace the CHX in their high-efficiency Carrier furnaces.
An estimated three million or more consumers in the U.S. and Canada
purchased the furnaces covered under the settlement. Plaintiffs valued the
settlement to consumers at over $300 million based upon the combined
value of the cash reimbursement and the estimated cost of an enhanced
warranty of this nature.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
3.
Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 995787 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of
hundreds of thousands or millions of owners of homes and other structures
with defective Weyerhaeuser hardboard siding. A California-wide class
was certified for all purposes in February 1999, and withstood writ review
by both the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of California.
In 2000, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of the
case which provides class members with compensation for their damaged
siding, based on the cost of replacing or, in some instances, repairing,
damaged siding. The settlement has no cap, and requires Weyerhaeuser to
pay all timely, qualified claims over a nine year period. The claims
program is underway and paying claims.
4.
In re Mercedes-Benz Tele-Aid Contract Litigation, MDL No. 1914 (D.
N.J.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represents owners and lessees of
Mercedes-Benz cars and SUVs equipped with the Tele-Aid system, an
emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side
assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and
cellular technology. In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission
issued a rule, effective 2008, eliminating the requirement that wireless
- 41 -
#:6148
phone carriers provide analog-based networks. The Tele-Aid system
offered by Mercedes-Benz relied on analog signals. Plaintiffs charge that
Mercedes-Benz committed fraud in promoting and selling the Tele-Aid
system without disclosing to buyers of certain model years that the TeleAid system as installed would become obsolete in 2008. Mercedes-Benz
subsequently told customers that they could pay to upgrade their Tele-Aid
system to operate over a digital network, at a cost of as much as $1,500 for
some owners. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks damages for Mercedes-Benz
fraudulent conduct, along with reimbursement for Mercedes-Benz
customers with analog systems who paid to upgrade their Tele-Aid
systems to operate on a digital network. In an April 2009 published order,
the Court certified a nationwide class of all persons or entities in the U.S.
who purchased or leased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with an
analog-only Tele Aid system after August 8, 2002, and (1) subscribed to
Tele Aid service until being informed that such service would be
discontinued at the end of 2007, or (2) purchased an upgrade to digital
equipment.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
5.
Foothill/DeAnza Community College District v. Northwest Pipe
Company, No. C-00-20749 (N.D. Cal.). In June 2004, the court approved
the creation of a settlement fund of up to $14.5 million for property
owners nationwide with Poz-Lok fire sprinkler piping that fails. Since
1990, Poz-Lok pipes and pipe fittings were sold in the U.S. as part of fire
suppression systems for use in residential and commercial buildings.
After leaks in Poz-Lok pipes caused damage to its DeAnza Campus
Center building, Foothill/DeAnza Community College District in
California retained Lieff Cabraser to file a class action lawsuit against the
manufacturers of Poz-Lok. The college district charged that Poz-Lok pipe
had manufacturing and design defects that resulted in the premature
corrosion and failure of the product. Under the settlement, owners whose
Poz-Lok pipes are leaking today, or over the next 15 years, may file a
claim for compensation.
6.
Toshiba Laptop Screen Flicker Settlement. Lieff Cabraser negotiated a
settlement with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”) to
provide relief for owners of certain Toshiba Satellite 1800 Series, Satellite
Pro 4600 and Tecra 8100 personal notebook computers whose screens
flickered, dimmed or went blank due to an issue with the FL Inverter
Board component. Under the terms of the Settlement, owners of affected
computers who paid to have the FL Inverter issue repaired by either TAIS
or an authorized TAIS service provider recovered the cost of that repair,
up to $300 for the Satellite 1800 Series and the Satellite Pro 4600 personal
computers, or $400 for the Tecra 8100 personal computers. TAIS also
agreed to extend the affected computers’ warranties for the FL Inverter
issue by 18 months.
- 42 -
#:6149
7.
Create-A-Card v. Intuit, No. C07-6452 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented business users of QuickBooks Pro
for accounting that lost their QuickBooks data and other files due to faulty
software code sent by Intuit, the producer of QuickBooks. In September
2009, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that provided all
class members who filed a valid claim with a free software upgrade and
compensation for certain data-recovery costs. Commenting on the
settlement and the work of Lieff Cabraser on September 17, 2009, U.S.
District Court Judge William H. Alsup stated, "I want to come back to
something that I observed in this case firsthand for a long time now. I
think you've done an excellent job in the case as class counsel and the
class has been well represented having your and your firm in the case."
8.
ABS Pipe Litigation, JCCP No. 3126 (Contra Costa County Supr. Ct.,
Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel on behalf of property
owners whose ABS plumbing pipe was allegedly defective and caused
property damage by leaking. Six separate class actions were filed in
California against five different ABS pipe manufacturers, numerous
developers of homes containing the ABS pipe, as well as the resin supplier
and the entity charged with ensuring the integrity of the product. Between
1998 and 2001, we achieved 12 separate settlements in the class actions
and related individual lawsuits for approximately $78 million.
Commenting on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the case,
California Superior Court (now appellate) Judge Mark B. Simons stated
on May 14, 1998: “The attorneys who were involved in the resolution of
the case certainly entered the case with impressive reputations and did
nothing in the course of their work on this case to diminish these
reputations, but underlined, in my opinion, how well deserved those
reputations are.”
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
9.
McManus, et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., No. SA-99-CA-464-FB
(W.D. Tex.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of original
owners of 1994-2000 model year Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor
homes. In 2003, the Court approved a settlement that resolved lawsuits
pending in Texas and California about braking while towing with 1994
Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes. The lawsuits alleged that
Fleetwood misrepresented the towing capabilities of new motor homes it
sold, and claimed that Fleetwood should have told buyers that a
supplemental braking system is needed to stop safely while towing heavy
items, such as a vehicle or trailer. The settlement paid $250 to people who
bought a supplemental braking system for Fleetwood motor homes that
they bought new.
10.
Cox v. Shell, No. 18,844 (Obion County Chancery Ct., Tenn.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of
approximately 6 million owners of property equipped with defective
- 43 -
#:6150
polybutylene plumbing systems and yard service lines. In November
1995, the Court approved a settlement involving an initial commitment by
Defendants of $950 million in compensation for past and future expenses
incurred as a result of pipe leaks, and to provide replacement pipes to
eligible claimants. The settlement claims program will continue past
2010, under the continuing supervision of the trial court.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
11.
Naef v. Masonite, No. CV-94-4033 (Mobile County Circuit Ct., Ala.).
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein served as Class Counsel on behalf of
a nationwide Class of an estimated 4 million homeowners with allegedly
defective hardboard siding manufactured and sold by Masonite
Corporation, a subsidiary of International Paper, on their homes. The
Class was certified in November 1995, and the Alabama Supreme Court
twice denied extraordinary writs seeking to decertify the Class, including
in Ex Parte Masonite, 681 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 1996). A month-long jury
trial in 1996 established the factual predicate that Masonite hardboard
siding was defective under the laws of most states. The case settled on the
eve of a second Class-wide trial, and in 1998, the Court approved a Class
Settlement. Under the Settlement, Class members with failing Masonite
hardboard siding installed and incorporated in their property between
January 1, 1980 and January 15, 1998 can make claims through 2008 and
have their homes evaluated by independent inspectors. Class members
with qualifying damage to their siding recover damages associated with
the siding. To date, the Settlement has paid out over $805 million to
homeowners across the country, and claims continue to be made and paid.
12.
Weekend Warrior Trailer Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4455 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).
Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented owners of Weekend Warrior
trailers manufactured between 1998 and 2006 that were equipped with
frames manufactured, assembled, or supplied by Zieman Manufacturing
Company. The trailers, commonly referred to as “toy haulers,” were used
to transport outdoor recreational equipment such as motorcycles and allterrain vehicles. Plaintiffs charged that Weekend Warrior and Zieman
knew of design and performance problems, including bent frames,
detached siding, and warped forward cargo areas, with the trailers, and
concealed the defects from consumers. In February 2008, the Court
approved a $5.5 million settlement of the action that provided for the
repair and/or reimbursement of the trailers. In approving the settlement,
California Superior Court Judge Thierry P. Colaw stated that class counsel
were “some of the best” and “there was an overwhelming positive reaction
to the settlement” among class members.
13.
Lundell v. Dell, No. C05-03970 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as
Lead Class Counsel for consumers who experienced power problems with
the Dell Inspiron 5150 notebook. In December 2006, the Court granted
final approval to a settlement of the class action which extended the oneyear limited warranty on the notebook for a set of repairs related to the
- 44 -
#:6151
power system. In addition, class members that paid Dell or a third party
for repair of the power system of their notebook were entitled to a 100%
cash refund from Dell.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
14.
Kan v. Toshiba American Information Systems, No. BC327273 (Los
Angeles Super. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a class
of all end-user persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired in
the United States, for their own use and not for resale, a new Toshiba
Satellite Pro 6100 Series notebook. Consumers alleged a series of defects
were present in the notebook. In 2006, the Court approved a settlement
that extended the warranty for all Satellite Pro 6100 notebooks, provided
cash compensation for certain repairs, and reimbursed class members for
certain out-of-warranty repair expenses.
15.
In re Louisiana-Pacific Inner-Seal Siding Litigation, No. C-95-879-JO
(D. Or.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a
nationwide class of homeowners with defective exterior siding on their
homes. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranty, fraud,
negligence, and violation of consumer protection statutes. In 1996, U.S.
District Judge Robert E. Jones entered an Order, Final Judgment and
Decree granting final approval to a nationwide settlement requiring
Louisiana-Pacific to provide funding up to $475 million to pay for
inspection of homes and repair and replacement of failing siding over the
next seven years.
16.
In re Intel Pentium Processor Litigation, No. CV 745729 (Santa Clara
Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as one of two court appointed
Co-Lead Class Counsel, and negotiated a settlement, approved by the
Court in June 1995, involving both injunctive relief and damages having
an economic value of approximately $1 billion. The chip replacement
program has been implemented, and is ongoing.
17.
Gross v. Mobil, No. C 95-1237-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as
Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in this nationwide action involving an estimated
2,500 aircraft engine owners whose engines were affected by Mobil AV-1,
an aircraft engine oil. Plaintiffs alleged claims for strict liability,
negligence, misrepresentation, violation of consumer protection statutes,
and for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction
requiring Defendant Mobil Corporation to provide notice to all potential
class members of the risks associated with past use of Defendants’ aircraft
engine oil. In addition, Plaintiffs negotiated a proposed Settlement,
granted final approval by the Court in November 1995, valued at over
$12.5 million, under which all Class Members were eligible to participate
in an engine inspection and repair program, and receive compensation for
past repairs and for the loss of use of their aircraft associated with damage
caused by Mobil AV-1.
- 45 -
#:6152
G.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
18.
In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Fuel Tank Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 961 (E.D. PA). Lieff Cabraser served as courtappointed Co-Lead Counsel representing a class of 4.7 million plaintiffs
who owned 1973-1987 GM C/K pickup trucks with allegedly defective
gas tanks. The Consolidated Complaint asserted claims under the Lanham
Act, the Magnuson-Moss Act, state consumer protection statutes, and
common law. In 1995, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court
settlement approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court
for further proceedings. In July 1996, a new nationwide class action was
certified for purposes of an enhanced settlement program valued at a
minimum of $600 million, plus funding for independent fuel system safety
research projects. Final approval was granted in November 1996.
19.
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., No. C-95-2010-CAL (N.D. Cal.). In 1995, the
district court approved a $200+ million settlement enforcing Chrysler’s
comprehensive minivan rear latch replacement program, and to correct
alleged safety problems with Chrysler’s pre-1995 designs. As part of the
settlement, Chrysler agreed to replace the rear latches with redesigned
latches. The settlement was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (1998).
Environmental and Toxic Exposures
1.
In re Unocal Refinery Litigation, No. C 94-04141 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff
Cabraser served as one of two Co-Lead Class Counsel and on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this action against Union Oil Company
of California (“Unocal”) arising from a series of toxic releases from
Unocal’s San Francisco refinery in Rodeo, California. The action was
settled in 1997 on behalf of approximately 10,000 individuals for
$80 million.
2.
Kentucky Coal Sludge Litigation. On October 11, 2000, near Inez,
Kentucky, a coal waste storage facility ruptured, spilling 300 million
gallons of coal sludge (a wet mixture produced by the treatment and
cleaning of coal) into waterways in the region and contaminating hundreds
of properties. This was one of the worst environmental disasters in the
Southeastern United States. With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented
over 400 clients in property damage claims, including claims for
diminution in the value of their homes and properties. In April 2003, the
parties reached a confidential settlement agreement on favorable terms to
the plaintiffs.
3.
Toms River Childhood Cancer Incidents. With co-counsel, Lieff
Cabraser represented 69 families in Toms River, New Jersey, each with a
child having cancer, that claimed the cancers were caused by
environmental contamination in the Toms River area. Commencing in
1998, the parties – the 69 families, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Union
- 46 -
#:6153
Carbide and United Water Resources, Inc., a water distributor in the area –
participated in an unique alternative dispute resolution process, which lead
to a fair and efficient consideration of the factual and scientific issues in
the matter. In December 2001, under the supervision of a mediator, a
confidential settlement favorable to the families was reached.
4.
In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation (District of Alaska/Alaska Supr.
Ct.). The Exxon Valdez ran aground in March of 1989, spilling 11 million
gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. Lieff Cabraser served as one of
the court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel. The class consisted of
32,000 fisherman, Alaska natives, landowners and others whose
livelihoods were gravely affected by the disaster. In addition, Lieff served
on the Class Trial Team in 1994. A class action jury trial was held in
federal court in 1994. The plaintiff class were awarded $5 billion in
punitive damages.
In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the original $5
billion punitive damages verdict was excessive. In 2002, U.S. District
Court Judge H. Russell Holland reinstated the award at $4 billion. Judge
Holland stated that, “Exxon officials knew that carrying huge volumes of
crude oil through Prince William sound was a dangerous business, yet
they knowingly permitted a relapsed alcoholic to direct the operation of
the Exxon Valdez through Prince William Sound.” In 2003, the Ninth
Circuit again directed Judge Holland to reconsider the punitive damages
award under United States Supreme Court punitive damages guidelines.
In January 2004, Judge Holland issued his order finding that Supreme
Court authority did not change the Court’s earlier analysis.
In December 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling,
setting the punitive damages award at $2.5 billion. Subsequently, the U.S.
Supreme Court further reduced the punitive damages award to $507.5
million, an amount equal to the compensatory damages. With interest, the
total award to the plaintiffs class was $1.515 billion.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
5.
West v. G&H Seed Co., Aventis CropSciences USA, LLP, et al., No. 99C-4984-A (La. State Ct). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented a
class of 1,500 Louisiana crawfish farmers. The farmers sued Bayer
CropScience LP claiming the pesticide ICON killed their crawfish and
caused economic ruin. In 2004, the Court granted approved a $45 million
settlement. The settlement was reached after the parties had presented
nearly a month’s worth of evidence at trial, and were on the verge of
making closing arguments to the jury.
6.
Craft v. Vanderbilt University, Civ. No. 3-94-0090 (M.D. Tenn.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Lead Counsel of a certified class of over 800 pregnant
women and their children who were intentionally fed radioactive iron
without their consent while receiving prenatal care at defendant
- 47 -
#:6154
Vanderbilt’s hospital in the 1940’s. The facts surrounding the
administration of radioactive iron to the pregnant women and their
children in utero came to light as a result of Energy Secretary Hazel
O’Leary’s 1993 disclosures of government sponsored human radiation
experimentation during the Cold War. Defendants’ attempts to dismiss
the claims and decertify the class were unsuccessful. The case was settled
in July 1998 for a total of $10.3 million and a formal apology from
Vanderbilt.
H.
7.
In re GCC Richmond Works Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 2906 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).
Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Lead Class Counsel in
coordinated litigation arising out of the release of a massive toxic sulfuric
acid cloud which injured an estimated 50,000 residents of Richmond,
California on July 26, 1993. The Coordination Trial Court granted final
approval to a $180 million class settlement for exposed residents.
8.
In re Sacramento River Spill Cases I and II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 2617 & 2620
(Cal. Supr. Ct.). On July 14, 1991, a Southern Pacific train tanker car
derailed in northern California, spilling 19,000 gallons of a toxic pesticide,
metam sodium, into the Sacramento River near the town of Dunsmir. The
metam sodium mixed thoroughly with the river water, having a
devastating effect on the river and surrounding ecosystem. In addition,
many residents living along the river became ill with symptoms that
included headaches, shortness of breath, and vomiting. Lieff Cabraser
served as Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Lead Class
Counsel, and chaired the Plaintiffs' Litigation Committee in coordinated
proceedings that included all of the lawsuits arising out of this toxic spill.
Settlement proceeds of approximately $16 million were distributed
pursuant to Court approval of a plan of allocation to four certified plaintiff
classes: personal injury, business loss, property damage/diminution, and
evacuation.
Aviation Law
1.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
In re Air Crash near Athens, Greece on August 14, 2005, MDL No.
1773. On August 14, 2005, a Boeing 737 operating as Helios Airways
flight 522 crashed north of Athens, Greece, resulting in the deaths of all
passengers and crew. The aircraft was heading from Larnaca, Cyprus to
Athens International Airport when ground controllers lost contact with the
pilots, who had radioed in to report problems with the air conditioning
system. Press reports about the official investigation indicate that a single
switch for the pressurization system on the plane was not properly set by
the pilots, and eventually both were rendered unconscious, along with
most of the passengers and cabin crew. Lieff Cabraser represented the
families of several victims, and filed complaints alleging that a series of
design defects in the Boeing 737-300 contributed to the pilots’ failure to
understand the nature of the problems they were facing. Foremost among
- 48 -
#:6155
those defects was a confusing pressurization warning “horn” which uses
the same sound that alerts pilots to improper takeoff and landing
configurations. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained
substantial economic recoveries in a settlement of the case.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
2.
Barbosa Garcia et al. v. Excelaire Service, Inc., and Honeywell
International, Inc., No. CV 06-5964 (E.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves
as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and represents over twenty families whose
loved ones died in the Gol Airlines Flight 1907 crash. On September 29,
2006, a brand-new Boeing 737-800 operated by Brazilian air carrier Gol
plunged into the Amazon jungle after colliding with a smaller plane
owned by the American company ExcelAire Service, Inc. None of the
149 passengers and six crew members on board the Gol flight survived the
accident. The complaint charges that the pilots of the ExcelAire jet were
flying at an incorrect altitude at the time of the collision, failed to operate
the jet’s transponder and radio equipment properly, and failed to maintain
communication with Brazilian air traffic control in violation of
international civil aviation standards. If the pilots of the ExcelAire aircraft
had followed these standards, plaintiffs charge that the collision would not
have occurred. At the time of the collision, the ExcelAire aircraft’s
transponder manufactured by Honeywell was not functioning. A
transponder transmits a plane’s altitude and operates its automatic anticollision system. The complaint charges that Honeywell shares
responsibility for the tragedy because it defectively designed the
transponder on the ExcelAire jet, and failed to warn of dangers resulting
from foreseeable uses of the transponder.
3.
In re Air Crash at Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006, No. 07 CV
006 (E.D. Ky.). A Bombardier CRJ-100 commuter plane operated by
Comair, Inc., a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, crashed on August 27, 2006
shortly after takeoff at Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, killing
47 passengers and two crew members. The aircraft attempted to take off
from the wrong runway. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser
obtained substantial economic recoveries in a settlement of the case.
4.
Crash of West Caribbean Airways Flight 708. On August 16, 2005, a
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 operated by West Caribbean Airways lost
engine power and crashed near La Cucharita, Venezuela, during a flight
from Panama City to Fort de France, Martinique. Martinique is a province
of France. A large number of the victims’ families retained French
attorneys to represent them. In light of Lieff Cabraser’s work on the Flash
Air case (see below), those French attorneys asked Lieff Cabraser to
advise them on the substance of U.S. laws which may be applicable to a
claim against The Boeing Company (successor to McDonnell Douglas) or
Pratty & Whitney, the manufacturer of the aircraft’s engines.
- 49 -
#:6156
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
5.
Crash of Manhattan Tourist Helicopter. On June 14, 2005 a Bell 206
helicopter operated by Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. fell into the East
River shortly after taking off for a tourist flight over New York City. The
pilot and six passengers were immersed upside-down in the water as the
helicopter overturned. Lieff Cabraser represented a passenger on the
helicopter, and the case was settled on favorable, confidential terms.
6.
Crash of “Legend” Aircraft in Tucson, AZ. On November 19, 2005, a
single engine “Turbine Legend” kit plane operated by its owner crashed
shortly after takeoff from a private airstrip in Tucson, Arizona, killing both
the owner/pilot and a passenger. Witnesses report that the aircraft left the
narrow runway during the takeoff roll and although the pilot managed to
get the plane airborne, it rolled to the left and crashed. Lieff Cabraser is
investigating the liability of the pilot and others, including the
manufacturer of the kit and the operator of the airport from which the
plane took off. The runway was 16 feet narrower than the minimum width
recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration. Lieff Cabraser
represented the widow of the passenger, and the case was settled on
favorable, confidential terms.
7.
Crash of Air Algerie Boeing 737. Together with French co-counsel, Lieff
Cabraser represented the families of several passengers who died in the
March 6, 2003 crash of a Boeing 737 airplane operated by Air Algerie.
The aircraft crashed soon after takeoff from the Algerian city of
Tamanrasset, after one of the engines failed. All but one of the 97
passengers were killed, along with six crew members. The families
represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained substantial economic recoveries in
a settlement of the case.
8.
Crash of Flash Air Boeing 737. On January 3, 2004, all 148 passengers
and crew were killed when a Flash Airlines Boeing 737 plunged into the
Red Sea off the coast of Egypt, after the pilots encountered a malfunction
in the flight control system. Most of the passengers were from France and
were vacationing at the seaside resort of Sharm el Sheikh. After the
families retained French attorneys to represent them, those French
attorneys conducted several rounds of interviews of U.S. law firms with
the intention of engaging one of those firms to file an action in the United
States against Boeing, which manufactured the aircraft in the United
States. Lieff Cabraser was selected to be that firm, and filed complaints in
federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of the families of more than 120
victims. Although the U.S. District Court ruled that the case could be more
conveniently tried in France, the plaintiffs have contested the jurisdiction
of the French court over the case against Boeing. If the French courts rule
against jurisdiction, the case in the United States will be reactivated.
9.
Tower Collision of U.S. Army Blackhawk Helicopter. Lieff Cabraser
represented the family of a pilot who died in the November 29, 2004 crash
- 50 -
#:6157
of a U.S. Army Black Hawk Helicopter. The Black Hawk was flying
during the early morning hours at an altitude of approximately 500 feet
when it hit cables supporting a 1,700 foot-tall television tower, and
subsequently crashed 30 miles south of Waco, Texas, killing both pilots
and five passengers, all in active Army service. The tower warning lights
required by government regulations were inoperative. The case was
resolved through a successful, confidential settlement.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
10.
Crash of China Eastern Airlines Bombardier CRJ200. In California
courts, Lieff Cabraser represents families of over 30 passengers who died
in the November 21, 2004, crash of China Yunnan Airlines Flight 5210.
The plane, a Bombardier CRJ-200 built in Canada with engines from a
General Electric plant in Massachusetts, was headed for Shanghai with 47
passengers and six crew members when it crashed into a lake, seconds
after taking off from Baotou, Inner Mongolia. Plaintiffs charge that the
crash was the result of a combination of pilot error and defects in the
aircraft and its engines.
11.
Crash of Mandala Airlines Flight 91. On September 5, 2005, a Boeing
737 operating as Mandala Flight 091 crashed immediately after takeoff
from the airport in Medan, Indonesia, killing 101 of the 117 people on
board, as well as 44 people on the ground. Lieff Cabraser represents a
number of injured persons and families of deceased victims.
12.
Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines Airbus Disaster. Lieff Cabraser
represented the families of passengers who were on Aeroflot-Russian
International Airlines Flight SU593 that crashed in Siberia on March 23,
1994. The plane was in route from Moscow to Hong Kong. All
passengers on board died. According to a transcript of the cockpit voice
recorder, the pilot’s two children entered the cockpit during the flight and
took turns flying the plane. The autopilot apparently was inadvertently
turned off during this time, and the pilot was unable to remove his son
from the captain’s seat in time to avert the plane’s fatal dive. Lieff
Cabraser, alongside French co-counsel, filed suit in France, where Airbus,
the plane’s manufacturer, was headquartered. All the families Lieff
Cabraser represented obtained substantial economic recoveries in
settlement of the action.
13.
United Airlines Boeing 747 Disaster, MDL No. 807 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff
Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel on behalf of the passengers
and families of passengers injured and killed in the United Airlines Boeing
747 cargo door catastrophe near Honolulu, Hawaii on February 24, 1989.
Lieff Cabraser organized the litigation of the case, which included claims
brought against United Airlines and The Boeing Company. Among our
work, we developed a statistical system for settling the passengers’ and
families’ damages claims with certain defendants, and coordinated the
- 51 -
#:6158
prosecution of successful individual damages trials for wrongful death
against the non-settling defendants.
14.
I.
German Air Force Lockheed F-104 Star Fighter Litigation: In the late
1960s and extending into the early 1970s, the United States sold F-104
Star Fighter jets to the German Air Force that were manufactured by
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in California. Although the F-104 Star
Fighter was designed for high-altitude fighter combat, it was used in
Germany and other European countries for low-level bombing and attack
training missions. Consequently, the aircraft had an extremely high crash
rate, with over 300 pilots killed. Commencing in 1971, the law firm of
Belli Ashe Ellison Choulos & Lieff filed hundreds of lawsuits for
wrongful death and other claims on behalf of the widows and surviving
children of the pilots. Robert Lieff continued to prosecute the cases after
the formation of our firm. In 1974, the lawsuits were settled with
Lockheed on terms favorable to the plaintiffs. This litigation helped
establish the principle that citizens of foreign countries could assert claims
in United States courts, and obtain substantial recoveries, against an
American manufacturer based upon airplane accidents or crashes
occurring outside of the United States.
International and Human Rights Litigation
1.
Holocaust Cases. Lieff Cabraser is one of the leading firms that
prosecuted claims by Holocaust survivors and the heirs of Holocaust
survivors and victims against banks and private manufacturers and other
corporations who enslaved and/or looted the assets of Jews and other
minority groups persecuted by the Nazi Regime during the Second World
War era. We serve as Settlement Class Counsel in the case against the
Swiss banks that the Court approved a U.S. $1.25 billion settlement in
July 2000. Lieff Cabraser donated its attorneys’ fees in the Swiss Banks
case, in the amount of $1.5 million, to endow a Human Rights clinical
chair at Columbia University Law School. We were also active in slave
labor and property litigation against German and Austrian defendants, and
Nazi-era banking litigation against French banks. In connection therewith,
Lieff Cabraser participated in multi-national negotiations that led to
Executive Agreements establishing an additional approximately U.S. $5
billion in funds for survivors and victims of Nazi persecution. Our
website provides links to the websites of settlement and claims
administrators in these cases.
Commenting on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the
litigation against private German corporations, entitled In re Holocaust
Era German Industry, Bank & Insurance Litigation (MDL No. 1337),
U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler stated on November 13,
2002:
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 52 -
#:6159
Up until this litigation, as far as I can tell, perhaps
with some minor exceptions, the claims of slave and
forced labor fell on deaf ears. You can say what
you want to say about class actions and about
attorneys, but the fact of the matter is, there was no
attention to this very, very large group of people by
Germany, or by German industry until these cases
were filed. . . . What has been accomplished here
with the efforts of the plaintiffs’ attorneys and
defense counsel is quite incredible. . . I want to
thank counsel for the assistance in bringing us to
where we are today. Cases don’t get settled just by
litigants. It can only be settled by competent,
patient attorneys.
2.
Cruz v. U.S., Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Wells Fargo Bank, et al., No.
01-0892-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Working with co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser
succeeded in correcting an injustice that dated back 60 years. The case
was brought on behalf of Mexican workers and laborers, known as
Braceros (“strong arms”), who came from Mexico to the United States
pursuant to bilateral agreements from 1942 through 1946 to aid American
farms and industries hurt by employee shortages during World War II in
the agricultural, railroad, and other industries. As part of the braceros
program, employers held back 10% of the workers' wages, which were to
be transferred via United States and Mexican banks to savings accounts
for each Bracero. The Braceros were never reimbursed for the portion of
their wages placed in the forced savings accounts.
Despite significant obstacles including the aging and passing away of
many Braceros, statutes of limitation hurdles, and strong defenses
to claims under contract and international law, plaintiffs prevailed in a
settlement in February 2009. Under the settlement, the Mexican
government provided a payment to Braceros, or their surviving spouses or
children, in the amount of approximately $3,500 (USD). In approving the
settlement on February 23, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer
stated:
I’ve never seen such litigation in eleven years on
the bench that was more difficult than this one. It
was enormously challenging. . . . It had all sorts of
issues . . . that complicated it: foreign law,
constitutional law, contract law, [and] statute of
limitations. . . . Notwithstanding all of these issues
that kept surfacing . . . over the years, the plaintiffs
persisted. I actually expected, to tell you the truth,
at some point that the plaintiffs would just give up
because it was so hard, but they never did. They
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 53 -
#:6160
never did. And, in fact, they achieved a settlement
of the case, which I find remarkable under all of
these circumstances.
3.
The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy and Republic of
Sudan, No. 01 CV 9882 (S.D.N.Y.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser
represents the Presbyterian Church of Sudan and current and former
residents of southern Sudan who allege that that they were victims of
genocide, crimes against humanity and other violations of international
law by Talisman Energy, Inc. (“Talisman”), the largest independent
Canadian oil producer, and the Sudanese government. Plaintiffs charge
that in the late 1990s through 2003, Talisman and Sudan participated in a
joint military strategy of ethnic cleansing against non-Muslim in order to
create a buffer zone for the exploitation of oil reserves in the Western
Upper Nile region of the nation. In meetings with government officials,
plaintiffs charge that Talisman mapped out areas it intended to explore,
and the parties would then discuss how to “dispose of” the civilians living
in those areas. Talisman allegedly was aware that the result of these
decisions was to cause genocide and war crimes as government military
forces destroyed villages and killed, maimed, raped and tortured civilians
of ethnic and religious minority backgrounds. The case is presently on
appeal.
4.
Ali, et al. v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-C-1201 (N.D. Ill.) On March 1, 2005, Lieff
Cabraser joined the ACLU and Human Rights First in representing seven
individuals who claim that they were tortured by American military forces
when they were held in U.S. Army detention facilities in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Numerous Defense Department reports have found that
torture was “widespread.” The suit alleges that Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and high-ranking military commanders were responsible for
authorizing torture or failing to stop torture after they learned of it. A
former Rear Admiral and former Brigadier General also serve as cocounsel. The consolidated case is pending in the U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C.
FIRM BIOGRAPHY:
PARTNERS
ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, born Oakland, California, June 23, 1952. Admitted to
practice in California, 1978; U.S. Supreme Court, 1996; U.S. Tax Court, 1979; California
Supreme Court, 1978; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1978; Eastern District
of California, 1979; Central District of California and Southern District of California, 1992; U.S.
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2000; Third Circuit, 1994; Fifth Circuit, 1992; Sixth Circuit,
1992; Seventh Circuit, 2001; Ninth Circuit, 1979; Tenth Circuit, 1992; Eleventh Circuit, 1992;
U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University
of California (J.D., 1978); University of California at Berkeley (A.B., 1975). Awards and
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 54 -
#:6161
Honors: “Edward Pollock Award,” Consumer Attorneys of California, 2008; “Lawdragon 500
Leading Lawyers in America,” Lawdragon, December 2007-2008; “Award For Public Interest
Excellence,” University of San Francisco School of Law Public Interest Law Foundation, 2007;
"Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers," Lawdragon, February 2007; “Top Women
Litigators in California,” The San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal, 2007; Distinguished
Leadership Award, Legal Community Against Violence, 2006; “One Hundred Most Influential
Lawyers in America,” The National Law Journal, 2006, 2000 and 1997; “Top 75 Women
Litigators,” California Daily Journal, 2005-2006; Women of Achievement, Legal Momentum
(formerly the NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund), 2006; “Best Lawyer,” Best Lawyers in
America, 2006; “Top 100 Lawyers,” California Daily Journal, 2002-2007; “Top 30 Securities
Litigator,” California Daily Journal, 2005; “Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers,” Law
& Politics, 2005-2009; “Top 50 Female Northern California Super Lawyer,” Law & Politics,
2005-2009; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Law & Politics, 2004-2009; “Top 50 Women
Litigators,” California Daily Journal, 2004; Citation Award, University of California, Berkeley
Boalt Hall, 2003; “Top 30 Women Litigators,” California Daily Journal, 2002; Distinguished
Jurisprudence Award, Anti-Defamation League, 2002; “Top Ten Women Litigators,” The
National Law Journal, 2001; “California Law Business Top 100 Lawyers,” California Daily
Journal, 2000-1998; Matthew O. Tobriner Public Service Award, Legal Aid Society, 2000;
Presidential Award of Merit, Consumer Attorneys of California, 1998; “Fifty Most Influential
Women Lawyers,” The National Law Journal, 1998; “Lawyers of the Year,” California Lawyer,
1998; Public Justice Achievement Award, Public Justice, 1997. Publications & Presentations:
Author, “Due Process Pre-Empted: Stealth Preemption As a Consequence of Agency Capture,”
(2009); “Just Choose: The Jurisprudential Necessity to Select a Single Governing Law for Mass
Claims Arising from Nationally Marketed Consumer Goods and Services,” Roger Williams
University Law Review (Winter 2009); Co-Author with Joy A. Kruse, Bruce Leppla, “Selective
Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California,” (pts. 1 & 2), Securities
Litigation Report (West Legalworks May and June 2005); “The Manageable Nationwide Class:
A Choice-of-Law Legacy of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,” University of Missouri- Kansas
City Law Review, Volume 74, Number 3, Spring 2006; Co-Author with Fabrice N. Vincent,
“Class Actions Fairness Act of 2005,” California Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2005); Editor in
Chief, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (2003); Co-Author, “Decisions
Interpreting California’s Rules of Class Action Procedure,” Survey of State Class Action Law,
updated and re-published in 5 Newberg on Class Actions (ABA 2001-2004); Co-Author, “Mass
But Not (Necessarily) Class: Emerging Aggregation Alternatives Under the Federal Rules,”
ABA 8th Annual National Institute on Class Actions, New York (Oct. 15, 2004), New Orleans
(Oct. 29, 2004); Co-Author, “2004 ABA Toxicology Monograph-California State Law,”
(January 2004); “Current Issues Involving Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b),” in Civil Practice and
Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALI-ABA Course of Study 2004); “New
Developments in Mass Torts and Class Actions: ‘Issues’ Certification The Mass Torts Top Ten
of 2003; Rule 23’s New Provision and Action Trial Plans; And the FJC ‘New Plain Language’
Class Notice,” in Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALIABA Course of Study, February 2004); “Human Rights Violations as Mass Torts: Compensation
as a Proxy for Justice in the United States Civil Litigation System”; Coordinating Editor and CoAuthor of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2001-02); “Unfinished
Business: Reaching the Due Process Limits of Punitive Damages in Tobacco Litigation Through
Unitary Classwide Adjudication,” 36 Wake Forest Law Review 979 (Winter 2001); “Symposium:
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 55 -
#:6162
Enforcing the Social Contract through Representative Litigation,” 33 Connecticut Law Review
1239 (Summer 2001); “Equity for the Victims, Equity for the Transgressor: The Classwide
Treatment of Punitive Damages Claims,” 74 Tulane Law Review 2005 (June 2000); “Class
Action Trends and Developments After Amchem and Ortiz,” in Civil Practice and Litigation
Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALI-ABA Course of Study 1999); Contributor/Editor,
Moore’s Federal Practice (1999); “Life After Amchem: The Class Struggle Continues,”
31 Loyola Law Review 373 (1998); “Recent Developments in Nationwide Products Liability
Litigation: The Phenomenon of Non-Injury Products Cases, the Impact of Amchem and the
Trend Toward State Court Adjudication,” Products Liability (ABA February 1998);
Contributor/Editor, California Causes of Action (1998); “Beyond Bifurcation: Multi-Phase
Structure in Mass Tort Class Actions,” Class Actions & Derivative Suits (Spring 1997); “The
Road Not Taken: Thoughts on the Fifth Circuit’s Decertification of the Castano Class,” SB24
ALI-ABA 433 (1996); “Getting the Word Out: Pre-Certification Notice to Class Members
Under Rule 23(d)(2),” Class Actions & Derivative Suits Newsletter (October 1995); “Mass Tort
Class Action Settlements,” 24 CTLA Forum 11 (Jan./Feb. 1994); “Do You Know the Way from
San Jose? The Evolution of Environmental and Toxic Nuisance Class Actions,” Class Actions &
Derivative Suits (Spring 1994); “An Oracle of Change? Realizing the Potential of Emerging Fee
Award Methodologies for Enhancing The Role and Control of Investors in Derivative and Class
Action Suits,” Principles of Corporate Governance (ALI October 1994); “How To Streamline
Complex Litigation: Tailor a Case Management Order to Your Controversy,” 21 The Brief 12
(ABA/TIPS Summer 1992); “The Applicability of the Fraud-On-The-Market Theory to
‘Undeveloped’ Markets: When Fraud Creates the Market, 12 Class Action Reports 402 (1989);
“The Applicability of the Fraud-On-The-Market Theory to ‘Undeveloped’ Markets: When
Fraud Creates the Market,” 12 Class Action Reports 402 (1989); “Mandatory Certification of
Settlement Classes,” 10 Class Action Reports 151 (1987); Co-author with Alexandra L. Foote
and Fabrice N. Vincent, “Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in
and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant Evidentiary Exclusions,”
Mealey’s December Emerging Drugs Reporter (December 2002); Co-author with Fabrice N.
Vincent, “The Shareholder Strikes Back: Varied Approaches to Civil Litigation Claims Are
Available to Help Make Shareholders Whole,” Mealey’s Emerging Securities Litigation
Reporter (September 2002). Member: State Bar of California; American Bar Association (Past
Co-Chair, Committee on Mass Torts; Committee on Class Actions and Derivative Suits; Tort and
Insurance Practice Section (TIPS); Past Vice-Chair, Rules & Procedures Committee,
Contributor, Civil Procedure & Evidence News Letter; Business Law Section, Corporate &
Litigation Group; Litigation Section and Committee on Class Actions and Derivative Suits; CoChair, Committee on Mass Torts); ABA National Institute on Class Actions (Organizer/
Participant, 1997-2000); American Law Institute, (Council; Advisor, American Law Institute
International Jurisdiction and Judgments and Aggregate Litigation Projects); Public Justice;
National Center for State Courts Mass Tort Conference Planning Committee; Federal Bar
Association, Northern District of California Chapter; Fight for Justice Campaign; (California
State Liaison, Women Trial Lawyers Caucus); California Constitution Revision Commission,
1993-1996; Northern District of California Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) Advisory
Committee, and Advisory Committee on Professional Conduct; Consumer Attorneys of
California (CAOC); California Women Lawyers; Association of Business Trial Lawyers;
Lawyer-Delegate, Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, 1992-1995; Bar Association of the Fifth
Federal Circuit; Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; Bar Association of San Francisco
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 56 -
#:6163
(Past President, Securities Litigation Section; Board of Directors, 1997-1998; Past Member,
Judiciary Committee); Lawyers Club of San Francisco; Queen’s Bench.
RICHARD M. HEIMANN, born Miami, Florida, August 23, 1948. Admitted to practice
in Pennsylvania, 1972; District of Columbia, 1974; California, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1975; U.S. Supreme Court, 1980;
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1980; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986.
Education: Georgetown University (J.D., 1972); Georgetown Law Journal, 1971-72; University
of Florida (B.S.B.A., with honors, 1969). Employment: Mr. Heimann served as Deputy District
Attorney and Acting Assistant District Attorney for Tulare County, California, and as an
Assistant Public Defender in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972-74. As a private civil law
attorney, Mr. Heimann has tried over 30 civil jury cases, including complex cases such as the
successful FPI/Agretech and Edsaco securities class action trials. In April 2002 in the Edsaco
case, a federal jury in San Francisco, California returned a $170.7 million verdict against Edsaco
Ltd., which included $165 million in punitive damages. Awards & Honors: “Northern California
Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2004 – 2009. Member: State Bar of California; Bar
Association of San Francisco.
WILLIAM BERNSTEIN, born York, Pennsylvania, July 5, 1950. Admitted to practice
in California, 1975; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, 1975; New York and U.S. Supreme Court, 1985; U.S. District Court,
Central and Eastern Districts of California, 1991; U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008. Education: University of San
Francisco (J.D., 1975); San Francisco Law Review, 1974-75; University of Pennsylvania (B.A.,
general honors, 1972). Community Service: Adjunct Professor of Law, University of San
Francisco, Settlement Law (2006-Present); Judge Pro Tem for San Francisco Superior Court,
2000-present; Marin Municipal Court, 1984; Discovery Referee for the Marin Superior Court,
1984-89; Arbitrator for the Superior Court of Marin, 1984-1990. Awards & Honors: “Top 100
Trial Lawyers in California,” American Trial Lawyers Association, 2008; Who’s Who Legal,
2007; Northern California Super Lawyers, Law & Politics, 2004 – 2009; Princeton Premier
Registry, Business Leaders and Professionals, 2008-09; Unsung Hero Award, Appleseed, 2006.
Publications & Presentations: “The Rise and Fall of Enron’s One-To-Many Trading Platform”
(American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section, Annual Spring Meeting, 2005); Co-author
with Donald C. Arbitblit, “Effective Use of Class Action Procedures in California Toxic Tort
Litigation”, 3 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3 (Spring
1996). Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of New York; Marin County Bar Association
(Admin. of Justice Committee, 1988); Bar Association of San Francisco.
JOSEPH R. SAVERI, born San Francisco, California, August 18, 1962. Admitted to
practice in California, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern
Districts of California; U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; U.S. Court
of Appeals, Eighth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal
Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2009.
Education: University of Virginia (J.D., 1987); University of California at Berkeley (B.A.,
1984). Awards and Honors: “Northern California Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2006 - 2009;
AV® Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell. Publications & Presentations: “Dagher: An
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 57 -
#:6164
Admirable Exercise in Restraint,” Competition: The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair
Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 2006);
Panelist, Soaring Prices for Prescription Drugs: Just Rewards for Innovations or Antitrust
Violations?, University of San Francisco Law Review (November 13, 2004); California Antitrust
& Unfair Competition Law 3d (Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of
California 2003); Panelist, Fordham Conference on Electronic Discovery, Discovery
Subcommittee of Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure; Contributing Author,
California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003);
“RICO Update,” 22 Review of Securities and Commodities Regulation, No. 18 (Oct. 25, 1989).
Member: State Bar of California; American Bar Association; Faculty Member, Sedona
Conference on Antitrust Law and Litigation, 2006; Northern District of California’s Civil Rules
and Practice Committee; Bar Association of San Francisco; Italian Lawyers Club of San
Francisco.
DONALD C. ARBITBLIT, born Jersey City, New Jersey, May 5, 1951. Admitted to
practice in Vermont, 1979; California and U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
1986. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 1979); Order of the
Coif; Tufts University (B.S., magna cum laude, 1974). Awards and Honors: “Northern
California Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2004-08. Publications & Presentations: Co-Author
with Wendy Fleishman, “The Risky Business of Off-Label Use,” Trial (March 2005); “Comment
on Joiner: Decision on the Daubert Test of Admissibility of Expert Testimony,” 6 Mealey’s
Emerging Toxic Torts, No. 18 (December 1997); Co-author with William Bernstein, “Effective
Use of Class Action Procedures in California Toxic Tort Litigation,” 3 Hastings West-Northwest
Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3 (Spring 1996); “The Plight of American
Citizens Injured by Transboundary River Pollution,” 8 Ecology Law Quarterly, No. 2 (1979).
Appointments: Member of the Federal Court-appointed Science Executive Committee, and Chair
of the Epidemiology/Clinical Trials Subcommittee, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.); Member of the Federal Court-appointed Science and Expert Witness
Committees in In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.), In re Baycol Products Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D.
Minn.) and Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1348 (S.D.N.Y.). Member: State
Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco.
STEVEN E. FINEMAN, born Los Angeles, California, February 13, 1963. Managing
Partner. Admitted to practice in California, 1989; U.S. District Court, Northern, Eastern and
Central Districts of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1995; U.S. Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1996; New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern and Southern Districts of
New York, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, 1997; District of Columbia, 1997. Education: University of
California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1988); University of California, San Diego (B.A.,
1985); Stirling University, Scotland (English Literature and Political Science, 1983-84).
Honors/Appointments: The Best Lawyers in American (published by American Lawyer Media),
based on peer and blue ribbon panel review, selected for list of “The New York Area’s Best
Lawyers” (2005-2010); “New York Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2006-2008; “New York
Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, Securities Litigation,” Law & Politics, 2008-2009;
“100 Managing Partners You Need to Know,” Lawdragon, 2008; “40 under 40”, The National
Law Journal, 2002, selected as one of the country’s most successful litigators under the age of
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 58 -
#:6165
40; Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, in connection with an
industry-wide investigation and settlement concerning health insurers’ use of the “Ingenix
database” to determine usual and customary rates for out-of-network services (April 2008February 2009); New York State Trial Lawyers Institute, Quarterly (June 2005-present); Public
Justice Foundation, Board of Directors (July 2002-present); Vice-President (July 2009-present);
Executive Committee Member (July 2006-present), Co-Chair, Major Donors/Special Gifts
Committee (July 2009-present); Treasurer (July 2008-present); Class Action Preservation Project
Committee (July 2005-present; Co-Chair, July 2005-July 2009); Board of Trustees, Civil Justice
Foundation (January 2004-present); Editorial Board Columnist on Federal Practice for the State
Court Practitioner, New York State Trial Lawyers Association’s “Bill of Particulars” (2005present); Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, 2008-present;
Board of Directors, New York State Trial Lawyers Association (July 2001-July 2004); Plaintiff
Toxic Tort Advisory Council, Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications and Conferences Group
(January 2002-2005). Publications & Presentations: Global Justice Forum, Presented by Robert
L. Lieff and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- Conference Co-Host and Moderator
of Mediation/Arbitration Panel (October 16, 2009, Columbia Law School, New York, New
York). The Forum included practicing attorneys, retired judges and legal academics from
countries throughout the world and focused on financial fraud, mass tort, and competition
litigation in a “post-economic crisis world.”; Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for
Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S.
Courts/U.S. Lawyers in Foreign Courts (April 6, 2009, Stanford, California); Stanford University
Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation,
Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts/U.S. Lawyers in Foreign Courts, (April 16, 2008, Stanford,
California); Benjamin N. Cardoza Law School, The American Constitution Society for Law and
Policy, and Public Justice, Co-Organizer and Master of Ceremonies for Justice and the Role of
Class Actions (March 28, 2008, New York, New York); Stanford University Law School and The
Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University, conference on The Globalization of Class
Actions, Panel Member, Resolution of Class and Mass Actions (December 13 and 14, 2007,
Oxford, England); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial
Law,” Column, Federal Multidistrict Litigation Practice (Fall 2007); “Bill of Particulars, A
Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law,” Column, Pleading a Federal Court
Complaint (Summer 2007); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor
Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts (April 17,
2007, Stanford, California); “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State
Trial Law,” Initiating Litigation and Electronic Filing in Federal Court (Spring 2007); “Bill of
Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law,” Federal Court
Jurisdiction: Getting to Federal Court By Choice or Removal (Winter 2007); American
Constitution Society for Law and Policy, 2006 National Convention, Panel Member, Finding the
Balance: Federal Preemption of State Law (June 16, 2006, Washington, D.C.); Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Global Justice Forum, Conference Moderator and Panel Member on
securities litigation (May 19, 2006, Paris, France); Stanford University Law School, Guest
Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in
U.S. Court (April 25, 2006, Stanford, California); Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Global Justice Forum, Conference Moderator and Speaker and Papers, The Basics of Federal
Multidistrict Litigation: How Disbursed Claims are Centralized in U.S. Practice and Basic
Principles of Securities Actions for Institutional Investors (May 20, 2005, London, England);
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 59 -
#:6166
New York State Trial Lawyers Institute, Federal Practice for State Practitioners, Speaker and
Paper, Federal Multidistrict Litigation Practice, (March 30, 2005, New York, New York),
published in “Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law”
(Spring 2005); Stanford University Law School, The Stanford Center on Conflict and
Negotiation, Interdisciplinary Seminar on Conflict and Dispute Resolution, Guest Lecturer, In
Search of “Global Settlements”: Resolving Class Actions and Mass Torts with Finality (March
16, 2004, Stanford, California); Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications and Conferences Group,
Wall Street Forum: Mass Tort Litigation, Co-Chair of Event (July 15, 2003, New York, New
York); Northstar Conferences, The Class Action Litigation Summit, Panel Member on Class
Actions in the Securities Industry, and Paper, Practical Considerations for Investors’ Counsel Getting the Case (June 27, 2003, Washington, D.C.); The Manhattan Institute, Center for Legal
Policy, Forum Commentator on Presentation by John H. Beisner, “Magnet Courts: If You Build
Them, Claims Will Come” (April 22, 2003, New York, New York); Stanford University Law
School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler’s Courses on Complex Litigation
(“Selecting The Forum For a Complex Case -- Strategic Choices Between Federal And State
Jurisdictions”) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR In Mass Tort Litigation”) (March 4,
2003, Stanford, California); American Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Practice Section,
Emerging Issues Committee, Member of Focus Group on Emerging Issues in Tort and Insurance
Practice (coordinated event with New York University Law School and University of
Connecticut Law School, August 27, 2002, New York, New York); Duke University and
University of Geneva, Debates Over Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective, Panel
Member on Mass Torts and Products Liability (July 21-22, 2000, Geneva, Switzerland); New
York Law Journal, Article, Consumer Protection Class Actions Have Important Position,
Applying New York’s Statutory Scheme (November 23, 1998); Leader Publications, Litigation
Strategist, “Fen-Phen” Articles, The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Fen-Phen Litigation
and Daubert Developments: Something for Plaintiffs, Defense Counsel (June 1998, New York,
New York); The Defense Research Institute and Trial Lawyer Association, Toxic Torts and
Environmental Law Seminar, Article and Lecture, A Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Perspective: What’s
the Next Horizon? (April 30, 1998, New York, New York); Lexis/Nexis, Mealey’s Publications
and Conference Group, Mealey’s Tobacco Conference: Settlement and Beyond 1998, Article and
Lecture, The Expanding Litigation (February 21, 1998, Washington, D.C.); New York State Bar
Association, Expert Testimony in Federal Court After Daubert and New Federal Rule 26, Article
and Lecture, Breast Implant Litigation: Plaintiffs’ Perspective on the Daubert Principles (May
23, 1997, New York, New York). Member: State Bar of New York; State Bar of California; Bar
of the District of Columbia; American Bar Association; Public Justice Foundation, VicePresident (July 2009-present); Board of Directors (July 2002-present); Executive Committee
(July 2006-present); Co-Chair, Class Action Preservation Project ( July 2005-present); Secretary
(July 2007-present); Civil Justice Foundation; American Association for Justice; Fight for Justice
Campaign; Human Rights First; American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; New York
State Trial Lawyers Association; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Supreme Court
Historical Society.
ROBERT J. NELSON, born New York, New York, October 20, 1960; admitted practice
in California, 1987; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1987; U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1988; U.S. Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1995; District of Columbia, 1998; New York, 1999; U.S. District Court,
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 60 -
#:6167
Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California, 2006. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 1987):
Order of the Coif, Articles Editor, New York University Law Review; Root-Tilden Scholarship
Program. Cornell University (A.B., cum laude 1982): Member, Phi Beta Kappa; College Scholar
Honors Program. London School of Economics (General Course, 1980-81): Graded First.
Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
1987-88; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Northern District of California, 1988-93; Legal
Research and Writing Instructor, University of California-Hastings College of the Law, 1989-91
(Part-time position). Awards & Honors: Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist, 2007; San
Francisco Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist, 2007; California Lawyer Attorney of the Year
(CLAY) Award, 2008; “Northern California Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2004 - 2009.
Publications: "Class Action Treatment of Punitive Damages Issues after Philip Morris v.
Williams: We Can Get There from Here," 2 Charleston Law Review 2 (Spring 2008) (with
Elizabeth Cabraser); Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures
(Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003); “The Importance of Privilege Logs,” The Practical
Litigator, Vol. II, No. 2 (March 2000)(ALI-ABA Publication); “To Infer or Not to Infer a
Discriminatory Purpose: Rethinking Equal Protection Doctrine,” 61 New York University Law
Review 334 (1986). Member: State Bar of California; District of Columbia Bar Association;
New York Bar Association; American Bar Association; Fight for Justice Campaign; Bar
Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; American Association of
Justice.
KELLY M. DERMODY, born Ithaca, New York, June 16, 1967. Admitted to practice in
California, 1994; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1995; U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (2001); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2008); U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(2006); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2007); U.S. District Court of Colorado
(2007). Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D. 1993);
Moot Court Executive Board (1992-1993); Articles Editor, Industrial Relations Law
Journal/Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law (1991-1992); Harvard University (A.B.
magna cum laude, 1990), Senior Class Ames Memorial Public Service Award. Employment:
Law Clerk to Chief Judge John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee,
1993-1994; Adjunct Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, Employment
Law (Spring 2001). Awards & Honors: “Community Justice Award,” Centro Legal de la Raza,
2008; “Community Service Award,” Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, 2008;
“California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award,” California Lawyer, 2007; “Trial
Lawyer of the Year Finalist,” Public Justice Foundation, 2007; “Award of Merit,” Bar
Association of San Francisco, 2007; Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist, Consumer
Attorneys of California, 2006; “Living the Dream Partner,” Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
of the San Francisco Bay Area, 2005; “Top Women Litigators in California,” San Francisco and
Los Angeles Daily Journal, 2007; California's “Top 20 Lawyers Under 40,” Daily Journal,
2006; “Northern California Super Lawyer,” Law & Politics, 2004-2009; “Top 100 Northern
California Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2007 & 2009; “Top 50 Female Northern California
Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2007-2009; “Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers,”
Lawdragon, February 2007. Publications & Presentations: “Class Actions: Latest
Developments in Litigating and Settling Employment Discrimination Class Actions” (American
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 61 -
#:6168
Bar Association Labor and Employment Section Equal Opportunity Committee, Mid-Year
Meeting, 2001); Co-Author with James M. Finberg, “A Road Map to Discovery in Employment
Discrimination and Wage/Hour Class Actions” (Glasser Legal Works Seminar, 2000);
“Employment Discrimination Class Actions in the Wake of Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.”
(American Bar Association Litigation Section Annual Meeting, 2000); “Employment
Discrimination Class Actions in the Wake of Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(f)” (Federal Bar Association Convention, 1999); Co-Author with James M. Finberg,
“Discovery in Employment Discrimination Class Actions,” in Litigation and Settlement of
Complex Class Actions (Glasser Legal Works 1998). Member: Northern District of California
Lawyer Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (2007-present); Bar Association
of San Francisco (Board of Directors, 2005-present, Secretary, 2008-present; Litigation Section,
Executive Committee, 2002-2005); American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law
Section, Governing Council (2009-present), CLE Conference Task Force (Co-Chair, 2008-2009,
Vice-Chair, 2007-2008), Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Legal Profession (Co-Chair,
2006-2007), Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (Co-Chair, 2003-2006; Midwinter
Meeting Planning Committee, 2000-2006), Katrina Task Force (Member, 2005-2007); National
Association of Women Judges (Resource Board, 2005-present); Carver Healthy Environments
and Response to Trauma in Schools (Carver HEARTS), Steering Committee (2007-present);
American Bar Foundation (Fellow, 2006-present); Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the
San Francisco Bay Area (Board of Directors, 1998-2005; Secretary, 1999-2003; Co-Chair, 20032005); National Center for Lesbian Rights (Board of Directors, 2002-2008; Co-Chair, 20052006); Pride Law Fund (Board of Directors, 1995-2002; Secretary, 1995-1997; Chairperson,
1997-2002); Equal Rights Advocates (Litigation Committee, 2000-2002); State Bar of
California; Consumer Attorneys of California; National Employment Lawyers' Association; Bay
Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; Public Justice.
JONATHAN D. SELBIN, born Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 11, 1967. Admitted to
practice in California; District of Columbia; New York; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit;
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, Central District of California; U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida.
Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1993); University of Michigan (B.A.,
summa cum laude, 1989). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, 1993-95. Awards & Honors: “New York Super
Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2006-2008. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author,
California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor-in-chief, 2003);
“Bashers Beware: The Continuing Constitutionality of Hate Crimes Statutes After R.A.V.,”
72 Oregon Law Review 157 (Spring, 1993). Member: State Bar of California; New York State
Bar Association; District of Columbia Bar Association; American Bar Association; New York
State Trial Lawyers Association.
BARRY R. HIMMELSTEIN, born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 14, 1958.
Admitted to bar, 1992, California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1992.
Education: Hastings College of the Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1991); Note and Articles
Editor, Hastings Law Journal (1990-91); University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (B.G.S., with
distinction, 1982). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Charles A. Legge, U.S. District Court,
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 62 -
#:6169
Northern District of California, 1991-92. Honors & Awards: Northern California Super Lawyer,
Law & Politics, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, California Class
Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003). Member:
California State Bar State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco.
MICHELE C. JACKSON, born Redwood City, California, January 17, 1954. Admitted
to bar, 1979, California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1979; United States
Supreme Court, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1981; U.S. District Court, Central
District of California, 1985. Education: University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D., cum
laude, 1979); Stanford University (B.A., with honors, 1976). Employment: Judicial Extern to
Justice Wiley W. Manuel, California Supreme Court, Summer 1977. Awards & Honors:
Northern California Super Lawyer, Law & Politics, 2007-2009; Recipient of State Bar Board of
Governors Award. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, “Antitrust Dispute Resolution in
Complex Business Torts and Antitrust Cases: Is There Really a Class Arbitration?” (April
2007), American Bar Association Antitrust Law Spring Meeting; Panelist, “Settlement and
Mediation of Unfair Competition Disputes” (May, 2006) and other panels, State Bar of
California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section; Author, Recent Judicial Opinions On Class
And Multi-Party Arbitration In Antitrust And Consumer Cases, And Principles Underlying Those
Opinions (February 2007), American Bar Association; Chapter Co-Author with Marc Seltzer,
“State Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property” in California Antitrust & Unfair Competition
Law (Third), Vol. 1: Antitrust; Author, Asserted Defenses to a §17200 Class Action Based on
Korea Supply -- The Interplay With Indirect Purchaser Litigation (2005) American Bar
Association; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (2003).
Appointments: Officer, Advisor and Executive Committee Member, State Bar of California
Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section (terms September, 2001-2007). Member: American
Bar Association; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; McAuliffe Law
Honor Society.
MICHAEL W. SOBOL, born Mt. Kisco, New York, October 5, 1961. Admitted to
practice in Massachusetts, 1989; California, 1998; United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, 1990; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001; U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009).
Education: Boston University (J.D., 1989); Hobart College (B.A., cum laude, 1983). Prior
Employment: Lecturer in Law, Boston University School of Law, 1995-1997. Publications &
Presentations: Panelist, National Consumer Law Center's 15th Annual Consumer Rights
Litigation Conference, Class Action Symposium; Panelist, Continuing Education of the Bar
(C.E.B.) Seminar on Unfair Business Practices -- California's Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and Beyond; Columnist, On Class Actions, Association of Business Trial
Lawyers, 2005 to present; The Fall of Class Action Waivers (2005); The Rise of Issue Class
Certification (2006); Proposition 64's Unintended Consequences (2007); The Reach of Statutory
Damages (2008). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco;
Consumer Attorneys of California, Board of Governors, (2007-2008, 2009-2010); National
Association of Consume Advocates.
FABRICE N. VINCENT, born Paris, France, June 15, 1966. Admitted to practice in
California, 1992; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Central District of
California, Eastern District of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1992. Education:
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 63 -
#:6170
Cornell Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1992); University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1989).
Awards & Honors: Northern California Super Lawyer, Law & Politics, 2006 – 2009.
Publications & Presentations: Co-Author with Elizabeth J. Cabraser, “Class Actions Fairness
Act of 2005,” California Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2005); Co-Editor, California Class Actions
Practice and Procedures (2003-06); Co-Author, “Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose
Conflicts of Interest in and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant
Evidentiary Exclusions,” Mealey’s December Emerging Drugs Reporter (December 2002); Coauthor, “The Shareholder Strikes Back: Varied Approaches to Civil Litigation Claims Are
Available to Help Make Shareholders Whole,” Mealey’s Emerging Securities Litigation
Reporter (September 2002); Co-Author, “Decisions Interpreting California’s Rules of Class
Action Procedure,” Survey of State Class Action Law (ABA 2000-09), updated and re-published
in 5 Newberg on Class Actions (2001-09); Coordinating Editor and Co-Author of California
section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2001-06); Co-Editor-In-Chief, Fen-Phen
Litigation Strategist (Leader Publications 1998-2000) and author of “Off-Label Drug Promotion
Permitted” (Oct. 1999); Co-Author, “The Future of Prescription Drug Products Liability
Litigation in a Changing Marketplace,” and “Six Courts Certify Medical Monitoring Claims for
Class Treatment,” 29 Forum 4 (Consumer Attorneys of California 1999); Co-Author, Class
Certification of Medical Monitoring Claims in Mass Tort Product Liability Litigation (ALI-ABA
Course of Study 1999); Co-Author, “How Class Proofs of Claim in Bankruptcy Can Help in
Medical Monitoring Cases,” (Leader Publications 1999); Co-Author, Introduction, “Sanctioning
Discovery Abuses in the Federal Court,” (LRP Publications 2000); “With Final Approval, Diet
Drug Class Action Settlement Avoids Problems That Doomed Asbestos Pact,” (Leader
Publications 2000). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco;
American Bar Association; Fight for Justice Campaign; Association of Business Trial Lawyers,
Society of Automotive Engineers.
DAVID S. STELLINGS, born New Jersey, April 23, 1968. Admitted to practice in New
York, 1994; New Jersey; 1994; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1994.
Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 1993); Editor, Journal of International
Law and Politics; Cornell University (B.A., cum laude, 1990). Member: State Bar of New
York; State Bar of New Jersey; Bar Association of the City of New York; New York State Bar
Association; American Bar Association.
ERIC B. FASTIFF, born San Francisco, California. Admitted to practice in California,
1996; District of Columbia, 1997; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Federal Circuit; U.S.
District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California, District
of Columbia. Education: Cornell Law School (J.D., 1995); Editor-in-Chief, Cornell
International Law Journal; London School of Economics (M.Sc.(Econ.), 1991); Tufts University
(B.A., cum laude, magno cum honore in thesi, 1990). Employment: Law Clerk to Hon. James T.
Turner, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 1995-1996. Publications & Presentations: Co-Editor,
California Class Actions Practice and Procedures, (2003-2008); Coordinating Editor and CoAuthor of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2003-08); Author, “US
Generic Drug Litigation Update,” 1 Journal of Generic Medicines 212 (2004); Author, “The
Proposed Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial
Judgments: A Solution to Butch Reynolds’s Jurisdiction and Enforcement Problems,”
28 Cornell International Law Journal 469 (1995). Member: State Bar of California; District of
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 64 -
#:6171
Columbia Bar Association; Bar Association of San Francisco; Bar of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Generic Medicines, 2003-present.
WENDY FLEISHMAN, born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1954. Admitted to practice in
Pennsylvania, 1977; New York, 1992. Education: University of Pennsylvania (PostBaccalaureate Pre-Med, 1982); Temple University (J.D., 1977); Sarah Lawrence College (B.A.,
1974). Employment: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York (Counsel in the
Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Department), 1993-2001; Fox, Rothschild O’Brien &
Frankel (partner), 1988-93 (tried more than thirty civil, criminal, employment and jury trials, and
AAA arbitrations, including toxic tort, medical malpractice and serious injury and wrongful
death cases); Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll (associate), 1984-88 (tried more than thirty jury
trials on behalf of the defense and the plaintiffs in civil personal injury and tort actions as well as
employment- and construction-related matters); Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia,
1977-84 (in charge of and tried major homicide and sex crime cases). Awards and Honors:
“New York Super Lawyers,” Law & Politics, 2006-2008. Publications & Presentations: Editor,
Brown & Fleishman, "Proving and Defending Damage Claims: A Fifty-State Guide," (2007);
Co-Author with Donald C. Arbitblit, “The Risky Business of Off-Label Use,” Trial (March
2005); Co-Author, “From the Defense Perspective,” in Scientific Evidence, Chapter 6, (Aspen
Law Pub, 1999); American Bar Association, Editor, Trial Techniques Newsletter, Tort and
Insurance Practices Section, 1995-96; and 1993-94; "How to Find, Understand, and Litigate
Mass Torts," NYSTLA Mass Torts Seminar (April 2009); "Ethics of Fee Agreements in Mass
Torts," AAJ Education Programs (July 2009). Appointments: Mealey's Drug & Medical Device
Litigation Conference, Co-Chair (2007); Executive Committee In re ReNu MoistureLoc Product
Liability Litigation, MDL; In re Guidant Product Liability Litigation, Discovery; In re Baycol
MDL Litigation – Co Chair Science Committee; In re Vioxx MDL Litigation – Pricing
Committee. Member: New York State Trial Lawyers Association (Board of Directors, 2004Present); Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Judiciary Committee, 2004-Present);
American Bar Association (2000, Affair Chair, ABA Annual Meeting, Torts & Insurance
Practices Section, NYC; 1997, Chair, Trial Techniques Committee, Tort & Insurance Practices;
1996, Chair Elect, Trial Techniques Committee, Tort & Insurance Practices); American
Association for Justice (Section Officer); Pennsylvania Bar Association (Committee on Legal
Ethics and Professionalism, 1993-Present; Committee on Attorney Advertising, 1993-Present;
Vice-Chair, Task Force on Attorney Advertising, 1991-92); State Bar of New York, Federal Bar
Association; Member, Gender and Race Bias Task Force of the Second Circuit, 1994-present;
Deputy Counsel, Governor Cuomo’s Screening Committee for New York State Judicial
Candidates, 1993-94; New York State Trial Lawyers Association; New York Women’s Bar
Association; Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Product Liability Committee,
2007-present); New York County Lawyers; Fight for Justice Campaign; NYTLA; PATLA;
Philadelphia Bar Association (Member of Committee on Professionalism 1991-92).
PAULINA DO AMARAL, born New York, New York, February 1966. Admitted to
practice in New York, 1997; California, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999; U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, 2004; U.S. District Court, Western District of
Michigan, 2004; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2007. Education: University
of California Hastings College of Law (J.D., 1996); Executive Editor, Hastings Constitutional
Law Quarterly; National Moot Court Competition Team, 1995; Moot Court Executive Board;
University of Rochester (B.A., 1988). Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Judge Richard Alan
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 65 -
#:6172
Enslen, U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 1996-98. Member: Association of the
Bar of the City of New York, (2007-2010, Committee on the Judiciary); American Bar
Association; State Bar of New York; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco;
American Trial Lawyers Association; New York State Trial Lawyers Association.
KATHRYN E. BARNETT, born Chapel Hill, North Carolina, October 23, 1967.
Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 1992; United States District Court, Middle District of
Tennessee, 1997; Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2000; United States District Court, Western
District of Tennessee, 2001; Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003; United States District
Court, Eastern District Tennessee, 2005. Education: Vanderbilt University School of Law (J.D.,
1992); American Jurisprudence Awards: Torts I and Jurisprudence; Davidson College (B.A.,
with Honors in Philosophy, 1989), Dean Rusk Grant for International Studies. Litigation
Experience: Ms. Barnett has tried over 15 civil and criminal trials, including complex and class
action cases, as well as catastrophic personal injury cases. In 2000, Ms. Barnett obtained a
verdict of nearly $6 million on behalf of parents whose unborn fetus died tragically due to
medical malpractice. In March, 2004 and in August, 2004 Ms. Barnett served as co-lead trial
counsel in the class action lawsuit of In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation, Multi-District
Litigation Docket No. 1467. The case was settled during the second week of trial. The
settlements in the Tri-State litigation exceed $40 million. Employment: Judicial Intern to Judge
John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Fall 1990; Assistant Public
Defender, Davidson County, Tennessee, Sept. 1992—1995. Awards & Honors: “Best of the
Bar,” Nashville Business Journal (2003, 2005-2009); Mid-South Super Lawyer, Law & Politics,
2006-2008; “150 Best Lawyers in Tennessee,” Business Tennessee, (2006-2008). Publications
& Presentations: “Annual Review: Medical Malpractice Update” Tennessee Association for
Justice (Oct, Dec. 2008); “Civil Procedure and Evidence Update,” Tennessee Trial Lawyers
(Oct. and Nov. 2006); “Pre-Trial Skills: Thinking on Your Feet,” National Business Institute
(Nov. 2006), “Trial Practice Institute,” Nashville Bar Association (Sept. 2005); “State Law Class
Actions,” American Bar Association, Business Law Section (April 2005); "Power Windows Can
Kill," Trial (April 2005); “Auto Defect Cases,” Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Feb. 2005); “Limiting
the Harmful Testimony of Experts on the Law,” Trial (Jan. 2001); “Letting Focus Groups Work
for You,” Trial (April 1999); “Knocking Out Opposing Experts,” Tennessee Trial Lawyers
(October and November, 2004), Nashville Bar Association (July, 2004); “Trial Practice Tips:
Powerful Trial Strategies for the Absolute Litigator,” Nashville Bar Association (April, 2004);
“Damages,” Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Oct. and Nov. 2003); “Trying the Wrongful Death Case
in Tennessee,” National Business Institute (Aug. 2003); “Advanced Personal Injury,” National
Business Institute (July 2003); “Mass Torts,” Tennessee Bar Association (July 2002); “Superior
Depositions Strategies in Civil Trial Practice,” National Business Institute (Jan. 2002, Dec.
1999); “Lawsuits Against the Nursing Home Industry,” Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Feb. 2000);
“How to Prepare for Mediation and other Practice Tips,” Nashville Bar Association (Oct. 2000);
“Tennessee Expert Witness,” Lorman Education Services (July 2000); “Using Focus Groups to
Get the Settlement or Verdict Your Client Deserves,” Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Feb. 1999).
Member: Tennessee Association for Justice (Executive Committee, 2008-2009, Secretary, 20072009, Chair, Continuing Education Committee, 2004-2006, Board of Governors, 2002-2009);
Nashville Bar Association, First Vice President (2007), (Board, 2005-2008); Harry Phillips
American Inn of Courts, (Executive Committee, 2004-09, Member, 2004-2009, 1997-99);
Nashville Bar Foundation (Fellow); Tennessee Justice Center, Inc. (Board of Directors, 2002-05,
Secretary-Treasurer, 2003-04); Nashville Lawyer's Association for Women (President, 200480577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 66 -
#:6173
2005; President-elect, 2003-2004; Director, 2002-03; Treasurer, 2000-02; Nominating
Committee, 2007; Board, 1998-2005); Davidson County, Tennessee Metropolitan Board of
Equalization, 2000-04; Tennessee Bar Association; American Association of Trial Lawyers.
JOY A. KRUSE, born Buffalo, New York, February 24, 1955. Admitted to practice in
Washington, D.C., 1984; California; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, Ninth, and Federal Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central
& Southern Districts of California, 1989. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., 1984);
Wellesley College (B.A., 1977). Employment: Assistant Federal Public Defender, Northern
District of California, 1992-96; Public Defender Service, Washington D.C., 1984-89.
Presentations & Publications: Co-Author with Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Bruce Leppla, “Selective
Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California,” (pts. 1 & 2), Securities
Litigation Report (West Legalworks May and June 2005). Member: Phi Beta Kappa; State Bar
of California; Bar Association of San Francisco.
STEPHEN H. CASSIDY, born Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 14, 1964. Admitted to
practice in California, 1989; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and U.S. Court
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1997. Education: Hastings College of the Law (J.D., magna cum
laude, 1989); Associate Managing Editor, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,
1988-89; Order of the Coif; Member, Thurston Society; Recipient, American Jurisprudence
Awards for Real Property, Evidence and American Legal History; Georgetown University
(B.S.F.S., 1986). Employment: Law Clerk to Magistrate-Judge Joan S. Brennan, U.S. District,
Northern District of California, 1989-90; Motions Attorney, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, 1992-94, 1996-97. Publications & Presentations: “Magnetix Toy Injuries: A Failure to
Inform Safety Regulators,” OpEd News (2009); “Restoring Patient Rights and Promoting Safer
Medical Device,” OpEd News (2009); “Internet Marketing for Plaintiffs’ Firms,” CAOC
Conference (May 2004); “Enhancing the Role of Law Firm Marketing Departments,”
LexisNexis Law Firm Marketers’ Roundtable (November 2003); Contributing Author,
California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003);
Co-Author, “Decisions Interpreting California’s Rules of Class Action Procedure,” in Survey of
State Class Action Law (ABA 2001); “The Newest Member of the Nuclear Club: Pakistan’s
Drive for a Nuclear Weapon’s Capability,” 12 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 679 (1989).
Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; American Bar Association
(Litigation Section); Public Justice; Fight for Justice Campaign; Consumer Attorneys of
California.
RACHEL GEMAN, born Northampton, Massachusetts, August 7, 1971. Admitted to
practice in New York, 1998; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, 1999; U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2005; U.S. District Court of Colorado, 2007. Education:
Columbia University School of Law (J.D. 1997); Stone Scholar; Equal Justice America Fellow;
Human Rights Fellow; Editor, Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems; Harvard
University (A.B. cum laude 1993). Employment: Adjunct Professor, New York Law School;
Special Advisor, United States Mission to the United Nations, 2000; Law Clerk to Judge
Constance Baker Motley, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1997-98. Awards
& Honors: Distinguished Honor Award, United States Department of State, 2001. Publications
& Presentations: "Rights Without Remedies," 2008 American Constitutional Society National
Convention, Revitalizing Our Democracy: Progress and Possibilities, Panelist; “The New York
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 67 -
#:6174
Employee Advocate,” Co-Editor, 2005-Present (Volumes 12 and forward); “Evidence and Jury
Instructions in FLSA Actions,” Georgetown Law Center/ACL-ABA (2007); “Crucial Events in
the ‘Life’ of an FLSA Collective Action: Filing Considerations and the Two-step ‘SimilarlySituated’ Analysis,” National Employment Lawyers Association, Annual Convention (2006)
(Author & Panelist); “Time is Money, Except When It’s Not: Compensable Time and the
FLSA,” National Employment Lawyers Association, Impact Litigation Conference (2005)
(Author & Panelist); “Electronic Discovery,” Federal Judicial Center & Institute of Judicial
Administration, Workshop on Employment Law for Federal Judges (2005) (Panelist); “ImageBased Discrimination and the BFOQ Defense,” EEO Today (Vol. 9, Issue 1, Fall 2004) (Author);
“Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Exemptions: Proposed Regulatory Changes,” New York
State Bar Association Labor and Employment Newsletter (Spring 2004) (Author); “Current
Topics in Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation,” Conference, Association of the Bar of the City of
New York (2003, Chair & Panelist); “Workforce Without Borders,” ABA Section of Labor &
Employment Law, EEOC 2003 Midwinter Meeting (Moderator). Member: Board Member,
National Employment Lawyers’ Association/New York; American Bar Association Labor and
Employment Law Section, Standing Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (Co-Chair,
2009-present).
SCOTT P. NEALEY, born Champaign, Illinois, July 28, 1966. Admitted to practice in
California, 1997; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1998; U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999; U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, 2000. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of
California (J.D., 1996); University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1988). Honors & Awards:
California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year (CLAY) Award, 2008; Finalist, San Francisco Trial
Lawyer of the Year, 2008. Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Justice Joseph R. Weisberger,
Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1996-97. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author,
California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003).
Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California.
ELIZABETH A. ALEXANDER, born Morristown, Tennessee, October 4, 1971.
Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2001; U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2000; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee, 2002. Education: Vanderbilt University Law School (J.D., 1998); President,
Criminal Law Association; Moot Court Board Member; Vanderbilt University Honor
Committee; Hollins College (B.A., 1993). Honors & Awards: “Rising Stars,” Law & Politics,
2008; “Lawdragon 500 New Stars” and "Lawdragon 3000 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers in
America," Lawdragon magazine, 2006-2007. Publications & Presentations: ABA Survey of
State Class Action Law (2003-2007), Tennessee section; “Consumer Class Actions Against
Financial Institutions,” Lorman Education Services, July 2004. Prior Employment: Associate,
Dodson, Parker, Dinkins & Behm (2002-03); Associate, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs (2000-2002);
Law Clerk, Honorable Thomas A. Higgins, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee (1998-2000). Member: State Bar of Tennessee; Tennessee Bar Association; Nashville
Bar Association (Board of Directors, Young Lawyers Division); American Bar Association;
Lawyers’ Association for Women (2003-2005); American Bar Association Labor and
Employment Law Section Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, Co-Chair, Basics
Committee (2005-2006); Chair of Internal Marketing and Mentoring Committee (2006-2007);
National Employment Lawyers’ Association.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 68 -
#:6175
DANIEL P. CHIPLOCK, born Albany, New York. Admitted to practice in New York,
2001; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006. Education:
Stanford Law School (J.D., 2000); Article Review Board, Stanford Environmental Law Journal;
Recipient, Keck Award for Public Service; Columbia University (B.A., summa cum laude,
1994); Phi Beta Kappa. Member: State Bar of New York; American Association for Justice;
Fight for Justice Campaign; Public Justice; National Association of Public Pension Attorneys
(NAPPA); National Association of Public Pension Attorneys; National Association of
Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (Executive Committee).
MARK P. CHALOS, born New York, New York, September 3, 1973. Admitted to
practice in Tennessee, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1998; U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Tennessee, 2000; U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2002;
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Florida, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2007. Education: Emory
University School of Law (J.D., 1998); Dean’s List; Award for Highest Grade, Admiralty Law;
Research Editor, Emory International Law Review; Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity; Vanderbilt
University (B.A., 1995). Honors & Awards: “Best of the Bar,” Nashville Business Journal,
2008-2009; “Top 40 Under 40,” The Tennessean, 2004; “Rising Stars,” Law & Politics, 2008.
Publications & Presentations: “Successfully Suing Foreign Manufacturers,” TRIAL Magazine,
November 2008; “The End of Meaningful Punitive Damages,” Nashville Bar Journal, November
2001; “Is Civility Dead?” Nashville Bar Journal, October 2003; “The FCC: The Constitution,
Censorship, and a Celebrity Breast,” Nashville Bar Journal, April 2005. Member: American Bar
Association; Fight for Justice Campaign; Tennessee Bar Association; Board of Directors,
Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association; Nashville Bar Association; Past-Chair, ABA YLD
Criminal & Juvenile Justice Committee; American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance
Practice Section Professionalism Committee YLD liaison; Board of Directors, Nashville Bar
Association YLD; Chair, Nashville Bar Association YLD Continuing Legal Education; Nashville
Bar Journal, Editorial Board; Tennessee Association for Justice (Board of Governors, 20082009); Member, Harry Phillips American Inn of Court (2002-2004); Grant Review Panelist,
Metropolitan Nashville Arts Commission; Founding Member, Young Professionals Program,
Frist Center for the Visual Arts; President, Kappa Chapter of Kappa Sigma Fraternity Alumni
Association.
KRISTEN E. LAW, born Parkersburg, West Virginia, April 3, 1974. Admitted to
practice in California, 2002; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2002; U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, 2005; US District Court; Northern District of
Florida, 2009. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D.
2002); Executive Editor, Ecology Law Quarterly; Moot Court Advocacy Award; Moot Court
Board; Hopi Appellate Clinic; Ohio Wesleyan University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1995);
Presidential Scholar. Honors & Awards: “Northern California Rising Stars,” Law & Politics,
2009. Member: Phi Beta Kappa; State Bar of California.
JAHAN C. SAGAFI, born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December 26, 1971. Admitted to
practice in California, 2003. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., 2001); Senior Editor,
Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (1999-2001); President, Board of Student
Advisers; Harvard College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1994). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 69 -
#:6176
William W Schwarzer, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001-02. Honors &
Awards: “Northern California Rising Stars,” Law & Politics, 2009; “Community Justice Award,”
Centro Legal de la Raza, 2008. Member: American Constitution Society (Chair of Bay Area
Lawyer Chapter); ACLU of Northern California (Executive Committee, Board Member);
National Employment Lawyers’ Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; American Bar
Association; Bar Association of San Francisco.
KENT L. KLAUDT, born Jamestown, North Dakota, September 6, 1968. Admitted to
practice in California, 1996; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1997; U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998; U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, 2007. Education: University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 1996); Outside Articles
Editor, Journal of Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory & Practice; National Association of
Public Interest Law (Summer Fellowship, 1995); University of Minnesota (B.A., 1991).
Employment: BlueDog, Olson & Small, PLLP, 1995-96; Cartwright & Alexander, LLP, 19962001; The Cartwright Law Firm, Inc., 2001-2004. Publications & Presentations: “Hungary
After the Revolution: Privatization, Economic Ideology, and the False Promise of the Free
Market,” 13 Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory & Practice 301. Member: American Trial
Lawyers Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; Public Justice; San Francisco Trial
Lawyers Association; National Lawyers Guild.
JENNIFER GROSS, born Sleepy Hollow, New York, July 1, 1969. Admitted to
practice in California, 1994; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1994. Education:
RAND Graduate School (M. Phil., 1997); University of Southern California (J.D., 1994); Emory
University (B.A., 1991). Publications & Presentations: Co-Author, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance Force Mix Study: Final Report (RAND 2003); Co-Author, Asbestos
Litigation Costs and Compensation: An Interim Report (RAND 2002); Co-Author, Asbestos
Litigation in the U.S.: A New Look at an Old Issue (RAND 2001); Co-Author, Class Action
Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain (RAND, 2000); Co-Author, Potential
Vulnerabilities of U.S. Air Force Information Systems (RAND, 1999); Co-Author, “Preliminary
Results of the RAND Study of Class Action Litigation,” (RAND, 1997). Member: State Bar of
California.
LEXI J. HAZAM, born Olney, Maryland, October 9, 1973. Admitted to practice in
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2006. Education: Stanford University (B.A., 1995, M.A.,
1996), Phi Beta Kappa; Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D.,
2001). Employment: Law Clerk, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1999;
Law Clerk, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 20012002; Associate, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 2002-2006; Partner, Lieff Global
LLP, 2006-2008. Honors & Awards: “Northern California Rising Stars,” Law & Politics, 2009.
Member: State Bar of California; American Association for Justice; Consumer Attorneys of
California.
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT L. LIEFF, born Bridgeport, Connecticut, September 29, 1936. Admitted to
practice in California, 1966; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and U.S. Court
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 70 -
#:6177
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1969; U.S. Supreme Court, 1969; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, 1972; U.S. Tax Court, 1974; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986. Education:
Columbia University (M.B.A., 1962; J.D., 1962); Cornell University; University of Bridgeport
(B.A., 1958). Member, Columbia Law School Dean’s Council; Member, Columbia Law School
Board of Visitors (1992-present); Member, Columbia Law School Center on Corporate
Governance Advisory Board (2004). Awards & Honors: “Northern California Super Lawyers,”
Law & Politics, 2005 - 2009. Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California
(Member: Committee on Rules of Court, 1971-74; Special Committee on Multiple Litigation and
Class Actions, 1972-73); American Bar Association (Section on Corporation, Banking and
Business Law); Lawyers Club of San Francisco; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association;
California Trial Lawyers Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; Fight for Justice
Campaign.
MORRIS A. RATNER, born San Jose, California, November 13, 1966. Admitted to
practice in California, 1991; District of Columbia, 1999; New York, 2000; U.S. District Court,
Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and U.S. Court of Appeals, Second,
Third, Sixth and Ninth Circuits. Education: Harvard University (J.D., 1991); Stanford
University (B.A., with distinction, 1988); Phi Beta Kappa. Publications & Presentations:
Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser
editor in chief, 2003); “Factors Impacting the Selection and Positioning of Human Rights Class
Actions in United States Courts: A Practical Overview,” 58 New York University Annual Survey
of American Law 623 (2003); “The Settlement of Nazi-Era Litigation Through the Executive and
Judicial Branches,” 20 Berkeley Journal of International Law 212 (No. 1, March 2002). Faculty
Appointments: Harvard Law School, Visiting Lecturer on Law for Winter Term 2009, teaching
"Holocaust Litigation." Lectures: Stanford University, History Department (guest lecturer, June
2008, re Holocaust-era litigation); UC Berkeley School of Law Boalt Hall (guest lecturer, 2007,
re legal ethics); Columbia Law School (guest lecturer, 2004, re Holocaust litigation); New York
University School of Law (guest panelist, 2003, re developments in international law).
Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of New York; Bar of the District of Columbia; Bar
Association of San Francisco.
WILLIAM B. HIRSCH, born Los Angeles, California, May 19, 1951. Admitted to
practice in California, 1983; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District
Court, District of Hawaii, 1991. Education: Harvard University ( J.D., 1983); Princeton
University (M.A., 1975); University of California at Santa Cruz (B.A., with highest honors,
1973). Awards & Honors: Trial Lawyer of the Year, Public Justice, 1995. Publications &
Presentations: "Justice Delayed: Seven Years Later & No End In Sight," in The Exxon Valdez
Disaster: Readings on a Modern Social Problem (Kendall & Hunt Pub. Co. 1996). Member: Bar
Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California; Public Justice; American Association for
Justice; ACLU of Northern California (Steering Committee, 1993-94).
NICHOLAS R. DIAMAND, born London, England. Admitted to practice in New York,
2003; U.S. District Court, Southern, Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of New York; US.
Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Education: Columbia University School of Law (LL.M.,
Stone Scholar, 2002); College of Law, London, England (C.P.E.; L.P.C.; Commendation, 1997);
Columbia University (B.A., magna cum laude, 1992). Employment: Solicitor, Herbert Smith,
London (1999-2001); Law Clerk to the Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge, U.S. District
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 71 -
#:6178
Court, Eastern District of New York (2002-03). Publications & Presentations: Contributing
Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Editor-inChief), 2006; Panelist, “Obstacles to Access to Justice in Pharmaceutical Cases,”
Pharmaceutical Regulation and Product Liability, British Institute of International and
Comparative Law, April 21, 2006; Panelist, “Pre-Trial Discovery in the United States,” Union
Internationale des Avocats, Winter Seminar, February 2006; Columnist, The New York Employee
Advocate, NELA/NY, February 2006-present. Member: New York City Bar Association, Public
Justice, American Society of International Law, Law Society of England and Wales.
LYDIA LEE, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, June 20, 1957. Admitted to practice in
Oklahoma 1983; U.S. District Court, Western and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma; U.S. Court of
Appeals, 10th Circuit. Education: Oklahoma City University, School of Law (J.D., 1983);
University of Central Oklahoma (B.A., 1980). Prior Employment: Partner, Law Office of Lydia
Lee (2005-2008); Partner, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (1985-2005);
Associate, Law Firm of Howell & Webber (1983-1985). Publications & Presentations: "QDROs
for Oklahoma's Public Pension Plans," Oklahoma Family Law Journal, Volume 13, September,
1998; Co-Author, "Special Problems in Dividing Retirement for Employees of the State of
Oklahoma," OBA/FLS Practice Manual, Chapter 27.3, 2002; Featured Guest Speaker, Saturday
Night Law, KTOK Radio; Contributor and Editor, INFRE Course Books for CRA program.
Member: Oklahoma Bar Association (1983 – present), Member OBA Women in Law Committee
(2007-present); National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (1988 - present), President
(2002-2004), Vice-President (2001-2002), Executive Board member (1998-2004), Chair of
Benefits Section, Emeritus Board member, (2004-present); Edmond Neighborhood Alliance
Board of Directors (2005-present), President (2006-2007), Past President and Director (2007present); Central Edmond Urban Development Board (2006-present); Midwest City Regional
Hospital, Board of Governors (1992 - 1996), Served on Physician/Hospital Organization Board,
Pension and Insurance Trust Committees, and Chairman of Woman's Health Committee; City of
Midwest City, Planning Commission (1984 - 1998), Chairman (1990-1995), Vice-Chairman
(1987 – 1990), Served on Capital Improvement Committee, Airport Zoning Commission (Tinker
AFB), and Parkland Review Board, served on 1991 Midwest City Legislative Reapportionment
Committee.
BRUCE W. LEPPLA, born Oakland, California. Admitted to practice in California,
New York, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, California District Courts (Northern, Central,
Eastern), New York District Courts (Southern, Eastern), District of Colorado. Education:
University of California (J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, M.G. Reade Scholarship Award);
University of California at Berkeley (M.A., Economics, with honors); Yale University (B.A.,
magna cum laude, Highest Honors in Economics). Prior Employment: Partner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (2004-2008), Counsel (2002-2003); CEO and President, California
Bankers Insurance Services Inc., 1999-2001; CEO and President, Redwood Bank, (1985-1998),
CFO and General Counsel (1981-1984); Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 1980; Davis Polk &
Wardwell, 1976-80. Publications: Author or co-author of 11 different U.S. and International
patents in electronic commerce and commercial product design, including "A Method for Storing
and Retrieving Digital Data Transmissions," United States Patent No. 5,659,746, issued August
19, 1997; "Stay in the Class or Opt-Out? Institutional Investors Are Increasingly Opting-Out of
Securities Class Litigation," Securities Litigation Report, Vol. 3, No. 8, September 2006, West
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 72 -
#:6179
LegalWorks; reprinted by permission of the author in Wall Street Lawyer, October 2006, Vol.
10, No. 10, West LegalWorks; "Selected Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and
California, Part 1;" Elizabeth Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse and Bruce W. Leppla; Securities Litigation
Report, May 2005, Vol. I, No. 9, pp. 1, 3-7; "Selected Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth
Circuit and California, Part 2;" Elizabeth Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse and Bruce W. Leppla;
Securities Litigation Report, June 2005, Vol. I, No. 10, pp. 1, 3-9; Author, "Securities Powers for
Community Banks," California Bankers Association Legislative Journal (Nov. 1987). Teaching
Positions: Lecturer, University of California at Berkeley, Haas School of Business, Real Estate
Law and Finance, 1993-96; Lecturer, California Bankers Association General Counsel Seminars,
Lending Documentation, Financial Institutions Litigation and similar topics, 1993-96. Panel
Presentations: EPI European Pension Fund Summit, Montreux, Switzerland, "Legal and Global
Economic Implications of the U.S. Subprime Lending Crisis," May 2, 2008; Bar Association of
San Francisco, "Impact of Spitzer's Litigation and Attempted Reforms on the Investment Banking
and Insurance Industries," May 19, 2005; Opal Financial Conference, National Public Fund
System Legal Conference, Phoenix, AZ, "Basic Principles of Securities Litigation," January 14,
2005; American Enterprise Institute, "Betting on the Horse After the Race is Over—In Defense of
Mutual Fund Litigation Related to Undisclosed After Hours Order Submission," September 30,
2004. Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of New York; Member, Editorial Board, Wall
Street Lawyer; Yale University Alumni Board of Directors (Director, 2001-2005); California
Bankers Association (Director, 1993-99); California State Small Business Development Board,
1989-1997; University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall Alumni Board of Directors, 199396; Leadership Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, 1990-1992; Community
Reinvestment Institute (Founding Director, 1989-1990); Member, Yale Whiffenpoofs.
ASSOCIATES
MIKAELA BERNSTEIN, Greenbrae, California, May 7, 1981. Admitted to practice in
California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Central District of California (2009); U.S. District Court,
Southern District California (2009); U.S. District Court, Northern Distinct California (2009);
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009). Education: University of San Francisco
School of Law, (J.D., 2008), Staff Editor, Journal of Law & Social Challenges, 2006; Mills
College, (B.A., 2004). Prior Employment: Judicial Extern to the Honorable Stuart R. Pollak,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District, 2008. Member: American Constitution Society
(Board Member, Bay Area Lawyers Chapter); Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer
Attorneys of California.
NANCY CHUNG, born Los Angeles, February 21, 1972. Admitted to practice in
California, 2003; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003; U.S. District Court,
Northern and Central Districts of California (2007, 2008). Education: Hasting College of Law
(J.D., 2002); University of California, Santa Cruz (B.A., Language Studies, 1995). Employment:
International Labor Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2000-2001); Peace Corps Volunteer,
Romania (1995-1997). Member: Bar Association of San Francisco. Languages: French,
Romanian and Korean.
CHRISTOPHER E. COLEMAN, born Mobile, Alabama, March 30, 1971. Admitted to
practice in Georgia, 2005. Education: Northwestern University School of Law (J.D., cum laude,
2003); Order of the Coif; Associate Editor, Northwestern University Law Review (2002-2003);
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 73 -
#:6180
John Paul Stevens Public Interest Fellowship (2002); Northwestern University (M.A., History,
2000); University of Virginia (M.A., English, 1995); Vanderbilt University (B.A., magna cum
laude, 1993). Employment: Judicial Clerkship, Honorable Joan Humphrey Lefkow, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2003-2005. Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open
Communities (Chicago, Illinois, 2002); Central Alabama Fair Housing Center (Montgomery,
Alabama, 1997-1998). Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, “California Class
Actions Practice and Procedures” (Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Editor-in-Chief, 2006-2007); “DecadesOld Murder Case Needs Review,” Op-Ed, Chicago Sun-Times, February 2, 2003; Co-Author,
“Social Movements and Social Change Litigation: Synergy in the Montgomery Bus Protest,”
Law and Social Inquiry (Fall 2005); “Fingerprints and False Confessions: The William Heirens
Case,” Conference Presentation, Conference on False Confessions, Center on Wrongful
Convictions, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, March 2002. Member: American Bar
Association; Tennessee Bar Association; Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association; Lawyers
Association for Women; Nashville Bar Association YLD (Board of Directors); American
Constitution Society, Nashville Lawyers' Chapter (President, Board of Directors).
NIMISH R. DESAI, born Coventry, England, June 25, 1980. Admitted to practice in
California, 2006; US District Court, Northern District of California, 2007; US District Court,
Central District of California, 2008; US District Court; Northern District of Florida, 2009.
Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 2006), Finalist
and Best Brief, McBaine Moot Court Competition (2006), Moot Court Best Brief Award (2004);
University of Texas, Austin, (B.S. & B.A., High Honors, 2002). Employment: Extern, Sierra
Club Environmental Law Program, 2004; Researcher, Public Citizen, 2003; Center for Energy
and Environmental Resources, 2001-2002. Publications & Presentations: “American Chemistry
Council v. Johnson: Community Right to Know, But About What? D.C. Circuit Takes
Restrictive View of EPCRA,” 33 Ecology L.Q. 583 (Winter 2006); “Lessons Learned and
Unlearned: A Case Study of Medical Malpractice Award Caps in Texas,” The Subcontinental,
(Winter 2004, Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp. 81-87); “Separation of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from
Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Using Chemical Mass Balancing Techniques”, Environmental
Science Technology, (2003; 37(17) pp. 3904-3909); “Analysis of Motor Vehicle Emissions in a
Houston Tunnel during Texas Air Quality Study 2000,” Atmospheric Environment, 38, 33633372 (2004). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer
Attorneys of California; American Bar Association; American Constitution Society; South Asian
Bar Association. Languages: Gujarati (conversational).
ALLISON S. ELGART, born Manhasset, New York, January 27, 1978. Admitted to
practice in California, 2006; New York, 2007; U.S. District Court, Eastern, Northern, and
Central Districts of California, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008); U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009). Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., 2005),
Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 40; Student Attorney,
Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, (2003-2005); Brown University (B.A., magna cum laude 2000).
Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr., U.S. District Court, Southern District
of N.Y., 2005-2006; Health Advocacy Fellow, Medicare Rights Center, (2000-2002).
Publications & Presentations: “Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Due Process Requires That Detainees
Receive Notice and Opportunity to Contest Basis for Detention,” 40 Harv. C.R-C.L. L. Rev. 239
(2005). Member: American Bar Association; Bar Association of San Francisco (Marriage
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 74 -
#:6181
Equality Task Force); Consumer Attorneys of California; State Bar of California; National
Employment Lawyers Association (NELA); American Association for Justice.
JORDAN ELIAS, born Los Angeles, California, December 17, 1975. Admitted to
practice in California, 2003. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D., 2003); Member, Stanford
Law Review; Yale University (B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude, 1998). Employment:
Associate, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 2004-2008; Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia
Holcomb Hall, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003-2004; Law Clerk, City
Attorney of San Francisco, Summer 2002; Judicial Extern to the Honorable Charles R.
Breyer, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Summer 2001; Website Editor,
Public Agenda, 1999-2000. Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco.
HEATHER A. FOSTER, born Washington, D.C., October 2, 1970. Admitted to practice
in California in 1996; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1996. Education:
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (J.D., 1996); Moot Court Honors Board,
1995-96; Trial Advocacy Honors 1996; Boston College (B.A., 1992). Employment: Adjunct
Professor, San Francisco State University – College of Extended Learning, Paralegal and LNC
program (Fall 2000 – Spring 2001). Publications & Presentations: Co-Author, Class
Certification of Medical Monitoring Claims in Mass Tort Product Liability Litigation (ALI-ABA
Course of Study, 1999). Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association
(Litigation Section); Association of Legal Administrators; Bar Association of San Francisco;
Legal Assistant Management Association; Phi Alpha Delta; State Bar of California (Volunteer
Legal Services Program: Liaison for the Summer Associate Public Service Program – Homeless
Advocacy Program, 2002; Teachers in the Schools Program, 2002; Pro Bono Attorney – Family
Law Clinic, 1999); Trail Lawyers for Public Justice.
BRENDAN P. GLACKIN, born Sacramento, California, July 23, 1973. Admitted to
practice in California, 1998; New York, 2000; U.S. District Court, Northern, Central, Eastern
and Southern Districts of California, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2004;
New York, 2000; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court,
District of Colorado, 2001. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1998); University
of Chicago (A.B., Phi Beta Kappa, 1995). Employment: Contra Costa Public Defender, 20052007; Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 2000-2005; Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1999-2000; Law Clerk to
Honorable William B. Shubb, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998-1999.
Member: State Bar of California; BASF Antitrust Section, Executive Committee.
CECILIA HAN, born Silverspring, Maryland, November 22, 1978. Admitted to practice
in California, 2005; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2008; U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, 2009. Education: University of California, Hastings
College of the Law (J.D., 2004); Executive Editor, Hasting Constitutional Law Quarterly, (20032004); Judicial Extern to Judge Anthony Kline of California Appellate Court, 2002; Judicial
Extern to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen, 2003; University of California, Berkeley (BA., Phi
Beta Kappa, 2000). Employment: Associate, Brayton Purcell, (2005-2007). Member: State Bar
of California; Minority Bar Coalition; CAOC; Bar Association of San Francisco.
DEAN M. HARVEY, born Edina, Minnesota, August 31, 1980. Admitted to practice in
California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, Central
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 75 -
#:6182
District of California; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Education: Boalt
Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D. 2006); Articles Editor, California
Law Review (2005-2006); Assistant Editor, Berkeley Journal of International Law (2004);
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (B.A. summa cum laude, 2002). Prior Employment:
Associate, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (2007-2009); Law Clerk, The Honorable James V.
Selna, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2006-2007); Law Clerk, U.S.
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, San Francisco Field Office (2006); Summer Law
Intern, U.S. Department of Justice (2005); Summer Associate, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
(2005). Publications: New Guidance for Standard Setting Organizations: Broadcom Corp. v.
Qualcomm Inc. and In the Matter of Rambus, Inc., 5 ABA Sherman Act Section 1 Newsl. 35
(2008); Anticompetitive Social Norms as Antitrust Violations, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 769 (2006).
Member: American Bar Association (Antitrust Section).
ROGER N. HELLER, born New York, New York, June 4, 1975. Admitted to practice in
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2001). Education: Columbia University School of Law (J.D.,
2001); Columbia Law Review, Senior Editor; Emory University (B.A., 1997). Employment:
Extern, Honorable Michael Dolinger, U.S. District Court, Southern District of new York, 1999;
Associate, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 2001-2005; Senior Staff Attorney, Disability Rights
Advocates, 2005-2008. Honors & Awards: Harland Fiske Stone Scholar. Publications &
Presentations: Co-author, Fighting For Troops on the Homefront, Trial Magazine (September
2006). Member: American Bar Association.
DANIEL M. HUTCHINSON, born Oakland, California, May 25, 1977. Admitted to
practice in California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005; U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2008.
Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 2005), Senior
Articles Editor, African-American Law & Policy Report, Prosser Prizes in Constitutional
Law and Employment Law; University of California, Berkeley Extension (Multiple
Subject Teaching Credential, 2002); Brown University (B.A., 1999), Mellon Minority
Fellowship (1997-1999). Employment: Judicial Extern to the Hon. Martin J. Jenkins, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, 2004; Law Clerk, Lewis & Feinberg, P.C., 20032004; Teacher, Oakland Unified School District, 1999-2002. Honors & Awards: “Northern
California Rising Stars,” Law & Politics, 2009. Member: American Bar Association (Section of
Labor & Employment Law Leadership Development Program); National Bar Association; State
Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the
San Francisco Bay Area (Board of Directors, 2009-present); Association of Business Trial
Lawyers (Leadership Development Committee); Consumer Attorneys of California.
ANDREW S. KINGSDALE, born Boston, Massachusetts, November 4, 1974. Admitted
to practice in Massachusetts, 2007; New York, 2007; California, 2008. Education: Temple
University School of Law (J.D. 2006); Temple Journal of Science Technology and
Environmental Law; Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Center for U.S.-China Studies, 2000;
Dartmouth College (B.A. 1996). Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of Massachusetts;
New York State Bar Association; American Bar Association, Antitrust and Litigation Sections
Member; Bar Association of San Francisco, International Law Section Member.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 76 -
#:6183
SHARON M. LEE, born Richmond, B.C., Canada, January 19, 1975. Admitted to
practice in New York 2002; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2003; U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2003; Washington State, 2005. Education: St.
John’s University School of Law, (J.D. 2001); New York International Law Review, Notes &
Comments Editor, 2000-2001; St. John’s University, (M.A. 1998); St. John’s University, (B.A.
1997). Employment: Milberg Weiss & Bershad, LLP, 2003-2007. Member: American Bar
Association; Washington State Bar Association.
SARAH R. LONDON, born Woodridge, Illinois, May 26, 1980. Admitted to practice in
California, 2009. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 2009);
Northwestern University (B.A., 2002).
ANNIKA K. MARTIN, born New York, New York, September 13, 1979. Admitted to
practice in New York, 2005; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2005.
Education: Law Center, University of Southern California (J.D., 2004); Review of Law &
Women’s Studies; Jessup Moot Court; Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University
(B.S.J., 2001); Stockholm University (Political Science, 1999). Publications & Presentations:
“Stick a Toothbrush Down Your Throat: An Analysis of the Potential Liability of Pro-Eating
Disorder Websites,” Texas Journal of Women & the Law (Volume 14 Issue 2, Spring 2005);
“Welcome to Law School,” monthly column on www.vault.com (2001-2004). Awards and
Honors: 2005 Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services awarded by the State Bar of
California for voluntary provision of legal services to the poor. Member: New York State Bar
Association (General Practice Section and Young Lawyers Section); Swedish American Bar
Association; American Association for Justice; New York State Trial Lawyers Association; New
York County Lawyer’s Association; New York City Bar Association. Languages: Swedish
(fluent); French (DFA1-certified in Business French); Spanish (conversational).
MICHAEL J. MIARMI, born Summit, New Jersey, April 2, 1978. Admitted to practice
in New York, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, 2007. Education: Fordham Law School (J.D., 2005); Yale University (B.A.,
cum laude, 2000). Employment: Milberg Weiss LLP, Associate, 2005-2007.
DANIEL E. SELTZ, born Alexandria, Virginia, April 24, 1974. Admitted to practice in
New York, 2004; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; Eastern District of New
York. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 2003); Review of Law and Social
Change, Managing Editor; Hiroshima University (Fulbright Fellow, 1997-98); Brown University
(B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1997). Employment: Law Clerk to Honorable John T.
Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2003-04. Publications &
Presentations: Panelist, “Taking and Defending Depositions,” New York City Bar, May 20,
2009; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice & Procedures (Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Editor-in-Chief, 2008); “Remembering the War and the Atomic Bombs: New
Museums, New Approaches,” in Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in Public
Space (Duke University Press, 2004), originally published in Radical History Review, Vol. 75
(1998); “Issue Advocacy in the 1998 Congressional Elections,” with Jonathan S. Krasno (Urban
Institute, 2001); Buying Time: Television Advertising in the 1998 Congressional Elections, with
Jonathan S. Krasno (Brennan Center for Justice, 2000); “Going Negative,” in Playing Hardball,
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 77 -
#:6184
with Kenneth Goldstein, Jonathan S. Krasno and Lee Bradford (Prentice-Hall, 2000). Member:
American Association for Justice; State Bar of New York.
ANNE SHAVER, born Denver, Colorado, June, 30, 1982. Admitted to practice in
California, 2008; Colorado, 2008; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009.
Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 2007), Order of the Coif;
University of California, Santa Cruz (B.A. cum laude, 2003), Phi Beta Kappa. Employment: Law
Clerk to Honorable Betty Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008-2009;
Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Litigation Associate, 2008; Public Defender’s Office of Contra
Costa County, 2007; Davis, Cowell, & Bowe, LLP, Summer Law Clerk, 2006; Centro Legal de
la Raza, Student Director, 2005-2006; Human Rights Watch, Legal Intern, 2005. Publications:
"U.S. v. Fort and the Future of Work-Product in Criminal Discovery," 44 Cal. W. L. Rev. 127,
12293 (Fall 2007). Member: State Bar of California.
JARON R. SHIPP, born Berkeley, California, October 6, 1980. Admitted to practice in
New York, 2007; U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, 2007; New
York, 2009; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009. Education: Howard
University School of Law (J.D., 2005): President, Student Bar Association (2004-2005);
Member, Howard Law School Admission Committee (2004-2005); Contributing Writer, The
Barrister. University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 2002). Employment: Associate, Latham & Watkins,
LLP (2006-2008); Law Clerk to the Honorable Deborah A. Robinson (2005-2006). Member:
American Bar Association.
ALISON STOCKING, born Milwaukee, WI, July 26, 1977. Admitted to practice in
New York, 2008. Education: Yale Law School (J.D., 2006), Editor, Yale Human Rights and
Development Law Journal; University of Wisconsin (B.A., 1999), Hilldale Undergraduate/
Faculty Research Award; American University in Cairo(1997-98). Prior Employment: Law
Clerk to the Hon. Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
2008-09; Law Clerk to the Hon. John Gleeson, United States District Court, Eastern District of
New York, 2006-07; Associate, Jenner & Block, New York, 2007-08.
STEVE M. SWERDLOW, born Los Angeles, California, April 20, 1977. Admitted to
practice in California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of
California, 2007. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, (J.D.
2006); Senior Notes & Comments Editor, California Law Review; Boalt Hall Public Interest
Fellowship (2004); Chairman, Boalt Hall Committee for Human Rights (BHCHR); Asylum
Advocate, California Asylum Representation Clinic; Boalt Hall Death Penalty Clinic; Columbia
University, School of International and Public Affairs (M.A., Human Rights and International
Affairs, 2003); Harriman Institute Certificate in Post-Soviet Studies (2003); University of
California, Berkeley (B.A. phi beta kappa 1999). Employment: Law Clerk to the Hon. Dean D.
Pregerson, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (2006-2007); Consultant and
Special Advisor on Refugee Programs, International Organization of Migration (IOM) (Russia,
2004 and 2006); Researcher, European Centre for Minority Issues (Georgia, 2005); Law Clerk,
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (2004); Human Rights Monitor, Union of
Councils for Jews in the former Soviet Union (Russia, 2000-2001). Awards & Honors: U.S.
Department of State Young Leaders Fellowship for Public Service, Krasnodar, Russian
Federation (2000-2001); U.S. Department of Education Foreign Language Area Studies Award
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 78 -
#:6185
(2002-2003 & 2004-2005); Harvard Tuition Scholarship, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.
Publications & Presentations: “The Third Migration: Meskhetian Turks’ Resettlement and
Integration in the United States,” Integration, Repatriation or Resettlement?, Berlin: LIT Verlag
(2007); “Understanding Post-Soviet Ethnic Discrimination and the Effective Use of U.S.
Refugee Resettlement: The Case of the Meskhetian Turks of Krasnodar Krai,” 94 Cal. L. Rev.
1827 (2006); National Public Radio’s “The World” on “Ethnic Discrimination in Russia” (Guest,
Oct. 2007); The Meskhetian Turks: An Introduction to their History, Culture and Resettlement
Experiences, Cultural Orientation Resource Center, Center for Applied Linguistics (2006); Voice
of America Radio Interview, “Xenophobia in the Caucasus” (Guest, March 2005); “Stalin’s
Deported Peoples: Human Rights of Transnational Minorities,” in Bulletin, Moscow (2004);
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Russia’s Expulsion of Ethnic Minorities” (Panelist, 2002);
“The Forgotten Jews of Nagorno-Karabakh,” Institute of War and Peace Reporting (2001).
Member: American Bar Association, Sections of International and Refugee Law, Sub-Committee
of International Human Rights and Refugee Law; Bar Association of San Francisco. Languages:
Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian.
TODD A. WALBURG, born Berkeley, California, January 5, 1973. Admitted to practice
in California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001; U.S. District
Court, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, 2006. Education: University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D. 1999);
Founder and President, USF Student Chapter, Association of Trial Lawyers of America (19971999); Investigation Intern, San Francisco Public Defender’s Office; Mediation Intern, San
Francisco Small Claims Court; Mediation Intern, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; University of California at Los Angeles (B.A., 1995). Awards: Leesfield /
Association of Trial Lawyers of America Scholarship, National Winner (1998). Prior
Employment: Partner, Emison Hullverson Bonagofsky, LLP (2007-2008); Associate, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 2005-2007); Associate, Bennett, Johnson & Galler (20012005). Publications and Presentations: “Powerful Mediation Briefs,” in The Verdict (ACCTLA
2006); “Product Liability Strategies Before Trial,” SFTLA Roundtable (October, 2008).
Member: Public Justice; American Association for Justice; American Bar Association (Tort,
Trial and Insurance Practice Section); Consumer Attorneys of California; State Bar of California;
San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association (Education Committee and Carlene Caldwell
Scholarship Committee, 2005-2007); Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association (Board
of Governors, 2003-2005); Bar Association of San Francisco.
BARBRA L. WILLIAMS, born Bellflower, California, July 10, 1974. Admitted to
practice in California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Northern & Central Districts of California,
2007; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (2007); U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, (2009). Education: University of
California, Hastings College of the Law, (J.D., 2006, Concentration in Civil Litigation); Notes
Editor, Hastings Race & Poverty Law Journal; UC Hastings Civil Justice Clinic, Individual
Wage & Hour Representation; UC Hastings Admissions Policy Committee; Teaching Assistant,
Legal Writing & Research; National Black Law Students Association (Sub-Regional Director);
Hastings Black Law Students Association (Co-President); University of California, Irvine (B.A.,
1997). Member: American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section, Law School
Outreach Coordinator; Consumer Attorneys of California; National Employment Lawyers
Association, Class Action Quarterly Reports; State Bar of California; National Bar Association;
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 79 -
#:6186
California Association of Black Lawyers; Bar Association of San Francisco; Charles Houston
Bar Association; Aids Legal Referral Panel, San Francisco, CA (Board Member); Twenty Pearls
Foundation, Oakland CA (Board Member).
ALLEN WONG, born Hong Kong, China, April 7, 1978. Admitted to practice in New
York, 2005; New Jersey 2005. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D. 2004); Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University (M.P.A. 2004); Student Attorney, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau
(2002-2004); Williams College (B.A. 2000). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Senior Judge
Morton I. Greenberg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2007-2008); Law Clerk to
Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (2005-2007).
Publications: Product Liability: The Fate of the Learned Intermediary Doctrine, 30 J.L. Med. &
Ethics 471 (2002).
HEATHER H. WONG, born San Diego, California, July 5, 1978. Admitted to
practice in California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2005; U.S. District Court,
Central and Northern Districts of California, 2005, 2006; U.S. District Court, District of
Colorado, 2006. Education: University of San Francisco (J.D. & M.B.A., 2005); Beta Gamma
Sigma Honor Society (2005); Technical Editor, Maritime Law Journal; Staff Editor, Journal of
Law and Social Challenges; University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 2000). Honors & Awards:
“Northern California Rising Stars,” Law & Politics, 2009. Member: American Bar Association,
Young Lawyers Division, Labor & Employment Law section member, Section of Litigation
member; State Bar of California, Labor & Employment Law Section member, Litigation Section
member; Bar Association of San Francisco, Labor & Employment Law Section member,
Litigation Section member; American Association for Justice, member; American Constitution
Society, member, mentor; Consumer Attorneys of California, member; Association of Business
Trial Lawyers, member; Asian American Bar Association, member; Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund, member; Minority Bar Coalition, 2008 Unity Conference Planning
Committee member; Carver Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (Carver
HEARTS Project), Steering Committee member (2007-present).
Notice on the Firm’s AV Rating: AV is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier
Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures,
standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review process that rates
lawyers. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary.
Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.
80577.1
852006_1.PDF
- 80 -
#:6187
EXHIBIT B
852006_1.PDF
#:6188
White v. Experian
Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein
Injunctive Relief Fees Inception to 4.3.08
Attorney/Paralegal
Hours
William Bernstein
0.4
Michael Sobol
2504.3
Bill Lee
7.1
Rebecca Bedwell-Coll
194.2
Lorrina Duffy
23
Allison Elgart
958.9
Christopher Leung
110.6
Annika Martin
0.5
Paul Moore
291.6
Daniel Seltz
290.5
Adlina Acuna
0.8
Richard Anthony
2.7
Jacob Bucklund
356.8
Jael Humphrey
12.1
David Bernstein
48.5
Erin Downing
41.7
Shawn Mowry
321.2
Braulio Munoz
93
Marisa Rimland
0.7
Jennifer Rudnick
0.1
Alexander Zane
0.2
Kirti Dugar
3.5
Richard Texier
20.3
Evelyn Rodas
0.5
Robert De Maria
10.3
Major Mugrage
7
Renee Mukherji
1
Sat Kriya Khalsa
6
Paul Mariveles
43
TOTALS
5,350.50
Rate
825
700
675
475
275
370
360
390
360
430
215
235
180
250
225
190
165
215
190
215
225
335
235
215
285
250
200
250
240
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
330.00
1,753,010.00
4,792.50
92,245.00
6,325.00
354,793.00
39,816.00
195.00
104,976.00
124,915.00
172.00
634.50
64,224.00
3,025.00
10,912.50
7,923.00
52,998.00
19,995.00
133.00
21.50
45.00
1,172.50
4,770.50
107.50
2,935.50
1,750.00
200.00
1,500.00
10,320.00
2,664,237.00
Total Attributable to Injunctive Relief (Half of
Total)
2,675.25
1,332,118.50
Total Attributable to Monetary Relief (Half of
Total)
2,675.25
1,332,118.50
Michael Sobol
Allison Elgart
TOTALS
Post 4.4.08 Injunctive Relief Fees
Hours
21.9
4.4
26.3
Rate
700
370
Total
15,330.00
1,628.00
16,958.00
1
852006_1.PDF
#:6189
White v. Experian
Total Injunctive Relief Fees
Total Hours
Total from Inception to 4.3.08 Attributable to
2,675.25
Plus Post 4.4.08 Injunctive Fees
26.3
NEW TOTAL
2,701.55
Total Fees
1,332,118.50
16,958.00
1,349,076.50
Injunctive Relief Expenses
$104,051.62
TOTAL expenses from inception to 4.3.08
Half of total attributable to injunctive Relief
$52,025.81
Plus Post 4.4.08 injunctive expenses
$548.50
NEW TOTALS
$52,574.31
2
852006_1.PDF
#:6190
White v. Experian
Monetary Relief Fees 4.4.08 to 12.10.09
Attorney/Paralegal
Hours
William Bernstein
2.70
Michael Sobol
1168.2
Allison Elgart
1137.3
Roger Heller
32.9
Sarah Hooper
24.4
Daniel Hutchinson
0.7
Daniel Seltz
19
Heather Wong
0.4
Adlina Acuna
0.3
Richard Anthony
1.2
Jacob Buckland
149
Samuel Deputy
293.3
Hazel Mottershead
7
Jennifer Rudnick
51
Kirti Dugar
15.5
Scott Alameda
99.1
Robert De Maria
1.1
Miriam Gordon
16.8
Major Mugrage
3.7
Renee Mukherji
3.8
Sat Kriya Khalsa
53.8
TOTALS
3,081.20
Minus Post 4.4.08 Injunctive Relief Fees
26.3
TOTAL
3,054.90
Plus Total Attributable to Monetary Relief from
2,675.25
NEW TOTAL
5,730.15
Rate
825 $
700
370
445
385
370
430
370
215
235
180
190
225
215
335
250
285
175
250
200
250
$
$
Total
2,227.50
817,740.00
420,801.00
14,640.50
9,394.00
259.00
8,170.00
148.00
64.50
282.00
26,820.00
55,727.00
1,575.00
10,965.00
5,192.50
24,775.00
313.50
2,940.00
925.00
760.00
13,450.00
1,417,169.50
(16,958.00)
1,400,211.50
1,332,118.50
2,732,330.00
Monetary Relief Expenses
$230,177.14
TOTAL expenses from 4.4.08 to present
Minus Post 4.4.08 Injunctive Relief expenses
($548.50)
$229,628.64
TOTAL
Plus half of total attributable to Monetary Relief
$52,025.81
NEW TOTALS
$281,654.45
Injunctive Relief
Monetary Relief
TOTALS
Litigation Totals
Total Hours
Total Fees
Total Expenses
2,701.55
$1,349,076.50 $
52,574.31
5,730.15
2,732,330.00
281,654.45
8,431.70 $ 4,081,406.50 $
334,228.76
3
852006_1.PDF
8:05-cv-01070-DOC-MLG Document 577-3 Filed 12/21/09 Page 99 of 105 Page ID
#:6191
White v. Experian
Grand Total
1,349,076.50
1,416,786.25
725,747.50
584,866.25
374,274.25
311,267.50
52,574.31
110,179.58
4,197.92
36,698.12
97,571.41
4,499.98
1,401,650.81
1,526,965.83
729,945.42
621,564.37
471,845.66
315,767.48
5,730.15
5,393.50
2,341.75
1,500.95
1,022.20
1,243.60
2,732,330.00
2,489,648.75
1,021,290.00
855,533.75
608,694.25
599,925.00
281,654.45
227,285.14
14,302.10
39,550.08
104,539.35
11,190.86
3,013,984.45
2,716,933.89
1,035,592.10
895,083.83
713,233.60
611,115.86
8,431.70
8,737.00
4,023.25
2,680.20
1,653.70
1,898.90
GRAND TOTAL
INJUNCTIVE &
MONETARY
FEES &
EXPENSES
4,415,635.26
4,243,899.72
1,765,537.52
1,516,648.20
1,185,079.26
926,883.34
4,762,018.25
305,721.32
5,067,739.57
17,232.15
8,307,421.75
678,521.98
8,985,943.73
27,424.75
14,053,683.30
NJUNCTIVE
FEES
INJUNCTIVE
EXPENSES
TOTAL
INJUNCTIVE
FEES &
EXPENSES
MONETARY
HOURS
MONETARY
FEES
MONETARY
EXPENSES
TOTAL
MONETARY
FEES &
EXPENSES
GRAND
TOTAL
HOURS
#:6192
EXHIBIT C
852006_1.PDF
Case 8:05-cv-01070-DOC-MLG Document 577-3 Filed 12/21/09 Page 101 of 105 Page ID1
#:6193
1
2
3
WESTERN DIVISION
4
THE HONORABLE GEORGE H. KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
MARK BERGER, ET AL.,
)
)
PLAINTIFFS,
)
)
vs.
) NO. CV 05-5373-GHK (Cwx)
)
PROPERTY I.D. CORPORATION, ET AL., ) HEARING RE MOTION
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
___________________________________)
11
12
13
14
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
16
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
REPORTED BY:
24
MARY RIORDAN RICKEY, CSR NO. 11252
255 East Temple Street, Room 181-G
Los Angeles, California 90012
[email protected]
25
-$18$5<
852006_1.PDF
#:6194
1
2
3
4
5
6
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
BY: BARRY R. HIMMELSTEIN, ESQ.
EMBARCADERO CENTER WEST
275 BATTERY STREET
THIRTIETH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3339
(415) 956-1000
7
FOR OBJECTOR MR. ALFI:
8
9
10
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD STRONG
BY: HOWARD STRONG, ESQ.
POSTAL BOX 570092
TARZANA, CALIFORNIA 91357-0092
(818) 343-4434
11
12
FOR PROPERTY I.D. CORPORATION DEFENDANTS:
13
ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
BY: ANDREW M. GILFORD, PARTNER
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
SIXTEENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
(213) 576-1000
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
FOR REALOGY CORPORATION DEFENDANTS:
SUSSMAN SHANK, LLP
BY: JOHN A. SCHWIMMER, ESQ.
1000 SOUTHWEST BROADWAY
SUITE 1400
PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
(503) 227-1111
21
FOR PICKFORD REALTY DEFENDANTS:
22
23
24
25
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
BY: KENNETH A. O'BRIEN, JR., ESQ.
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448
(213) 620-1780
-$18$5<
852006_1.PDF
#:6195
1
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2
FOR PICKFORD REALTY DEFENDANTS:
3
4
5
6
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
BY: ROBERT D. MACGILL, ESQ.
KAROLINE E. JACKSON, ESQ.
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-3535
(317) 231-7228
7
8
9
10
11
FOR DEFENDANTS R.O.C.H. ENTERPRISES, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN
AS RE/MAX OF CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII, INC.:
SPIERER, WOODWARD, CORBALIS & GOLDBERG, APC
BY: STEVEN F. SPIERER, ESQ.
707 TORRANCE BOULEVARD
SUITE 200
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277-3400
(310) 540-3199
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-$18$5<
852006_1.PDF
53
#:6196
1
in this case, and clearly class counsel are all very
2
experienced class action counsel and that they expressed their
3
views that this is considered to be a home-run settlement.
4
There is no presence of a government participant,
5
technically, in this case.
But there is a related case where
6
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has filed an
7
action against certain of the defendants in this case and has
8
signaled approval of the proposed settlement in this case so as
9
to also sufficiently satisfy the concerns of the government.
10
The reaction of the class members to date strongly
11
favors acceptance and approval of this settlement; 45,000
12
people have filed claims.
13
objections, and I have addressed both of those.
14
Only two individuals have filed
Therefore, having considered all the relevant
15
factors, I find this settlement to be fair, adequate, and
16
reasonable; and I do approve the settlement.
17
Insofar as the fees and costs are concerned,
18
generally, we view the fees in a common fund case such as this
19
on a percentage of the recovery.
20
benchmark is 25 percent.
21
And in this case, the
Now, it's clear that the benchmark doesn't mean that
22
it's inflexible or automatic.
We, of course, view the
23
benchmark in the totality of the circumstances of the case; and
24
we consider factors such as the results obtained for the class,
25
the risk to counsel, benefits of class members beyond the cash
-$18$5<
852006_1.PDF
54
#:6197
1
2
and settlement, and the market rate.
Here we find and conclude that the results obtained
3
for the class favors a substantial award of fees.
4
negotiated a very, very favorable settlement that provides in
5
very real terms 100-percent refund likely of all claimants
6
unless the number of claims exceed all reasonable forecasts and
7
expectations.
8
9
Counsel took a large risk in taking on this case
which also favors a strong percentage.
Other counsel have
10
tried unsuccessfully to bring similar type of lawsuits, but
11
counsel persisted in this case and has prevailed on a
12
substantial settlement.
13
There does not appear to be any benefits to the class
14
beyond the amount of the settlement.
15
we have noted that the claimants have retained the benefit of
16
the purchased reports, while at the same time, pursuant to the
17
settlement, likely will receive full refund.
18
However, we do note and
We, therefore, believe also a 25-percent award is at
19
or below market rates for services of the kind rendered by
20
class counsel.
21
22
23
Now, the next question is the percentage.
Even if I
approve 25 percent, what will that be 25 percent of.
First of all, with respect to the notice cost and so
24
forth, that will not be subtracted from the total potential
25
amount because clearly post-settlement notices and efforts of
-$18$5<
852006_1.PDF
Counsel
#:6198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
([email protected])
([email protected])
BERNSTEIN, LLP
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
15
16
17
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
18
19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
22
Defendant.
23
24
and Related Cases:
25
26
27
(Lead Case)
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A.
CADDELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
FOR MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
CADDELL DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR ORDER
#:6199
1
I, Michael A. Caddell, hereby declare the following:
2
1.
My name is Michael A. Caddell. I am over 21 years of age, of
3
sound mind, capable of executing this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of
4
the facts stated herein, and they are all true and correct.
5
2.
I am one of the attorneys working on behalf of the Class in the
6
above-styled litigation, and I am an attorney and principal of the law firm of
7
Caddell & Chapman. I submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
8
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, and
9
Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Incentive Awards.
10
INFORMATION ABOUT MICHAEL CADDELL
AND THE CADDELL & CHAPMAN LAW FIRM
11
12
3.
13
staff, has an outstanding record representing primarily plaintiffs in complex
14
litigation across the United States. Michael Caddell is a past co-recipient of the
15
Public Interest Award from The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Foundation and
16
has been named “Impact Lawyer of the Year” by Texas Lawyer magazine. Caddell
17
& Chapman’s other named partner, Cynthia Chapman, who is also working on
18
behalf of the Class in this matter, has been named by the National Law Journal as
19
one of the “Top 40 Lawyers under 40 in America” and one of the “Top 50 Women
20
Litigators in America.” In 2007, both Michael Caddell and Cynthia Chapman were
21
named by LawDragon as two of the “500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in America.”
22
Caddell & Chapman has worked hard to attain a strong reputation for integrity and
23
excellence,1 even while pursuing difficult and sometimes controversial cases. As
24
Federal District Judge Royal Ferguson noted during a remand hearing in 2002, “Mr.
25
Caddell, you and your office have a gold-plated reputation as good and thorough
26
1
27
28
Texas Monthly has named eight of Caddell & Chapman’s ten lawyers either
Texas Super Lawyers or Texas Rising Stars. Both Cynthia Chapman and I have
been named Texas Super Lawyers every year since the award’s inception in 2003.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
Caddell & Chapman, a ten-lawyer firm with a strong support
-1-
#:6200
1
and thoughtful lawyers.”2 United States Bankruptcy Judge Alan H. W. Shiff in
2
Connecticut noted in 2003 during a contested motion to appoint Michael Caddell as
3
Special Counsel to the Britestarr Bankruptcy Estate, “I think he’s got a national
4
reputation he’s competent . . . . Mr. Caddell appeared before the Court and my
5
recollection is that he comported himself very well.”3 Steven Mackey from the
6
Office of the United States Trustee, Region 2, for the District of Connecticut
7
commented in the same hearing, “Mr. Caddell is more than competent, he is a
8
pugnacious bulldog and where there is [sic] grounds to make a recovery he usually
9
does.”4 “Where the fire is the hottest people tend to get scorched once in a while,
10
and Mr. Caddell takes cases where the fire is as hot as it gets.”5
11
4.
Caddell & Chapman attorney George Niño, a trial attorney with
12
twenty years of experience, is also working on behalf of the Class in the above-
13
styled litigation. He represents or has represented several million consumers in
14
cases involving Toshiba laptop computers, Nissan 350z cars, and Circuit City tax
15
overcharges. In 2007, he was part of the Caddell & Chapman team that helped the
16
Quapaw Tribe reach an $11.5 million settlement against ASARCO. In 2006, he
17
was part of the Caddell & Chapman trial team that secured a $33.6 million verdict
18
against Exxon Mobil following a five-week jury trial. Most of the cases referenced
19
herein are described in greater detail below in paragraphs 7, 11, and 12.
20
5.
Mr. Niño is a 1989 graduate of Stanford Law School and a 1986
21
graduate of Yale University. He is licensed to practice law in California and Texas
22
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bellorin v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Cause No. P-01-CA-034, United States
District Court, Western District of Texas, Pecos Division, Transcript of March 5,
2002 at 9, ll. 22-23. Instead of burdening this Court with copies of the transcripts
and orders referenced in this personal statement, copies or excerpts of these
documents will be provided upon request.
3
In re: Britestarr Homes, Inc., Cause No. 02-50811, United States Bankruptcy
Court, District of Connecticut, Transcript of June 3, 2003 at 9, 14.
4
Id. at 12-13.
5
Id. at 12.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-2-
#:6201
1
and also practiced in Washington, D.C. as a Special Assistant United States
2
Attorney. Mr. Niño was named a Texas Super Lawyer in 2005, an H Texas
3
“Houston’s Top Lawyers for the People” in 2005 and 2006, and an H Texas
4
“Houston’s Top Lawyers” in 2006.
5
6.
Caddell & Chapman attorneys Dana Levy and Craig
6
Marchiando are also working on behalf of the Class in the above-styled litigation.
7
Ms. Levy is a trial attorney with more than seven years of experience. Ms. Levy is
8
a 2001 graduate of the University of San Diego Law School, where she was an
9
editor of the San Diego Law Review. She is also a 1997 graduate of the University
10
of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is licenced to practice in Texas. Mr. Marchiando is a
11
trial and appellate attorney with more than five years of experience. He is a
12
graduate of Texas Tech University and holds an MBA from the University of
13
Houston. He graduated cum laude from South Texas College of Law in 2004 and,
14
before joining Caddell & Chapman, clerked for a state appellate judge for one year.
15
He is licenced to practice in Texas.
16
7.
Caddell & Chapman’s typical role in class action litigation is as
17
either lead or co-lead counsel (or in another leadership position). For example, past
18
cases in which Caddell & Chapman and Michael A. Caddell have served in such a
19
role include the Polybutylene National Class Action Litigation in Tennessee, Texas,
20
and California (Cox v. Shell)6, in which over $1.2 billion was recovered for the
21
class (I was Co-Lead Counsel and have served since the settlement as Chairman of
22
the Board of the Consumer Plumbing Recovery Center, the entity responsible for
23
administering the settlement, and which has completely replumbed over 320,000
24
homes across America at no cost to individual homeowners); In re: Sulzer Hip
25
Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigations7 in Ohio, another $1 billion
26
6
27
7
28
Civil No. 18,844, Obion County Chancery Court, Tennessee.
Cause No. 1:01-CV-9000 (MDL Docket No. 1401), United States District Court,
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-3-
#:6202
1
recovery for a national class (I was Special Counsel to the Plaintiffs’ Steering
2
Committee and part of the six-lawyer team which negotiated the initial $750
3
million class settlement with Sulzer); Hotchkiss v. Little Caesar Enterprises,8 a
4
national class action in Texas and Michigan which resulted in a settlement valued at
5
$350 million and the complete restructuring of the Little Caesar’s franchise (I was
6
Lead Counsel); and In re Hyundai and Kia Horsepower Litigation,9 a national class
7
action in California that made available to the class roughly $125 million in cash
8
and/or debit cards (I was Co-Lead Counsel).
9
8.
In the last two years alone, Cynthia Chapman and I were also
10
named as Class Counsel in Elihu, et al. v. Toshiba, a national class action
11
settlement in California which provided extended warranties and other relief for
12
over 860,000 purchasers of Toshiba laptop computers, Chapman was named as Co-
13
Lead Counsel in a national class action settlement in California involving some
14
80,000 purchasers of Nissan’s 350Z, and I was named Co-Lead Counsel in five
15
national class action settlements (including the present one), including two of the
16
largest Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) settlements in history: (1) In re
17
Transunion, a FCRA settlement in Federal District Court in Chicago for $75
18
million, the largest such settlement in history, encompassing a class estimated at
19
more than 130 million persons; (2) Williams v. LexisNexis Risk Management, a $22
20
million FCRA settlement approved June 25, 2008, by Federal District Judge Robert
21
Payne in Richmond, Virginia; (3) In re Ford Ambulance, a national class action
22
settlement in the Eastern District of Texas involving over 20,000 Ford 6.0 Diesel
23
Engines sold for use in ambulances, valued at some $40 million; (4)
24
White/Hernandez v. Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union, FCRA injunctive-relief
25
settlement this Court approved on August 19, 2008, wherein the Court
26
8
27
C.A. No. 99-CI-16042, District Court of Bexar County, Texas.
9
Case No. 02CC00287, Superior Court of Orange County, California.
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-4-
#:6203
1
characterized the settlement as “superb” and referred to the “very talented
2
plaintiffs’ counsel that ethically and honestly” represented the class, which will
3
benefit millions of consumers emerging from Chapter 7 bankruptcy; and (5) Hardy
4
v. Hartford, a settlement in Federal District Court in Arizona providing injunctive
5
and monetary relief to a nationwide class of Hartford insureds with respect to the
6
payment of General Contractor’s overhead and profit on property damage claims.
7
Similarly, Cynthia Chapman served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and as a
8
Co-Chair Liaison of the Law Committee in In re: Medtronic, Inc., Implantable
9
Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, an MDL proceeding (Case No. MDL-
10
1726) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a case in
11
which a settlement of over $100 million was approved.
12
9.
Caddell & Chapman’s current docket includes some 20 national
13
and state class actions around the United States. In most cases, Caddell &
14
Chapman is either Lead or Co-Lead Counsel. Presently, for example, I am Co-
15
Lead Counsel in In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Products
16
Liability Litigation, an MDL proceeding (Case No. MDL-1718) pending in the
17
Eastern District of Michigan, where my firm took the lead role in facilitating a
18
double-tracked, multi-party mediation that resulted in more than 60 settlements of
19
cases involving vehicle fires. I am also lead or co-lead counsel in numerous other
20
national or state class actions against, among others, Heartland (the largest data
21
breach case in history), Aetna, State Farm, and Farmers. Cynthia Chapman and
22
other members of Caddell & Chapman are serving in leadership positions in various
23
other state and/or national class actions around the United States.
24
10.
While Caddell & Chapman’s primary focus in the area of class
25
actions has been as lead counsel for a putative or certified class, it has on occasion
26
represented objectors with respect to proposed settlements that appeared abusive or
27
defective. Since 2001, Caddell & Chapman has represented objectors in nine
28
matters with respect to proposed settlements. In several cases, Caddell & Chapman
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-5-
#:6204
1
was lead or co-lead counsel for most or all of the objectors’ counsel. In Clark v.
2
Equifax Information Services, Inc.,10 the district court refused to approve a
3
proposed settlement after a two-day contested hearing in which I presented an
4
expert and cross-examined several witnesses, including experts, advanced by the
5
settlement proponents. Ultimately, after the settlement was modified with Caddell
6
& Chapman’s participation and assistance, the court approved the modified
7
settlement and noted “the involvement of Objectors’ Counsel [which were led by
8
Caddell & Chapman] aided in improving the final settlement terms,” “the value to
9
the class has . . . clearly been improved through the modifications to the
10
Stipulation[s] of Settlement,” and “Objectors’ Counsel [for whom I served as Lead
11
Counsel] . . . contributed to the final successful settlements.”11
12
11.
Similarly, in In re Hyundai and Kia Horsepower Litigation,
13
Caddell & Chapman, joined by many firms across the country, successfully
14
objected to a proposed coupon settlement and convinced a state district court in
15
Texas to withdraw preliminary approval for that settlement.12 Ultimately, Caddell
16
& Chapman, as Co-Lead Counsel, obtained a vastly improved settlement which
17
was submitted to and ultimately approved by the Superior Court in Orange County,
18
California, Judge Stephen J. Sundvold, presiding. In approving the settlement,
19
Judge Sundvold commented that it was “a tremendous accomplishment,” “you’ve
20
done a terrific job,” and the settlement “is as fair and reasonable as could have been
21
arrived at.”13 In four of the other cases in which Caddell & Chapman has
22
10
23
24
25
26
27
28
Franklin E. Clark, et al. v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., No.8:00-1218-22,
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson Division.
There were two other related cases as well, Case Nos. 8:00-1217-22 and 8:00-121922.
11
Id., Order of April 20, 2004, at 33 nn.34-35; 34.
12
Hermie Bundick, et al. v. Hyundai Motor Am., Cause No. B-168,410, 60th
Judicial District of Jefferson County, Beaumont, Texas.
13
In re Hyundai and Kia Horsepower Litigation, Case No. 02CC00287, Superior
Court of Orange County, California, Transcript of June 16, 2004 at 33-34, 43. The
court’s comments were premised on a claims rate of 15% to 20%, and the final
Footnote continued on next page
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-6-
#:6205
1
represented objectors, settlement modifications were ultimately approved by the
2
trial court and either affirmed on appeal or became final without appeal. In several
3
of those as well, the court or opposing counsel specifically noted the contributions
4
of the objectors led or represented by Caddell & Chapman.14
5
12.
Caddell & Chapman’s trial experience, which includes more
6
than 50 jury trials and hundreds of evidentiary hearings, is germane to the
7
appointment of Settlement Counsel in this matter. It is important for the
8
Defendants to know that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has extensive trial experience and can
9
competently try a case. Indeed, Caddell & Chapman has tried numerous complex
10
cases (and evidentiary hearings) against the Nation’s top defense firms to a
11
successful conclusion. As recently as March 2006, Michael Caddell and Cynthia
12
Chapman completed a complex, hotly contested five-week trial against
13
ExxonMobil in which the jury awarded Caddell & Chapman’s client $33.6
14
million15 – ultimately, rather than pursuing an appeal, Exxon Mobil settled the
15
matter. Notably, ExxonMobil’s trial counsel was President-Elect of the American
16
College of Trial Lawyers at the time of trial. In addition, in December 2007,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Footnote continued from previous page
claims rate was 19.2%.
14
See, e.g. , In re Wireless Tel. Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litig., Case No. MDL
1559, Master Case No. 4:03-md-01559, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Western Division, Order dated July 8, 2004 at 4
(objectors represented by Michael Caddell and Ken Nelson “contributed
significantly more to the settlement [than another group of objectors] and several of
the suggestions [they] made were incorporated into the final settlement.”); Terri
Shields, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Cause No. B-170,462, 172nd Judicial District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Order
Supplementing Record, dated March 31, 2005, at 2 (“Plaintiff recognizes that the
resolution of the objections to the original settlement is due to the efforts of many
counsel for objectors, including, but not limited to, Mitchell A. Toups, Mike
Caddell . . . . Many objector counsel, including the aforementioned, worked
constructively with class counsel and counsel for Defendants to achieve the abovestated results.” Caddell & Chapman’s fees in Shields were all donated to charity.
15
Tetco v. ExxonMobil Corp., Cause No. 2003-Cl-04424, 73rd Judicial District of
Bexar County, Texas.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-7-
#:6206
1
Caddell & Chapman secured a $2.4 million jury verdict in a case brought by the
2
parents and estate of an employee killed his first week on the job.16 In the Summer
3
of 2009, Caddell & Chapman favorably resolved major litigation involving a 108-
4
unit condominium project in Houston after the successful completion of pretrial
5
hearings and on the literal eve of trial.
6
13.
Since 1996, Caddell & Chapman has obtained more than 60
7
recoveries valued at $1 million or more, and more than 20 recoveries that exceeded
8
$10 million. The value of the Firm’s total recoveries in that time total more than
9
$3.0 billion. To further illustrate the depth of Caddell & Chapman’s breadth of
10
experience and versatility, the following is a list of some of cases in which Caddell
11
& Chapman served as lead counsel and the recoveries made in each of these cases
12
(some of which are identified by case type and others of which are identified by
13
case style): (1) C.A. No. 2000-CI-17169; Maria Dolores Rodriguez-Olvera v.
14
Salant Corporation, et al., $30 million settlement during trial - negligence - forum
15
non conveniens - choice of law - federal jurisdiction - bankruptcy - bus accident in
16
Mexico - 14 deaths - Maquiladora workers; (2) C.A. No. 2003-CI-04424; Tetco, et
17
al. v. ExxonMobil, et al, $33.6 million jury verdict - breach of contract, fraud;
18
(3) C.A. No.—95-245; Anthony R. Alvarez, et al. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.,
19
et al., $14.9 million jury verdict - breach of contract, tortious interference -
20
restaurant franchisee versus national franchisor; (4) No. 95-27280; Douglas E.
21
Moore and Toyota Town, Inc. vs. Gulf States Toyota, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales,
22
U.S.A., Inc., Jerry Pyle, and John Bishop, $7.5 million verdict - fraud, breach of
23
contract/franchise agreement - automobile dealership; (5) $23.4 million - product
24
liability - forum non conveniens; (6) No. 93-062030; Thomas E. Meadors, et al. vs.
25
General Motors, et al., $7 million - product liability - motor vehicle - death,
26
personal injury; (7) Sierra Club v. Crown Central Petroleum, $2.5 million - first
27
16
28
Casados v. Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C., Cause No. 2005-05-2855, 404th
Judicial District of Cameron County, Texas.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-8-
#:6207
1
private citizen suit in Texas under Clean Air Act ; settlement achieved after
2
successful appeal to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; (8) PB/Class, $1.091 billion -
3
national class action - products liability - DTPA - polybutylene pipe and fittings;
4
(9) Dow Chemical Co., et al v. Miller Pipeline Services, successfully defended
5
Miller Pipeline Services Co. at jury trial against a $7 million suit filed by Dow
6
Chemical Co. and Dow Pipeline Co. that alleged price-fixing, patent misuse and
7
attempted monopolization; (10) $14.0 million - breach of fiduciary duty and legal
8
malpractice - major New York law firm; (11) $15.7 million - industrial accident -
9
injured workers; (12) $78.4 million subordination of secured debt plus $3.8 million
10
in payments - special counsel to bankruptcy trustee - fraud, lender liability,
11
equitable subordination - conspiracy - international bank; (13) $18.2 million
12
debt/claims withdrawn and released plus $500,00 payment - special counsel to
13
bankruptcy trustee - breach of contract, bailment, theft - oil terminalling facility;
14
(14) $20 million subordination of secured debt plus payments totaling $1.0 million
15
- special counsel to bankruptcy trustee - fraud, lender liability, breach of fiduciary
16
duty, director’s liability, D&O coverage - foreign bank, director, D&O insurer; (15)
17
$1.7 million - national class action - price fixing conspiracy - metal building
18
insulation industry; (16) $22.5 million subordination of secured debt plus $8.0
19
million payment - breach of fiduciary duty, director’s liability - oil company; (17)
20
$107.5 million subordination of secured debt plus $2.5 million payment - fraud,
21
lender liability - conspiracy - foreign banks; (18) $2.0 million - product liability -
22
helicopter crash - Mexico; (19) $8.0 million elimination of priority debt plus 40%
23
of Texas corporation - national class action - securities fraud, breach of fiduciary
24
duty; (20) $2.6 million - trade secrets - commercial defamation; (21) $5 million -
25
toxic tort - sulphur dioxide, asbestos; (22) $13.1 million -products liability - DTPA
26
- 1500 homes - polybutylene pipe and fittings; (23) $6.25 million - product liability
27
- motor vehicle - single death; (24) $2.85 million - breach of contract - account
28
mismanagement - national banks; (25) $4.3 million - commercial litigation 852002.1
852009.1.PDF
-9-
#:6208
1
intellectual property - fraud, trade secrets, misappropriation; (26) $12.1 million -
2
national class action - consumer fraud; (27) $22.5 million - insurance bad faith -
3
CGL policy; (28) $7 million - insurance bad faith - crime bond; (29) $12 million -
4
insurance bad faith - CGL policies - (underlying case: toxic exposure); (30) $5
5
million - insurance bad faith - CGL policies - (underlying case: toxic exposure);
6
(31) $10.0 million - breach of fiduciary duty, director’s liability, family trusts; (32)
7
$5.1 million - trucking accident; (33) $2.125 million - toxic exposure - 2,4-d,
8
dioxins; (34) $5.05 million (including $1.05 million in post-judgment interest) after
9
$4.0 million jury verdict upheld on appeal - closed head injury; (35) $3.5 million -
10
trucking accident; (36) $6 million - toxic exposure - chlordane; (37) $2.5 million -
11
national class action - consumer fraud; (38) $4.15 million - product liability -
12
vehicle fire; (39) $1.5 million - Trident submarine base - government contracts
13
claim; (40) $4 million settlement one day after $6.25 million jury verdict -
14
commercial litigation - deceptive trade practices; and (41) $3.25 million claim
15
successfully defended at trial - take-nothing judgment entered - $600,000 judgment
16
awarded firm’s client on counterclaim - commercial litigation - lender liability.
17
14.
Cynthia Chapman and I are also proud of our pro bono litigation
18
efforts, including class litigation. For example, on a pro bono basis, Caddell &
19
Chapman represented, as Lead Counsel for a coalition of public interest groups,
20
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita victims in a national class action lawsuit against the
21
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The lawsuit, in federal district
22
court in Houston, alleged that FEMA’s mishandling of its housing assistance
23
programs violated federal laws and regulations. In a contested evidentiary hearing
24
involving several witnesses, and other lawyers from Caddell & Chapman and I
25
persuaded the court to issue a preliminary injunction against FEMA compelling the
26
agency to provide assistance with hurricane victims’ utilities as well as base rent. In
27
what lawyers from the Public Interest Law Project of Oakland, California, termed
28
“a significant victory for evacuees,” the district court found a “clear entitlement”
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 10 -
#:6209
1
that FEMA is required to provide assistance with utilities under applicable statutes
2
and regulations, and FEMA’s failure to comply with these mandates endangers the
3
victims’ ability to remain in livable housing. While the district court’s injunction
4
was subsequently overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, FEMA made
5
several concessions to the Hurricane victims in the interim, essentially conceding
6
the relief sought by the lawsuit.
7
8
15.
For further information concerning our firm’s experience and
expertise, the Court is referred to our website (www.caddellchapman.com).
9
THE LITIGATION
10
16.
Plaintiffs in the consolidated and coordinated actions pending in
11
this Court (the “Litigation”) allege that Defendants Experian Information Solutions,
12
Inc. (“Experian”), Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), and TransUnion
13
LLC (“TransUnion”) recklessly or negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting
14
Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to maintain reasonable
15
16
bankruptcy.
17
17.
The Litigation has been pending before this Court since the Fall
18
of 2005. The cases have been vigorously litigated; the parties have engaged in
19
extensive discovery, motion practice, and class certification briefing. The parties
20
have made numerous court appearances, including several management conferences
21
and multiple-day hearings on settlement approval and summary judgment. This
22
Court has presided over the hearings and executed no fewer than thirty-seven
23
minute entries, entered at least fifty signed orders, and authored four published
24
opinions.
25
18.
In the Court’s rulings and comments to counsel, the Court has
26
urged the parties to proceed to mediation. Since August 15, 2007, the parties have
27
conducted arm’s-length, contentious, lengthy, and complicated negotiations (with
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 11 -
#:6210
1
2
3
person or telephonic sessions involving counsel for the parties. The negotiations
4
involved attorneys on both sides who have extensive experience in the prosecution,
5
defense, trial and settlement of class action litigation, including as it relates to
6
FCRA, bankruptcy, and other consumer cases, and who are well-versed in the legal
7
and factual issues implicated in this action.
8
19.
In the litigation process leading to the Settlement Agreement,
9
Plaintiffs’ Counsel undertook substantial investigation, fact-gathering, and formal
10
discovery to evaluate the merits of Plaintiffs’ case. This discovery included review
11
of over 40,000 pages of documents produced by Defendants, the retention and
12
consultation of credit reporting and consumer bankruptcy experts (who have each
13
filed several declarations with this Court), interviews with numerous consumers,
14
review of thousands of consumer credit reports, the production of over 50,000
15
pages of documents by Plaintiffs, and more than forty depositions taken and
16
defended in support of the litigation.
17
The 28 depositions taken by Plaintiffs included depositions of
18
each of Defendants’ experts, as well as testimony from Directors, Vice Presidents,
19
other senior officers, and analysts and consultants from Defendants’ departments
20
handling, among other subjects, data acquisition services, consumer relations,
21
consumer fraud, technical, software, and modeling, compliance, decision analytics
22
and predictive services. From these depositions, 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel
23
acquired significant information used to rebut Defendants’ opposition to changing
24
their procedures and meet Defendants’ challenges regarding class certification. For
25
example, Class Counsel learned, inter alia, that Defendants could identify
26
consumers who had credit reports issued whose files included a Chapter 7
27
bankruptcy discharge, both in current and archived files; that Defendants could
28
screen out consumers whose bankruptcies involved asset cases; that certain types of
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 12 -
#:6211
1
debts are discharged in a Chapter 7 no-asset bankruptcy; and that Defendants were
2
not engaging in reasonable monitoring and reporting of disputed tradelines to
3
ensure maximum possible accuracy. The depositions also helped 23(b)(3)
4
Settlement Class Counsel challenge the scoring analyses conducted by both
5
Experian and Equifax, as well as Defendants’ arguments concerning alleged scoring
6
benefits to consumers from inaccurate credit reporting.
7
In order to conduct discovery efficiently and avoid duplicating
8
work, the 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel divided into three discovery teams,
9
one for each Defendant. Counsel carefully coordinated discovery efforts to ensure
10
that they were doing identical discovery of each Defendant and held numerous
11
meetings and conference calls to discuss documents and depositions and keep all
12
teams informed of what information they were learning and what discovery was
13
still needed.
14
20.
On or about April 3, 2008, the parties entered into the Injunctive
15
Relief Settlement Agreement, by which Defendants agreed to retroactively update
16
the credit files of 23(b)(2) Settlement Class members to reflect the discharge of
17
certain categories of pre-bankruptcy civil judgments and tradelines. Defendants
18
also agreed to adopt new procedures for the update of certain pre-bankruptcy civil
19
judgments and tradelines when a public record entry of the bankruptcy is added to
20
the consumer’s file. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved these new
21
procedures, found them to be reasonable under the FCRA, and entered an Approval
22
Order Regarding Settlement and Release for the Injunctive Relief Settlement
23
Agreement (Dkt. 338). The 23(b)(2) Settlement Class Counsel, which includes
24
some lawyers representing objectors to the proposed Monetary Relief Settlement,
25
will be seeking approval of an award of fees and expenses for their efforts in
26
connection with obtaining this Injunctive Relief Settlement. In a separate,
27
independently negotiated agreement, Defendants have agreed to pay up to six
28
million dollars for the injunctive relief fees and expenses.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 13 -
#:6212
1
21.
2
Litigation resumed after the successful completion of the 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief
3
Settlement. The parties proceeded with several mediation sessions, but without
4
success. On January 26, 2009, the parties appeared for a hearing on Plaintiffs’
5
Motion for Class Certification of a 23(b)(3) damages class. Prior to the scheduled
6
hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
7
Certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3), decided not to hear the Motion at
8
that time, and directed the parties to make a final attempt to settle the monetary
9
claims raised in the Litigation. The parties and Defendants’ insurance carriers
10
participated in an additional mediation session before mediator Wulff three days
11
later but did not reach an agreement. The parties and Defendants’ insurance
12
carriers then participated in a mandatory settlement conference at the courthouse on
13
February 5, 2009. At that conference, Plaintiffs, Equifax, and Experian reached
14
agreement as to the principal terms of a settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the
15
Litigation for monetary damages, including statutory and punitive damages.
16
TransUnion agreed to the settlement terms on February 18, 2009. The Settlement
17
establishes a $45 million fund to provide damage award payments to Class
18
members who submit claims to confirm their eligibility. The fund will also be used
19
to pay costs of notice, administrative costs, and attorneys’ fees.
20
COUNSEL’S TIME AND EXPENSES
21
22.
I am the partner at Caddell & Chapman that supervises its
22
associates, paralegals and litigation support personnel in connection with their work
23
regarding the Litigation. In addition, I have personally conducted discovery, taken
24
fact and expert depositions, reviewed documents, appeared at conferences and
25
motion hearings before the Court, and actively participated in the mediation
26
sessions concerning the Litigation. Since around the time that the White and
27
Hernandez actions were consolidated into a single proceeding, my co-counsel
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 14 -
#:6213
1
Michael Sobol and I have effectively served during the Litigation as Co-lead
2
Counsel on behalf of all the White/Hernandez Plaintiffs.
3
23.
Caddell & Chapman has spent time on this litigation that could
4
have been spent on other matters. At various times during the Litigation, the active
5
prosecution of the claims has consumed a substantial percentage of my billable time
6
that could otherwise have been spent on other fee-generating work. In addition to a
7
substantial percentage of my time, this case has also required work by other lawyers
8
in my firm, as well as by our law clerks, paralegals, investigators, and computer
9
database personnel.
10
24.
The time my firm has spent on this case has been completely
11
contingent on the outcome of the action. Caddell & Chapman has not been paid for
12
any of the time spent on the action.
13
25.
In connection with the Litigation, the attorney and staff
14
timekeepers at Caddell & Chapman have billed a total of 8,737 hours from
15
inception to November 30, 2009. However, this time was incurred prosecuting and
16
resolving both the injunctive relief claims resulting in the 23(b)(2) Settlement and
17
the monetary relief claims resulting in the 23(b)(3) Settlement. While both sets of
18
claims were pending, the work performed with respect to those claims was
19
substantially indistinguishable from one another. For example, success on the
20
merits of the claims is a necessary precursor to obtaining either injunctive or
21
monetary relief, and the efforts involved with respect to demonstrating success on
22
the merits involved the same discovery and proof for both types of relief, whether
23
presented in mediation or in court. As the Court has noted in this case, “[t]hese fees
24
and costs are so intertwined with the injunctive relief portion of the lawsuit, and
25
this Court would spend an inordinate amount of time in disagreements about what
26
portion of plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours were billed to strictly injunctive relief and
27
what the carryover is to class cert and the remaining claims.” Aug. 19, 2008 Hr’g
28
Tr. at 19.
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 15 -
#:6214
1
26.
Accordingly, one-half of the time incurred from inception
2
through the time of the filing of the 23(b)(2) Settlement (April 3, 2008) is allocated
3
to the 23(b)(2) Settlement (plus time incurred subsequent to April 3, 2008 in
4
connection with the hearing on the approval of that settlement) and the other one-
5
half is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement. The attorney and staff timekeepers at
6
Caddell & Chapman have billed a total of 6,609 hours from the inception of the
7
Litigation to April 3, 2008, for a total lodestar of $2,792,085.00. Half of those
8
hours amounts to 3,304.50 hours, and one-half that lodestar is $1,396,042.50.
9
27.
From April 4, 2008, through November 30, 2009 (less any time
10
incurred with respect to the injunctive relief approval hearing), the attorney and
11
staff timekeepers at Caddell & Chapman have billed a total of 2,128 hours, for a
12
total lodestar of $1,114,350.00, minus time incurred subsequent to April 4, 2008 in
13
connection with the hearing on the approval of the injunctive relief settlement (39
14
hours and $20,743.75 in lodestar), for a total of 2,089 hours and $1,093,606.25
15
lodestar. All of this time is allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement because it was
16
incurred after the approval of the 23(b)(2) Settlement.
17
28.
Therefore, adding one-half of the lodestar incurred before the
18
injunctive relief settlement to the total lodestar incurred post-injunctive relief
19
towards the monetary settlement, Caddell & Chapman’s attorney and staff
20
timekeepers have billed a total of 5,393.50 hours for a total lodestar of
21
$2,489,648.75 for the monetary relief Settlement. All these hours were incurred in
22
connection with the Litigation and are reasonably connected to the prosecution of
23
the monetary relief claims and procuring the 23(b)(3) Settlement.
24
29.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a summary listing each lawyer,
25
law clerk, and legal assistant for which Caddell & Chapman is seeking
26
compensation for legal services in connection with the 23(b)(3) Settlement, the
27
hours each individual expended, and the hourly rate at which compensation is
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 16 -
#:6215
1
sought for each individual. For individuals who have left the employ of Caddell &
2
Chapman, the hourly rate at the time when employment concluded is used.
3
30.
Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I
4
believe that the time expended by Caddell & Chapman in connection with this
5
Litigation, when compared to the result achieved for the Class, is reasonable in
6
amount and was necessary to ensure the successful monetary relief obtained on
7
behalf of the Class.
8
31.
Caddell & Chapman’s customary rates, which were used for
9
purposes of calculating lodestar here, are based on prevailing fees in this District
10
and have been approved in the California and other courts in this Circuit, such as
11
Hardy v. Hartford, Case No. 07-CV-024-TUC-DCB, United States District Court,
12
District of Arizona; In re Hyundai and Kia Horsepower Litigation, Case No.
13
02CC00287, Superior Court of Orange County, California; Nissan 350Z Cases,
14
Coordinated Proceeding No. 4421, Superior Court of Orange County, California;
15
Elihu, et al. v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Case No. BC328556,
16
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.
17
32.
Caddell & Chapman sets its hourly rates according to prevailing
18
market rates, and these rates are customary and within the range of hourly fees
19
charged by attorneys and staff of our respective experience in class action litigation.
20
2007 Hourly Billing Rates, Texas Lawyer, June 2007, available at:
21
http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/specials/salary2007.jsp (last visited May 5, 2008)
22
(available on request). This survey explains that the average equity partner at a
23
large Texas law firm billed at a rate of $492 in 2007. However, averages do not
24
identify market segments for highly skilled work. Some premier litigators are now
25
charging rates far in excess of those billed by attorneys at my firm. See Nathan
26
Koppel, Lawyers Gear Up Grand New Fees — Hourly Rates Increasingly Hit
27
$1,000, Breaching a Level Once Seen as Taboo, Wall St. Journal, August 27, 2007,
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 17 -
#:6216
1
at B1 (available on request). Caddell & Chapman’s history of substantial
2
recoveries easily supports the fees requested in this matter.
3
33.
Caddell & Chapman devoted its nationally recognized expertise,
4
resources, and personnel to this matter. Caddell & Chapman and its co-counsel
5
also performed critical work in this matter, made the requisite judgment calls,
6
maintained a professional relationship with opposing counsel and consummated the
7
two Settlements.
8
34.
9
The 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Counsel are requesting a fee
award of 25% of the Settlement Fund after deducting the amounts of the expense
10
reimbursement and the service awards for class representatives, in line with the
11
Ninth Circuit’s benchmark. The lodestar calculation demonstrates that Plaintiffs’
12
requested fee award is also based on a multiplier of approximately 1.33 of 23(b)(3)
13
Class Counsel’s lodestar. By any measure, the risk multiplier is modest and well
14
within the common practice for similar cases.
15
35.
Caddell & Chapman has expended a total of $337,464.72 in un-
16
reimbursed expenses that were necessarily incurred in connection with the
17
prosecution of the Litigation. From inception through April 3, 2008 (i.e., the date
18
of the filing of the 23(b)(2) Settlement Agreement), Caddell & Chapman expended
19
a total of $217,368.02 in un-reimbursed expenses, one-half of which is attributable
20
to the monetary relief Settlement for a total of $108,684.01. From April 4, 2008
21
through November 30, 2009, Caddell & Chapman expended a total of $120,096.70
22
in un-reimbursed expenses (less the $1,495.57 in expenses incurred in connection
23
with the injunctive relief settlement approval hearing). Therefore, the total amount
24
of Caddell & Chapman expenses that can be allocated to the 23(b)(3) Settlement is
25
$227,285.14.
26
36.
The foregoing expenses were incurred solely in connection with
27
this Litigation and are reflected on Caddell & Chapman’s books and records as
28
maintained in the ordinary course of business. These books and records are
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 18 -
#:6217
1
prepared from invoices, receipts, expense vouchers, check records and other
2
records, and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred in this case. The rates
3
charged for all internal expenses incurred by my firm (e.g., photocopying) are the
4
same irrespective of whether the case is billable or contingent. As a result, the rates
5
charged are necessarily market-sensitive and market-competitive since they are
6
subject to and controlled by an overriding “check” imposed by the firm’s cost-
7
paying clients.
8
9
10
37.
Settlement Agreement and Defendants do not contest the award requested by Class
Counsel.
11
12
The attorneys’ fees are expressly provided for in the 23(b)(3)
38.
The fee request was also disclosed to Class Members in the
Notice regarding the monetary relief settlement sent on September 28, 2009.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
852002.1
852009.1.PDF
- 19 -
#:6218
852009.1.PDF
#:6219
852009.1.PDF
#:6220
852009.1.PDF
#:6221
852009.1.PDF
#:6222
851971_v1.pdf
#:6223
851971_v1.pdf
#:6224
851971_v1.pdf
#:6225
851971_v1.pdf
#:6226
851971_v1.pdf
#:6227
851971_v1.pdf
#:6228
851971_v1.pdf
#:6229
#:6230
#:6231
#:6232
#:6233
#:6234
#:6235
#:6236
#:6237
#:6238
#:6239
#:6240
#:6241
851979_1.PDF
#:6242
851979_1.PDF
#:6243
851979_1.PDF
#:6244
851979_1.PDF
#:6245
851979_1.PDF
#:6246
851979_1.PDF
#:6247
851979_1.PDF
#:6248
851979_1.PDF
#:6249
851979_1.PDF
#:6250
851979_1.PDF
#:6251
851979_1.PDF
#:6252
851979_1.PDF
#:6253
851719_v1.pdf
#:6254
851719_v1.pdf
#:6255
851719_v1.pdf
#:6256
851719_v1.pdf
#:6257
851719_v1.pdf
#:6258
851719_v1.pdf
#:6259
851719_v1.pdf
#:6260
851719_v1.pdf
#:6261
851719_v1.pdf
#:6262
851719_v1.pdf
#:6263
851719_v1.pdf
#:6264
851719_v1.pdf
#:6265
851719_v1.pdf
#:6266
851719_v1.pdf
#:6267
851719_v1.pdf
#:6268
851719_v1.pdf
#:6269
851719_v1.pdf
#:6270
851719_v1.pdf
#:6271
851719_v1.pdf
#:6272
851719_v1.pdf
#:6273
851719_v1.pdf
#:6274
851719_v1.pdf
#:6275
851970_v1.pdf
#:6276
851970_v1.pdf
#:6277
851970_v1.pdf
#:6278
851970_v1.pdf
#:6279
851970_v1.pdf
#:6280
851970_v1.pdf
#:6281
851970_v1.pdf
#:6282
851970_v1.pdf
#:6283
851970_v1.pdf

Motion for and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees

Transcription

Similar documents

Here For Pdf Version

Elizabeth M. Tannon | Of Counsel

Piikani Nation Waters

Juventud Presente No. 27

Greg Webb`s Verdicts and Settlements

Affordable Condos Coming to Larchmont

exhibit 4 - Allen v. Similasan

fulletons poblat DEF

Executive Staff Settlement Housing Fund Settlement Housing Fund

The Pella Settlements