Class Action Lawsuits, Lawyers And Settlements: Review of Cases 2006-2007

Successes

2006-2007 | 2004-2005 | 2001-2003 | 1998-2001

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a fifty-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Our lawyers represent plaintiffs in individual lawsuits and class actions across America in cases involving dangerous or defective products; consumer, securities and investment fraud; employment discrimination; overtime pay and ERISA violations; environmental damage and toxic exposures; antitrust violations; aviation disasters; and the abuse of civil and human rights.

For the past five years, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation. The National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in class actions and individual lawsuits. The editors also contacted plaintiff and defense counsel, as well as dozens of corporate general counsel, asking them for the names of plaintiffs' litigation firms that they would use and recommend.

The following is a summary of the outcomes of recent Lieff Cabraser cases. For a comprehensive listing of our prominent cases, please see our firm resume.

2007

Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler

In March 2007 in Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler, Lieff Cabraser attorneys Robert J. Nelson and Scott P. Nealey 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 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. The jury also found 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.

DaimlerChrysler's ongoing indifference to public safety was what prompted the jury to find that DaimlerChrysler acted with malice and with a conscious disregard for the health and safety of others. Mraz was not the first person to die from this defect, but likely the 13th person. There have been hundreds of accidents where people suffered debilitating physical injuries when the DaimlerChrysler vehicles they were driving moved into reverse when the driver believed that he or she had placed the shift selector of the vehicle in the park position.

Mraz was the first case involving the part-to-reverse defect on a DaimlerChrysler vehicle to be tried and first to result in a jury verdict. The trial court denied DaimlerChrysler’s motion for new trial and the case is on appeal.

For their success in the Mraz case, the Consumer Attorneys of California selected Lieff Cabraser attorneys Robert J. Nelson and Scott P. Nealey as 2007 trial lawyer of the year finalists.

Catholic Healthcare West Cases

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, and partner Kelly M. Dermody supervised the litigation. California Lawyer magazine recognized Ms. Dermody with a 2007 CLAY award (California Lawyer of the Year) for her success in this case.

Azizian v. Federated Department Stores

On August 23, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s settlement of an antitrust class action lawsuit against 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.

Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

For the past five years, Lieff Cabraser and 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.

As background, 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 non-minority 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.

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.

In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a $92 million partial 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, Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; Dynegy Inc. and affiliates; EnCana Corporation; WD Energy Services, Inc.; and The Williams Companies, Inc. and affiliates. In June 2007, the Court granted final approval to another settlement with Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC, CMS Energy Resources Management Company, and Aquila Merchant Services, Inc., for an additional $67.39 million.

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.

The 2006-2007 settlements follow a landmark $1.1 billion settlement of class action litigation in 2003 against El Paso Natural Gas Co. for manipulating the market for natural gas pipeline transmission capacity into California.

Lieff Cabraser has served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel in the Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV. William Bernstein and Barry R. Himmelstein were the principal attorneys at our firm who oversaw the litigation.

Rosenburg, et al., v. IBM

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. Kelly Dermody oversaw the litigation at Lieff Cabraser.

Satchell, et al., v. FedEx Express

In April 2007, the parties reached a $54.9 million 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 position, and submitting policy changes 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. Kelly M. Dermody managed the litigation for Lieff Cabraser.

Estate of Holman, et al., v. Noble Energy, Inc.

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a class of royalty owners with mineral interests in Colorado. Plaintiffs alleged that Noble Energy and Patina, its predecessor company, underpaid Class members for natural gas production royalties in violation of state law. In June 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval to a $53 million settlement of the action. The settlement also provided for a significant improvement in the calculation of future royalty payments, which were estimated to benefit the Class an additional $50 million. David S. Stellings and Nicholas Diamand litigated the case for Lieff Cabraser.

2006

Alaska State Department of Revenue, et al., v. America Online, Inc., et al.

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 the losses at $70 million. 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, all of which was intended to, and did, artificially inflate 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.

Richard M. Heimann and Joy A. Kruse litigated the case.

Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases

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 also has agreed to 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 has agreed to maintain more compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds who fall behind in their payments.

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 engaged in anticompetitive conduct and/or violated state deceptive and unfair business practices statutes to harm competition and monopolize the markets for Intel-compatible, personal computer operating system software, as well as word processing and spreadsheet software. In August 2006, the New York Supreme Court granted final approval to a settlement that makes available up to $350 million in benefits for New York businesses and consumers. Earlier settlements in the North Carolina, Tennessee and Florida actions were valued collectively at $355 million. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in the New York, North Carolina and Tennessee and held a leadership role in the Florida case.

Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV

In August 2006, the Court granted preliminary approval to a $92 million partial 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, Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; Dynegy Inc. and affiliates; EnCana Corporation; WD Energy Services, Inc.; and The Williams Companies, Inc. and affiliates. Plaintiffs charged defendants with manipulating the price of natural gas in California during the California energy crisis of 2000-2001 by conducting prearranged “wash trades” and by reporting false price and volume information to trade publications that compile natural gas price indices.

The recent settlement follows a landmark $1.5 billion settlement of class action litigation in 2003 against El Paso Natural Gas Co. for manipulating the market for natural gas pipeline transmission capacity into California. Lieff Cabraser has served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel in the Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV.

Morris v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

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 will receive cash-equivalent calling cards automatically, and may redeem them for cash at their option. 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.

Toshiba Notebook Class Action

In March 2006, the court granted final approval to a settlement of a class action by consumers who purchased or acquired Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Series notebook computers in the United States. Consumers charged the notebooks were defective. The settlement provides for new warranties and full reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by consumers in repairing their notebooks.

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

E-Mail: mail@lchb.com
Firm Website: www.lieffcabraser.com

Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

Information Network: Guidant, Ortho Evra, Ford Vehicle Switch Fires
Butter Flavoring Lung Injuries, Car Accidents, Medtronic Heart Lead Recall
Aviation Law, Personal Injuries, Yamaha Rhino Rollovers
15-Passenger Van Accidents, SUV Rollover Crashes, Lieff Global

Notice: Lieff Cabraser attorneys provide legal advice and practice law for clients in federal district courts throughout the United States and in state courts where we are licensed to practice. In states in which our lawyers are not licensed to practice, we have affiliations with local attorneys who serve as co-counsel with our firm. Please read our disclaimer.