SETTLED CASES

(References to class action cases will be by name and case description since they are in essence “public” in nature and no reasonable privacy concerns can attend to participation in a class action.  However, individual cases involve personal claims and issues that might create significant privacy concerns for the litigants, and as such we will refer to such cases only generically and not by identification of the individual parties in order to preserve their privacy.)

In re:  Pre-Paid Cellular Litigation:

This case was brought against the organizers of what was alleged to be an investment “scam” to sell partnership interests in multiple “territories” where pre-paid phone services would be marketed.  Investors from around the country participated in this venture and lost millions of dollars in investments.  Many of these were small investors, some of them elderly, and all had been “sold” on the promise that the business was legitimate and would produce significant returns.  In fact, the business was without demonstrable substance and the investors lost their money.  We brought a class action in Denver, Colorado (where the scheme was headquartered) and sued the company, its individual owners and organizers, and its lawyers.  After nearly four years of litigation we obtained a favorable judgment, including a settlement with the involved law firm and several of the individual principles in the investment scheme.

In re:  First Plus Financial:

In one of the first cases of its type we successfully prosecuted an action against one of the largest sub-prime mortgage lenders for an assortment of labor violations including unpaid overtime, improper payroll deductions, and related penalty claims.  We pursued this claim even into bankruptcy court in Texas where the company was headquartered and obtained a recovery that still makes periodic payments to each class member.

Parks v. Eastwood Insurance Services, Inc.

This was a collective class action under the FLSA for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of sales agents who were employed by Eastwood Insurance.  After three and one-half years of vigorous litigation, this action was resolved by the Honorable Gary L. Taylor days before trial was set to start.  The defendant, however, would not agree to pay attorney’s fees, thereby forcing comprehensive law and motion work on this issue.  In July of 2005, the Honorable Gary L. Taylor (Ret.) issued a favorable ruling.  Parks v. Eastwood, 2005 WL 6007833 (June 28, 2005).  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in large part, affirmed this ruling.  Parks v. Eastwood, 2007 WL 1430289 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dzierlatka v. Bristol-Meyer Squibb (California case number BC076039).

This was a nationwide antitrust action charging Bristol-Meyer Squibb of illegal efforts to block generic rivals to its cancer treatment drug Taxol.  This case resulted in a nationwide settlement for third-party payors.  Aashish Desai served as coordinating counsel for the California class members.

Doe v. Los Angeles Archdiocese (consolidated proceedings in Los Angeles Complex Litigation Department).

We represented as individual who claimed years of clergy sex abuse when he was a minor.  After years of procedural and legal machinations, the case was resolved.  The case was part of the global settlement which made headlines as the largest payout ever for the sex abuse scandal levied against the church.

Ellmore v. DiTech Funding, (SACV-01-93).

This was a class and collective action in federal court on behalf of loan officers and processors who were denied overtime wages under both the UCL and FLSA.  We were co-lead counsel in this prosecution with Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Baller.  After a year of litigation, during which the case split into two parts, a global, combined settlement was reached.  Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court issued final approval and the action is now dismissed.

Rooke v. McDonalds and Simon Marketing

This was a consumer class action which challenged the propriety of the popular “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” game at the fast-food giant.  We claimed that the defendants rigged the game so that no one had a legitimate chance to win as a result of Simon Marketing’s rogue executive  who pilfered the winning game pieces to family members and friends for a cash return.  The case settled with McDonald’s agreeing to again run the game so members of the public who lost a chance would now get a chance to win - the defendants also agreed to pay reasonable fees and costs.  It was a fair and just result given the facts.