DOCSLIB.ORG

Case No. 8:11-Cv-01733-FMO (Anx)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:5312 1 Case No. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice) 2 Jeffrey M. Cohon (CSBN 131431) Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice) Howard Pollak (CSBN 147077 ) 3 CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP COHON & POLLAK, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue 4 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2320 Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041 Los Angeles, California 90067 5 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Telephone: (310) 231-4470 Telecopier: (610) 649-3633 6 Facsimile: (310) 231-4610 [email protected] [email protected] 7 [email protected] 8 Charles S. Fax (pro hac vice) Nicole Sugnet (CSBN 246255) Liesel J. Schopler (pro hac vice) 9 LEIFF CABRASER HEIMANN & RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON, BERNSTEIN, LLP 10 LLC 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400 11 San Francisco, California 94111-3339 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 12 Telephone: (301) 951-0150 Telecopier: (415) 956-1008 Telecopier: (301) 951-6535 13 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 14 [email protected] 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs David H. Weinstein (CSBN 43167) 16 Robert Kitchenoff (pro hac vice) 17 WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 18 100 South Broad St., Suite 705 19 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19110-1061 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 20 Telecopier: (215) 545-6535 21 [email protected] [email protected] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 61 Page ID #:5313 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 STEVE CHAMBERS, et al., on behalf Case No. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) of themselves and all others similarly situated, Honorable Fernando M. Olguin 4 5 Plaintiffs, Date: August 25, 2016 Time: 10:00 am 6 v. Place: Courtroom 22 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 10 11 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 13 FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 61 Page ID #:5314 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . iii 3 I. INTRODUCTION . 1 4 II. BACKGROUND . 3 5 A. The Dishwasher Owners Were Effectively Represented by 6 Distinguished Counsel . 4 7 B. The Settlement Was Achieved After Extensive, 8 Intensive Litigation . 6 9 C. The Settlement Provides Full Recovery, Promotes Safety and 10 Represents a Significant Victory for Consumers . 7 11 III. THE REQUESTED FEE IS FAIR, REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED. 10 12 A. The Fee Award Should Be Determined By The Lodestar-Plus- 13 Multiplier Method. 11 14 1. Class Counsel’s Lodestar Is Reasonab le . 15 15 a. Class Counsel’s Hourly Rates are Reasonable . 16 16 b. The Number of Hours Class Counsel Worked is 17 Reasonable. 19 18 2. The Requested Multiplier Is Appropriate. 25 19 a. Class Counsel Achieved a Favorable Class-Wide 20 Result. 26 21 b. This Case Involved Numerous Complex and Novel 22 Issues that Created a Significant Risk of Failure. 31 23 c. Class Counsel Assumed Significant Risk in 24 Prosecuting this Action on a Pure Contingency Basis. 32 25 d. Class Counsel’s Skill in Litigating and Settling these 26 Claims Further Supports the Requested Fee Award. 34 27 B. A Percentage Cross-Check Supports The Propriety Of The 28 Requested Fee. 34 i MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 61 Page ID #:5315 1 IV. CLASS COUNSEL SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THEIR 2 OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES, WHICH ARE REASONABLE. 44 3 V. THE REQUESTED SERVICE AWARDS FOR THE NAMED 4 PLAINTIFFS ARE REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE APPROVED. 46 5 A. The Service Awards Are Reasonable And Justified. 46 6 B. The Payment Of $100,000 For Plaintiff Steve Chambers’ 7 Websites Is Reasonable And Fair. 47 8 VI. CONCLUSION . 50 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 61 Page ID #:5316 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 421 (2011) . 6 4 Berger v. Property I.D. Corp., No. CV 05-5373-GHK (CWx), Dkt. No. 899 5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) . 17 6 Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189308 7 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2013) . 43, 49 8 Blackwell v. Foley, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2010) . 20 9 Boeing v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) . 35, 36 10 Browne v. American Honda Motor Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144823 11 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) . 22 12 Browning v. Yahoo! Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86266 13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007) . 36 14 Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach , 15 203 Cal. App. 4th 852 (2012) . 24 16 Cabrales v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991) . 22 17 Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) . 16 18 Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) . 14, 19 19 Center for Biological Diversity v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 20 185 Cal. App. 4th 866 (2010) . 22 21 Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 4th 43 (2008) . 33 22 Chemical Bank v. City of Seattle (In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. 23 Litig.), 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) . 32 24 Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) . 46 25 Coordination Proceeding Special Title Rule 1550b, 2004 Cal. Super. 26 LEXIS 257, *25 (2004) . 20 27 Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2008) . 26 28 iii MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 6 of 61 Page ID #:5317 1 Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 37 F.R.D. 240 2 (S.D. Ohio 1991) . 47 3 Feliciano v. Gonzalez, 13 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. P.R. 1998) . 5 4 Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46846 5 2014 WL 1350509 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2014) . 41 6 Goldkorn v. County of San Bernardino, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17934 7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2012) . 13, 14 8 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) . 11, 14, 15, 31, 34 9 Hawthorne v. Umpqua Bank, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56370 10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) . 47 11 Henderson v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. 12 LEXIS 46291 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2013) . 17 13 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) . 15, 22 14 Hopson v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33900 15 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2009) . 47 16 Horsford v. Board of Trustees, 132 Cal. App. 4th 359 (2005) . 24 17 Hughes v. Microsoft Corp., 2001 WL 34089697 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2001) . 47 18 In re A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. Securities Litig., 19 No. MDL 11-2302-GE (CWx), Dkt. No. 123 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013) . 17 20 In re Cenco Inc. Sec. Litig., 519 F. Supp. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1981) . 30 21 In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545, 22 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127 (2009) . 14, 15, 34 23 In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1261, 2004 U.S. Dist. 24 LEXIS 10532, *36 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2004) . 20 25 In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996) . 44 26 In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) . 47 27 In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 953 (9th Cir. 2015) . 42 28 In re Pacific Enterprises Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) . 44 iv MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND FOR SERVICE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO (ANx) Case 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-AN Document 218-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 7 of 61 Page ID #:5318 1 In re Philips/Magnavox TV Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67287 2 (D.N.J. May 14, 2012) . 18 3 In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnerships Litigation, 4 No.
Recommended publications
  • 1 United States District Court Southern District Of

    1 United States District Court Southern District Of

    Case 1:05-cv-01908-TWP-TAB Document 734 Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 74 PageID #: 20749 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MARY E. ORMOND, et al., ) On Behalf of Themselves and ) All Others Similarly Situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:05-cv-01908-TWP-TAB ) ANTHEM, INC., et al., ) Defendants. ) ) DECLARATION OF LYNN LINCOLN SARKO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION - AND – AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARDS Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, declare as follows: 1. I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter. I am one of the attorneys personally involved in the litigation of this matter. I make this Declaration based on personal knowledge and am competent to testify to the matters set out herein. 2. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the services rendered in the course of the above-captioned litigation of Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al. I am over the age of 21, have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and, if sworn as a witness, can competently testify to the facts stated herein. 3. I am the Managing Partner of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., the head of the firm’s Complex Litigation group. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a national leader in plaintiffs’ class action 1 Case 1:05-cv-01908-TWP-TAB Document 734 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 74 PageID #: 20750 litigation.

  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020

    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
  • 1 2 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

    1 2 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

    Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6876 Page 1 of 10 1 MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) 2 RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 3 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 4 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) 7 PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 8 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 9 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 10 [email protected] [email protected] 11 [email protected] 12 Class Counsel 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB behalf of all other similarly situated current 16 and former employees of KFC U.S. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR Properties, Inc., FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 17 SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL Plaintiffs, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT 18 CLASS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 19 THEREOF KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware 20 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Hearing Date: January 28, 2013 inclusive, Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 Courtroom: 16 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6877 Page 2 of 10 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard, in Courtroom 16 of this Court, located at 940 Front St., San Diego, CA 92101, 4 Plaintiffs will, and hereby do, move for orders granting final approval of the parties’ class action 5 settlement, and finally certifying the proposed settlement class.
  • Annual Report with Updated Links.Qxd

    Annual Report with Updated Links.Qxd

    The Judicial Council of the Ninth Front row: Chief District Judge William B. Shubb, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman Back row: Senior District Judge Jack D. Shanstrom, Senior District Judge Robert J. Bryan, District Judge Judith N. Keep, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Geraldine Mund, Chief District Judge James K. Singleton, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima Missing: Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher c1 Ninth Circuit United States Court Mission Statement United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit The Mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to support the effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administra- tion of the courts within the Circuit. To do so, it will promote the fair and prompt reso- lution of disputes, ensure the effective dis- charge of court business, prevent any form of invidious discrimination, and enhance public understanding of, and confidence in, the judiciary. Acknowledgements for their contributions to the 2001 Annual Report: Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder Chief Pretrial Services Officer Tim McTighe Chief Probation Officer David F. Sanders Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Nancy Dickerson Federal Public Defender Fredric Kay Staff Attorney Paul Keller Section 1 2 Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder 1 of Contents Table 4 An Overview of the Ninth Circuit 5 The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council 6 Ninth Circuit Representatives
  • 2020-03-31 Litigation Rules Update Summaries.Xlsx

    2020-03-31 Litigation Rules Update Summaries.Xlsx

    Litigation Rules Update Summaries Update Summary March 31, 2020: The following new Rules Sets were created: No new Rules Sets were created. The following Rules Sets were renamed: CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Chief Mag. Paul L. Abrams CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Mag. Patrick J. Walsh The following Rules Sets were removed: CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Andrew J. Guilford CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Andrew J. Guilford ‐ Patent CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Justin L. Quackenbush CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Manuel L. Real The following Rules Sets were revised: United States Court of Appeals ‐‐ Tenth Circuit United States Court of Federal Claims USBC ‐‐ S.D. Alabama USDC ‐‐ District of Alaska USDC ‐‐ District of Alaska Local Admiralty Rules USDC ‐‐ C.D. California Local Civil Rules CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Jesus G. Bernal CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Cormac J. Carney CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge David O. Carter CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Dolly M. Gee CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Philip S. Gutierrez CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge R. Gary Klausner CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge John A. Kronstadt CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge John A. Kronstadt ‐ Patent CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Fernando M. Olguin CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge S. James Otero CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge S. James Otero ‐ Patent CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Dean D. Pregerson CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge James V. Selna CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Josephine L. Staton CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge John F. Walter CDCA Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Otis D.
  • The Defense on Appeal of California Trial Court Order

    The Defense on Appeal of California Trial Court Order

    * People v. Atlantic Richfield Co.: The defense on appeal of California trial court order requiring paint manufacturers to contribute over $1 billion to abate hazards caused by deteriorating lead-based paint in private homes. * In re Anthem Inc. Data Breach: Co-lead counsel in federal multi-district litigation involving hundreds of consumer class actions against Anthem, Inc. and its affiliated Blue Cross-Blue Shield companies for allegedly failing to maintain the confidentiality of the personal information of approximately 80 million Americans, in one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history. * Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 v. Wasden: A federal court challenge to Idaho’s “Right to Work” statute as preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and as a taking without due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. * Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court: An amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of three international unions to establish the proper definition of “employee” to be used in California Labor Code and Wage Order cases brought by workers alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors. * Patterson v. Raymour’s Furniture Co./AT&T Mobility Svcs., LLC v. NLRB/Professional Janitorial Svc. v. NLRB/Price-Simms, Inc. v. NLRB//24 Hour Fitness v. NLRB/Everglades College, Inc. v. NLRB/The Rose Group v. NLRB/ Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC: Party and amicus briefing in challenges pending in the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, and in the Supreme Court, to mandatory employment arbitration agreements that prohibit joint, class, and representative actions, as violating the right to engage in concerted protected activity guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
  • 2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original US Government Works

    2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original US Government Works

    Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan & Board of Directors..., Slip Copy (2017) 2017 WL 748980 2017 WL 748980 Directing Parties to Confer and File Notice of an Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Agreed Award of Interest on the Fee Award or United States District Court, Briefs on that Issue by Monday, April 17, 2017 C.D. California. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, U.S. DISTRICT Lenai Mull et al., Plaintiffs JUDGE v. *1 This was an action under the Employee Retirement Motion Picture Industry Health Plan Income and Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 & Board of Directors of Motion Picture et seq., as amended (“ERISA”). Four plaintiffs—Lenai Industry Health Plan, Defendants Mull (“Lenai”), her father Norman Mull (“Norman”), Motion Picture Industry Health Plan mother Danielle Mull (“Danielle”), and sister Carson and Board of Directors of Motion Picture Mull (“Carson”)—filed the original complaint against the Industry Health Plan, Counterclaimants Motion Picture Industry (“MPI”) Health Plan and the v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan Board of Directors Lenai Mull and Norman Mull, (collectively “the Plan”). Plaintiffs asserted one legal claim Counterclaim-Defendants and one equitable claim. Defendants filed a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In December 2012, this Case No. LA CV 12-06693-VBF Court partially granted and partially denied the motion to | dismiss. As to plaintiffs' legal claim, the Court held that Filed 02/27/2017 plaintiffs “failed to state a claim that the reimbursement provision violated the clarity requirements of the statute Attorneys and Law Firms and regulations.” Mull v.