Settlement Agreement - Remington Arms Class Action Settlement

Transcription

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
IAN POLLARD, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
Case No. 4:13-CV-00086-ODS
SECOND AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
958514
Case 4:13-cv-00086-ODS Document 86-1 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBITS ..................................................................................................................................... iii
I. RECITALS .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 5
III. REQUIRED EVENTS ............................................................................................................ 12
IV. SETTLEMENT BENEFITS ................................................................................................... 15
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS ......... 18
VI. OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION ......................................................... 22
VII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES............................................................................................................ 23
VIII. REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF AWARDS .................................................................... 24
IX. RELEASE ............................................................................................................................... 24
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ........................................................................................ 25
958514
ii
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – Claim Forms
Exhibit B – Long Form Notice
Exhibit C – Short Form Notice
Exhibit D – Direct Notice
Exhibit E – CAFA Notice
958514
iii
This Second Amended Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), including its
attached Exhibits, is entered into as of this 7th day of April, 2015, by and among Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Class Members, and Defendants Remington
Arms Company, LLC, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, and Sporting Goods Properties,
Inc., to settle and compromise the Action and to discharge the Released Parties as set forth
herein.
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, until November 30, 1993, the Delaware company known as Remington Arms
Company, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (“Du
Pont”) and was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, and selling firearms and
ammunition products;
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1993, Du Pont sold substantially all of the assets of Remington
Arms Company, Inc. to Remington Acquisition Corporation, Inc. (“RACI”);
WHEREAS, Remington Arms Company, Inc. then changed its name to Sporting Goods
Properties, Inc. (“SGPI”), and SGPI remains a wholly-owned Du Pont subsidiary;
WHEREAS, RACI is now known as Remington Arms Company, LLC (“Remington”);
WHEREAS, from 1948 through November 30, 1993, SGPI manufactured certain models of
firearms which incorporated trigger mechanisms utilizing a component known as a trigger
connector, including the Model 700 bolt-action rifle containing the Walker trigger mechanism;1
WHEREAS, after December 1, 1993, Remington manufactured certain models of firearms which
incorporated trigger mechanisms utilizing a component known as a trigger connector, including
the Model 700 bolt-action rifle containing the Walker trigger mechanism;
WHEREAS, beginning in May 2006, Remington began to manufacture certain firearms with
trigger mechanisms that did not utilize a trigger connector component;
WHEREAS, such trigger mechanisms on Model 700 and Model Seven rifles are known as XMark Pro® trigger mechanisms;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed four putative class actions against Defendants in federal
district courts in 2012 and 2013 arising out of the marketing and sale of Model 700 bolt-action
rifles containing the Walker trigger mechanism (Chapman v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al.,
No. 1:12-cv-24561 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2012); Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No.
4:13-cv-00086 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2013); Moodie v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No. 2:13cv-00172 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2013); Huleatt v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No. 9:13-cv00113 (D. Mont. June 4, 2013)) (hereinafter “the putative class actions”);
WHEREAS, unrelated counsel filed a fifth putative class action against Defendants in federal
district court in December 2013 arising out of the marketing and sale of Model 700 bolt-action
1
SGPI has not been engaged in the firearms and ammunition business since December 1, 1993.
958514
1
rifles containing the Walker trigger mechanism (Hembree v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al.,
No. 3:13-cv-05161 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 17, 2013)), which was later dismissed pursuant to Rule 41
on December 30, 2013. The Hembree action was a nearly identical lawsuit that made identical
claims to the putative class actions;
WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the putative class actions alleged that the Walker trigger mechanism
is defectively designed because it utilizes a trigger connector which can result in accidental
discharges without the trigger being pulled, and that the value and utility of such Model 700 boltaction rifles have been diminished as a result of the alleged defective design;
WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the putative class actions sought damages and equitable relief, on
behalf of themselves and other class members, premised on alleged economic losses, and did not
seek damages or other relief for personal injury or property damage claims;
WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in Chapman, Pollard, Moodie, and Huleatt alleged that Remington’s
X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism was a safe alternative to the Walker trigger mechanism;
WHEREAS, Defendants filed motions to dismiss in Chapman, Pollard, Moodie, and Huleatt,
resulting in the dismissal of some but not all claims in Pollard and Moodie on June 17 and
August 2, 2013, respectively;
WHEREAS, the Parties served written discovery requests in Chapman, Pollard, and Moodie;
WHEREAS, Chapman was voluntarily dismissed on August 21, 2013, Huleatt was voluntarily
dismissed on October 1, 2013, and, as set forth above, Hembree was voluntarily dismissed on
December 30, 2013, resulting in the maintenance of Pollard and Moodie only;
WHEREAS, the Parties served responses and objections to written discovery requests in Pollard
and Moodie;
WHEREAS, certain of Plaintiffs’ Counsel had previously conducted extensive discovery
regarding Model 700 bolt-action rifles and the Walker trigger mechanism from prior and pending
litigation against Defendants, Defendants as part of that prior discovery produced hundreds of
thousands of documents dealing with the core issues in the present litigation, i.e., the design of
the Walker trigger mechanism and the accidental discharging of rifles without a trigger pull, and
the Parties in this litigation agreed that Defendants would not be required to reproduce
documents that were already within Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s possession;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel reviewed over 1,000,000 pages of documents as part of their
investigation and analysis into the facts of this litigation;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted extensive investigations into the facts and
circumstances related to this litigation, including consulting with experts, interviewing potential
witnesses, conducting inspections of firearms, and researching and studying legal principles
applicable to the issues of liability, damages, jurisdiction and procedure;
WHEREAS, while discovery was being conducted, settlement discussions commenced in the
summer of 2013;
958514
2
WHEREAS, in approximately September 2013, the settlement discussions progressed to the
point where the Parties decided that the next step would be to participate in non-binding
mediation. As a result, the Parties informed the Pollard and Moodie courts of their intention to
attempt to mediate the cases, and were granted requests to maintain the current status of the cases
pending mediation;
WHEREAS, the Parties, through their counsel, attended and participated in five in-person
mediation sessions conducted by John W. Perry (“the Mediator”), who is an experienced,
independent mediator, and further engaged in additional extensive communications with the
Mediator and each other;
WHEREAS, prior to and during the mediation sessions, the Parties exchanged information and
documents which allowed each side to further evaluate their claims and defenses;
WHEREAS, while mediation was ongoing, the Parties agreed that Remington’s X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism could be an appropriate retrofit for Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman
78, and 673 firearms containing a Walker trigger mechanism, subject to confirmatory discovery
and confirmation by Plaintiffs’ experts;
WHEREAS, also while mediation was ongoing, the Parties agreed that the current Model 770
Connectorless Trigger Mechanism could be an appropriate retrofit for Remington Model 710,
715, and 770 firearms containing a trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector, subject to
confirmatory discovery and confirmation by Plaintiffs’ experts;
WHEREAS, after the agreement that the X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism was an appropriate
retrofit, Remington learned that the then-existing X-Mark Pro assembly process created the
potential for the application of an excess amount of bonding agent, which could cause Model 700
and Model Seven bolt-action rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms to discharge
without a trigger pull under certain limited conditions;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel were informed by Remington, and through their own
independent investigations, of certain limited conditions which could potentially cause Model
700 and Model Seven bolt-action rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms to discharge
without a trigger pull;
WHEREAS, the Parties are unaware of any personal injury caused by or as a consequence of an
X-Mark Pro assembled with excess bonding agent;
WHEREAS, on or about April 11, 2014, and after consultation and coordination with Plaintiffs’
Counsel, Remington undertook a voluntary recall of all Model 700 and Model Seven bolt-action
rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9,
2014;
WHEREAS, under the terms of the voluntary recall, Remington instituted a specialty cleaning,
inspection, and testing process to remove any excess bonding agent that may have been applied
in affected X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms;
958514
3
WHEREAS, Remington also changed and improved its assembly processes with regard to the XMark Pro trigger mechanism, so the excess bonding agent issue cannot occur again;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ experts agree that triggers that have been specialty
cleaned, inspected, and tested are equivalent in terms of safety and performance as triggers
manufactured under the changed and improved assembly process;
WHEREAS, once Remington was able to manufacture substantial numbers of X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanisms to be used as replacement triggers in affected rifles, it provided recall
participants the option to receive a replacement trigger or have their trigger specialty cleaned;
WHEREAS, current participants in the voluntary recall are provided with new triggers
manufactured under the changed and improved assembly process rather than the specialty clean,
inspection, and testing;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed motions for leave to amend the complaints in Pollard and
Moodie to include additional class action allegations arising out of the X-Mark Pro recall;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ experts, along with their Counsel, have conducted an inspection of
Remington’s changed and improved assembly process, examined X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanisms manufactured and assembled under the revised process, and confirmed that X-Mark
Pro trigger mechanisms manufactured under the revised assembly process are safe and reliable
mechanisms suitable for retrofit in Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, and 673
firearms containing a Walker trigger mechanism;
WHEREAS, the Parties continued to mediate the cases, and following the fifth in-person
mediation session, the Parties reached the material terms of this Settlement Agreement in July
2014;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file a proposed amended complaint in Pollard in conjunction
with this Settlement Agreement that seeks certification of two nationwide settlement classes
(broken into various sub-classes) to encompass economic-loss claims involving: (1) all Model
700, 721, 722, 725, Seven, Sportsman 78, 600, 660, 673, XP-100, 710, 715, and 770 firearms
manufactured by Remington or SGPI that contain trigger mechanisms that utilize a trigger
connector; and (2) Model 700 and Seven bolt-action rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanisms that are subject to the April 2014 voluntary recall;
WHEREAS, in July 2014, the Parties notified this Court and the Moodie court of their desire to
resolve both cases through the certification of the aforementioned nationwide settlement classes;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the Action have substantial merit;
however, taking into account the extensive burdens and expense of litigation, including the risks
and uncertainties associated with protracted trials and appeals, as well as the fair, cost-effective
and assured method of resolving the claims of the Settlement Classes, Plaintiffs and their
Counsel have concluded that the Settlement Agreement provides substantial benefits to the
Settlement Classes, and is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Classes;
958514
4
WHEREAS, Defendants deny that the design of the Walker trigger mechanism or other trigger
mechanisms utilizing a trigger connector are defective and can result in accidental discharges
without the trigger being pulled, as well as deny Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations, wrongdoing of
any kind, and believe that the Action is without merit, Defendants have also taken into account
the uncertainty, risk, delay, and costs inherent in litigation and agreed to enter into the Settlement
Agreement to avoid any further litigation expenses and inconvenience, to remove the distraction
of burdensome and protracted litigation, and to provide customers with the benefits outlined
below rather than spending this money on costly litigation;
WHEREAS, Defendants have agreed to class treatment of the claims asserted in the Action
solely for the purpose of effectuating the compromise and Settlement of those claims on class
bases, as set forth herein, and deny that the Action properly could proceed on class bases for
purposes of litigation or for trial;
WHEREAS, it is the intention and desire of the Parties to compromise, resolve, dismiss and
release all allegations, disputes, and claims for damages or equitable relief arising out of, or
relating to, the sale, marketing, design, and/or use of the trigger mechanisms in all of the firearms
that are the subject of this Settlement on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement that
have been or could have been brought by Plaintiffs themselves and on behalf of Settlement Class
Members against Defendants;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is an
appropriate nationwide resolution accomplished through the benefits, releases, and orders set
forth in or attached to this Settlement Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire not only to end further burdensome and protracted litigation but
also to create the claims process that is set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, without an admission or concession on the part of Plaintiffs on the lack of
merit of the Action or an admission or concession of liability or wrongdoing or the lack of merit
of any defense by Defendants, it is stipulated and agreed by Defendants and Plaintiffs, acting for
themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Classes, that, on the following terms and conditions,
the Action shall be settled and dismissed with prejudice as among Plaintiffs, the Settlement
Classes, and Defendants upon Final Approval of the Court after the hearing(s) provided for in the
Settlement; and the Settlement Class Members shall release all Released Claims against
Defendants and all Released Parties.
II. DEFINITIONS
1.
As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the defined
meanings set forth below.
2.
“Action” means the case originally captioned Ian Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et
al., No. 4:13-cv-00086, originally filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on January 28, 2013.
958514
5
3.
“Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses” means the amounts approved by the Court for payment
to Class Counsel, including attorneys’ fees, costs, litigation expenses, fees and expenses
of experts.
4.
“Claim Form” means the claim form, substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A to
this Settlement Agreement, which must be timely and fully completed and submitted by
any Settlement Class Member in order to be eligible for any settlement benefits. The
Claim Form will be available on the Settlement Website and by calling the Settlement
Phone Number.
5.
“Claims Period” means the time during which any Settlement Class Member may submit
a Claim Form under the Settlement. The Claims Period begins upon entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order and expires eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date.
6.
“Claims Process” means the process by which Settlement Class Members may request
and receive settlement benefits.
7.
“Class Action Settlement Administrator” means Angeion Group.
8.
“Class Counsel” means Richard J. Arsenault, of Neblett Beard & Arsenault; Charles E.
Schaffer of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman; Eric D. Holland of Holland, Groves,
Schneller & Stolze, LLC; and W. Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm.
9.
“Connectorless Trigger Mechanism” means a trigger mechanism that does not utilize a
trigger connector, and includes the X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism and the current Model
770 trigger mechanism.
10.
“Court” means the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
11.
“Defendants” means Remington Arms Company, LLC; E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company; and Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.
12.
“Defendants’ Counsel” means the following, either individually or collectively:
Dale G. Wills
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 923-8266
John K. Sherk
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 474-6550
13.
“Direct Notice” means the form of notice described in ¶ 60.
958514
6
14.
“Du Pont” means E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company.
15.
“Effective Date” means the latest date on which the Final Approval Order approving this
Agreement becomes final. For purposes of this Agreement: (a) if no appeal has been
taken from the Final Order, the Effective Date is the date on which the time to appeal
therefrom has expired; or (b) if any appeal has been taken from the Final Order, the
Effective Date means the date on which all appeals therefrom, including petitions for
rehearing or reargument, petitions for rehearing en banc and petitions for certiorari or any
other form of review, have been finally disposed of and/or have expired in a manner that
affirms the Final Order; or (c) if Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendants agree in writing, the
Effective Date can occur on any other agreed date.
16.
“Long Form Notice” means the form of notice described in ¶¶ 62-63.
17.
“Mediator” means John W. Perry, Esq., of Perry Dampf Dispute Solutions, 721
Government Street, Suite 102, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802.
18.
“Notice” means the Court-approved form of notice of this Settlement Agreement to the
Settlement Classes, as described in Section V below, and substantially in the forms
attached hereto as Exhibits B through D (Long Form Notice, Short Form Notice, and
Direct Notice).
19.
“Notice and Claims Administration Expenses” means all reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in connection with preparing, printing, publishing, and mailing the Notice, as
well as processing claims and administering the Settlement Agreement.
20.
“Notice Plan” means the plan for disseminating Notice to the Settlement Classes, which
shall include: (1) publication of a Short Form Notice; (2) Direct Notice; and (3)
maintenance of a Settlement Website, which shall make available the Short Form Notice,
Long Form Notice, Claim Form, Settlement Agreement, joint press release, joint motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement, Preliminary Approval Order, Class
Counsel’s request for fees, and Final Approval Order.
21.
“Parties” means Plaintiffs and Defendants.
22.
“Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, association,
joint stock company, estate, legal representative, trust, unincorporated association,
business, legal entity, government or any political subdivision or agency thereof.
23.
“Plaintiffs” means Dylan Anderson, Rodney Barbre, Wallace Brown, John Corsi, Chase
Delperdang, Gordon Hardaway, Roger Keesy, William Massie, William Moodie, Gary
Otis, Ian Pollard, James Waterman, and Mitchell Winterburn.
24.
“Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means the following, either individually or collectively, in whole or
in part:
958514
7
Richard Arsenault
NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
2220 Bonaventure Court
Alexandria, LA 71301
Charles E. Schaffer
Brian F. Fox
LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Eric D. Holland
R. Seth Crompton
HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER &
STOLZE, LLC
300 North Tucker Blvd., Ste.801
St. Louis, MO 63101
W. Mark Lanier
LANIER LAW FIRM
6810 FM 1960 West
Houston, TX 77069
John R. Climaco
John A. Peca
CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO
& GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Jordan L. Chaikin
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard Suite 103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Richard Ramler
RAMLER LAW OFFICE, PC
202 W. Madison Avenue
Belgrade, MT 59714
Timothy W. Monsees
MONSEES & MAYER, PC
4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 820
Jon D. Robinson
Christopher Ellis
BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP
202 South Franklin, 2nd Floor
Decatur, IL 62523
25.
“Preliminary Approval Order” means the order to be entered by the Court pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, substantially in the form that shall be transmitted to the
Courtroom Deputy concurrently with the Motion for Preliminary Approval.
26.
“Released Claims” means all claims, demands, rights, damages, obligations, suits, debts,
liens, contracts, agreements, and causes of action of every nature and description
whatsoever, ascertained or unascertained, suspected or unsuspected, existing now or
arising in the future, whether known or unknown, both at law and in equity which were or
could have been brought against Defendants, or any of them, based upon or related in any
way to the trigger mechanisms in the rifle models subject to the Settlement Agreement or
any component parts thereof, whether arising under statute, rule, regulation, common law
or equity, and including, but not limited to, any and all claims, causes of action, rights or
entitlements under any federal, state, local or other statute, law, rule and/or regulation,
any consumer protection, consumer fraud, unfair business practices or deceptive trade
practices laws, any legal or equitable theories, any claims or causes of action in tort,
contract, products liability, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, consumer
958514
8
protection, restitution, quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, express warranty, implied
warranty, and/or any injuries, losses, damages or remedies of any kind, in law or in
equity, under common law, statute, rule or regulation, including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, economic losses or damages, exemplary damages, punitive
damages, statutory damages, restitution, or any other legal or equitable relief. Released
claims also include any claim for attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and catalyst fees under
any state’s law or under federal law. This release expressly exempts claims for personal
injury and personal property damage.
27.
“Released Persons” means Defendants Remington Arms Company, LLC; E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company; Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.; all manufacturers and assemblers
of Settlement Firearms, and each of their component parts; the entities supplying the
aforementioned companies with component parts; and all past, present and future
officers, directors, shareholders, employees, predecessors, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries,
partners, limited partners, insurers, administrators, agents, servants, successors, trustees,
vendors, subcontractors, independent contractors, attorneys, representatives, heirs,
executors, experts, consultants, and assigns of all the foregoing Persons.
28.
“Releasing Persons” shall include Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members, and each
of their respective heirs, executors, representatives, agents, assigns, and successors.
29.
“Remington” means Remington Arms Company, LLC.
30.
“Remington Authorized Repair Center” or “RARC” means the following third-party
entities that Remington has authorized to remove and replace trigger mechanisms
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement. Additional Remington Authorized Repair
Centers are being established and will be listed on the Settlement Website and
communicated via the Settlement Phone Number.
958514
Alhman’s Inc.
9525 West 230th Street
Morristown, MN 55052
507-685-4244
Allison & Carey Gunworks
17311 South East Stark
Portland, OR 97233
503-256-5166
B&B Arms LLC
9283 US HWY 220 Business, North
Randleman, NC 27317
336-339-3199
Carter Gunsmithing
938 West Utah Ave.
Payson, UT 84651
801-465-7945
Dick Williams Gun Shop, Inc.
4985 Cole Road
Saginaw, MI 48601
989-777-1240
The Gunworks of Central New York
5366 State Route 31
Verona, NY 13478
315-363-7041
9
J & G Gunsmithing
7680 Barton Rd.
Granite Bay, CA 95746
916-786-9200
Mann & Son Sporting Goods
515 West Water Street
Pinckneyville, IL 62274
618-357-2911
Mark’s Outdoor Sports
1400-B Montgomery Hwy.
Birmingham, AL 35216
205-822-3155
McClelland Gun Shop
1533 Centerville Road
Dallas, TX 75228
214-321-0231
Paducah Shooters Supply
3919 Cairo Road
Paducah, KY 42001
877-772-3006
Reloading Center
515 West Main Street
Burley, ID 83318
208-878-5053
Scheels All Sport
Jordan Creek Town Center
101 Jordan Creek Parkway
West Des Moines, IA 50266
515-727-4065
Scheels All Sport
2101 West 41st Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57105
605-334-7767
Skip’s Gun Shop
837 Lake Street
Bristol, NH 03222
603-744-3100
Southland Gun Works, Inc.
1228 Harry Byrd Hwy
Darlington, SC 29532
843-393-6291
Sports World
6841 East 41 Street
Tulsa, OK 74145
918-742-4027
Sprague’s Sports Inc.
345 W 32nd St.
Yuma, AZ 85364
928-726-0022
Triton Arms
7668 Peppers Ferry Rd.
Max Meadows, VA 24360
276-620-8571
Upper Missouri Trading Company, Inc.
PO Box 100/304 Harold Street
Crofton, NE 68730
402-388-4844
Wild West Guns
7100 Homer Drive
Anchorage, AK 99518
907-344-4500
Williams Gun Sight & Outfitters
7389 Lapeer Road
Davison, MI 48423
810-653-2131
31.
“Settlement” means the settlement set forth in this Second Amended Settlement
Agreement.
32.
“Settlement Agreement” means this document which describes the Second Amended
Settlement.
958514
10
33.
“Settlement Class A” means all current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven,
Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms
containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector, as set forth in
the sub-class definitions for Classes A(1), A(2), A(3) and A(4), below. Excluded from
the class are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the Action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours & Company, and each of their
subsidiaries and affiliates. Membership in Settlement Class A shall be determined as of
the date of the Preliminary Approval Order.
34.
“Settlement Class B” means all current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model
Seven rifles containing an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1,
2006 to April 9, 2014 who have not participated in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product
recall; and all current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven
rifles who replaced their rifle’s original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014, as set forth in the
sub-class definitions for Classes B(1) and B(2), below. Excluded from the class are: (a)
persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories; (b)
any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the Action and members of their families;
(c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods
Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours & Company, and each of their subsidiaries and
affiliates. Membership in Settlement Class B shall be determined as of the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order.
35.
“Settlement Classes” means Settlement Class A and Settlement Class B, and all subclasses contained therein.
36.
“Settlement Class Members” means all persons who are members of one or both
Settlement Classes and who do not timely and properly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class(es) to which they belong pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
37.
“Settlement Firearm” means Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715,
770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms containing a trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector; and Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing
an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014.
38.
“Settlement Website” means the website that will provide Settlement Class Members
with information about the Settlement, and which will be located at
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com.
39.
“Settlement Phone Number” means the toll-free telephone number that Settlement Class
Members can call to obtain information about the Settlement from an authorized
representative.
40.
“Settling Parties” means Settlement Class Members and Defendants.
41.
“SGPI” means Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.
958514
11
42.
“Short Form Notice” means the form of notice described in ¶ 61 which the Class Action
Settlement Administrator will cause to be published in certain print media as part of the
Notice Plan.
43.
“Trigger connector” means the component part in certain Remington trigger mechanisms,
including the Walker trigger mechanism, which engages with the sear.
44.
“Walker trigger mechanism” means the Remington trigger mechanism in certain
Remington firearms, including Model 700 bolt-action rifles manufactured prior to 2006,
which utilizes a trigger connector.
45.
“X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism” means the Remington trigger mechanism in certain
Remington firearms, including Model 700 bolt-action rifles manufactured beginning in
2006, which does not utilize a trigger connector.
46.
“United States” means the United States and its territories.
III. REQUIRED EVENTS
47.
In conjunction with filing the executed Settlement Agreement with the Court, Plaintiffs
shall file a motion for leave to file an Amended Class Action Complaint naming Dylan
Anderson, Rodney Barbre, Wallace Brown, John Corsi, Chase Delperdang, Gordon
Hardaway, Roger Keesy, William Massie, William Moodie, Gary Otis, Ian Pollard,
James Waterman, and Mitchell Winterburn as Plaintiffs and seeking certification of the
following Settlement Classes:
Settlement Class A(1):
All current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven,
Sportsman 78, and 673 firearms containing a Remington
trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector.
Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories;
(b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action
and members of their families; (c) governmental
purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting
Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
“Trigger Connector Class”).
All current owners of Remington Model 710, 715, and 770,
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are: (a)
persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United
States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge
958514
12
presiding over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company,
LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont
Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries and
affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”).
All current owners of Remington Model 600, 660, and XP100 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism
that utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class
are: (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate
Judge presiding over the action and members of their
families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms
Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”).
All current owners of Remington Model 721, 722, and 725
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are: (a)
persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United
States or its territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge
presiding over the action and members of their families; (c)
affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”).
Settlement Class B(1):
All current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model
Seven rifles containing an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism
manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who have
not participated in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall.
Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
citizens nor residents of the United States or its territories;
(b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action
and members of their families; (c) governmental
purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC, Sporting
Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
“X-Mark Pro Class”).
958514
13
Settlement Class B(2):
All current and former owners of Remington Model 700
and Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle’s original
Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9,
2014. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are
neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
affiliates (the “X-Mark Pro Class”).
48.
Within a reasonable time following the filing of this Settlement Agreement with the
Court, the Parties also agree to file a joint motion to stay in connection with case number
2:13-cv-00172-JCC, Moodie, et al. v. Remington, et al. (W.D. Wash., Coughenour, J.)
(the “Moodie” or “Washington Action”). The joint motion to stay will seek to stay the
case until the Effective Date of the Settlement as defined in this Settlement Agreement.
However, if the Settlement Agreement is not approved and/or does not become effective,
the Plaintiffs and Defendants will be restored without prejudice to their respective
positions in the Pollard and Moodie actions as if the Settlement Agreement, any
application for its approval by the Court, and the filing of the proposed Amended Class
Action Complaint in the Pollard Action had not been made, submitted or filed.
Defendants further agree that they will not seek to dismiss the Moodie action or the
Moodie class representatives on the account that the Moodie class representatives were
named as class representatives in the Pollard proposed amended complaint filed in
conjunction with the approval of this proposed Settlement.
49.
The Parties shall file a joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Class,
Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Approval of Notice Plan, Appointment of Notice
Administrator, and Appointment of Class Counsel (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”).
The Motion for Preliminary Approval shall, among other things:
958514
(a)
Include a supporting declaration from Remington’s firearms expert, Derek L.
Watkins, and from Plaintiffs’ expert, Charles W. Powell; and
(b)
Seek entry of a proposed Preliminary Approval Order which would, for settlement
purposes only, conditionally certify the Settlement Classes; preliminarily approve
the Settlement Agreement; approve the proposed Notice Plan, including the Long
Form, Short Form, and Direct Notices, as set forth in Exhibits B-D and Section V
of this Settlement Agreement; approve the Claim Forms, attached as Exhibit A;
appoint Angeion Group as the Class Action Settlement Administrator; appoint
14
Class Counsel; schedule the Final Approval Hearing; and set a briefing schedule
for the Final Approval Hearing.
50.
In accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Parties shall
subsequently file a joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (“Motion for Final
Approval”). The Motion shall seek entry of a proposed Final Approval Order that would,
among other things: grant final approval of the Settlement Agreement and direct its
implementation pursuant to its terms and conditions; discharge and release the Released
Persons, and each of them, from the Released Claims; permanently bar and enjoin all
Releasing Persons from instituting, maintaining, or prosecuting, either directly or
indirectly, any lawsuit that asserts Released Claims; direct that the action be dismissed
with prejudice and without costs; state pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
that there is no just reason for delay and directing that the Final Approval Order and
Judgment is a final, appealable order; and reserve to the Court continuing and exclusive
jurisdiction over the Settling Parties with respect to the Settlement Agreement and the
Final Approval Order. In particular, the proposed Final Approval Order shall specify
that, without in any way affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order, the Court
expressly retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Parties, including the
Settlement Class, in all matters relating to the administration, consummation, validity,
enforcement and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval
Order, including, without limitation, for the purpose of: (a) enforcing the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement and negotiations and resolving any disputes that
arise out of the implementation or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement; (b) entering
such additional orders, if any, as may be necessary or appropriate to protect or effectuate
the Final Order and the Settlement Agreement (including, without limitation, orders
enjoining persons or entities pursuing any claims), or to ensure the fair and orderly
administration of the Settlement; and (c) entering any other necessary or appropriate
orders to protect and effectuate this Court’s retention of continuing jurisdiction over the
Settlement Agreement, and the Parties in matters relating to the implementation or
enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
IV. SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
51.
To receive any settlement benefit, a Settlement Class Member must first fully execute a
Claim Form. Claim Forms are available on the Settlement Website or by calling the
Settlement Phone Number. Claim Forms may be submitted online via the Settlement
Website, by e-mail, or by U.S. Mail. Claim Forms may be submitted beginning upon
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.
By Mail: Angeion Group
Attn: Remington Claims
Suite 660, 1801 Market Street
By E-Mail:
remington@angeiongroup.com
52.
Settlement benefits vary based on the model and manufacture date of the Settlement
Class Member’s Settlement Firearm as described in ¶¶ 53-55 below.
958514
15
53.
Settlement Class A:
(a)
Settlement Class A(1) - Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, and 673.
A Remington Authorized Repair Center will remove the original trigger mechanism and
retrofit the firearm with an X-Mark Pro manufactured under the new assembly process at
no cost to the Settlement Class Member. Settlement Class Members can choose either to
take their firearm to the RARC for the retrofit or to ship their firearm to the RARC for
the retrofit. If they choose to ship their firearm, Remington will send the Settlement
Class Member pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions. A current list of
Remington Authorized Repair Centers can be found on the Settlement Website or by
calling the Settlement Phone Number. Settlement Class Members must first submit a
timely Claim Form to be eligible for this benefit.
(b)
Settlement Class A(2) - Model 710, 715, and 770.
Remington will remove the original trigger mechanism and retrofit the firearm with the
current Model 770 connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost to the Settlement Class
Member. Remington will send the Settlement Class Member pre-paid shipping tags,
boxes, and written instructions on how to ship the firearm to Remington for the retrofit.
Settlement Class Members must first timely submit a Claim Form to be eligible for this
benefit.
(c)
Settlement Class A(3) - Model 600, 660, and XP-100.
These firearms were predominantly produced between 1962 and 1982 and cannot be
readily retrofitted with a Connectorless Trigger Mechanism. Settlement Class Members
will be provided with voucher codes redeemable for products at Remington’s online
store. A voucher code for Remington products in the amount of $12.50 will be provided
to Settlement Class Members who own a Model 600, 660, or XP-100, which were
manufactured between 1962 and 1982. These voucher codes are transferable, may be
combined with other Remington coupons or vouchers, and do not expire. Settlement
Class Members are not required to return their firearm(s) to Remington in order to
receive a voucher code. Settlement Class Members must, however, first timely submit a
Claim Form to be eligible for this benefit.
(i)
(d)
Du Pont and SGPI shall bear the ultimate financial cost of providing these
voucher benefits.
Settlement Class A(4) - Model 721, 722, and 725.
These firearms were predominantly produced between 1948 and 1961 and cannot be
readily retrofitted with a Connectorless Trigger Mechanism. Settlement Class Members
will be provided with voucher codes redeemable for products at Remington’s online
store. A voucher code for Remington products in the amount of $10.00 will be provided
to Settlement Class Members who own a Model 721, 722, or 725, which were
manufactured from 1948 to 1961. These voucher codes are transferable, may be
combined with other Remington coupons or vouchers, and do not expire. Settlement
958514
16
Class Members are not required to return their firearm(s) to Remington in order to
receive a voucher code. Settlement Class Members must, however, first timely submit a
Claim Form to be eligible for this benefit.
(i)
54.
Du Pont and SGPI shall bear the ultimate financial cost of providing these
voucher benefits.
Settlement Class B:
(a)
Settlement Class B(1) - Model 700 and Seven containing an X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 that have not been
repaired as part of the voluntary Product Safety Recall.
A Remington Authorized Repair Center will remove the existing X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism and retrofit the firearm with an X-Mark Pro manufactured under the new
assembly process at no cost to the Settlement Class Member. Settlement Class Members
can choose either to take their firearm to the RARC for the retrofit or to ship their
firearm to the RARC for the retrofit. If they choose to ship their firearm, Remington will
send the Settlement Class Member pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written
instructions. A current list of Remington Authorized Repair Centers can be found on the
Settlement Website or by calling the Settlement Phone Number. Settlement Class
Members must first submit a timely Claim Form to be eligible for this benefit.
These models are the subject of a voluntary Product Safety Recall (see
www.xmprecall.com). Both this Settlement and the Product Safety Recall entitle current
owners of these firearms to have their old X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism retrofitted with
a new X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. However, the Product Safety Recall does not
provide for any other benefit described herein. Current owners of rifles subject to the
Product Safety Recall may still participate in this Settlement. Due to the ongoing Product
Safety Recall, the trigger mechanism retrofit for these models is currently available to
these Settlement Class Members, and Settlement Class Members do not need to wait until
the Effective Date to receive this benefit. (See ¶ 56.)
(b)
Settlement Class B(2) – current and former owners of Model 700 and Seven rifles
who replaced their rifle’s original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014.
In addition to the retrofit, current and former owners of Model 700 and Seven rifles who
replaced their firearm’s original Walker trigger mechanism at their own cost with an XMark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 may also
seek a refund of the amount of money they paid for the replacement. The Settlement
Class Member must first fully and timely execute the Claim Form and any requested
documentation. Refunds shall not exceed $119, which represents the most that
Remington has ever charged for an X-Mark Pro installation in Model 700 or Model
Seven rifles originally containing a Walker trigger mechanism. Refunds will be batch
mailed four times per year.
958514
17
55.
All Settlement Firearms:
(a)
56.
In addition to the benefits described above in ¶¶ 53-54, all Settlement Class
Members who fully execute the Claim Form will be provided with an educational
DVD regarding safe firearm handling practices.
The Claims Period shall commence upon entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. The
Claims Period shall expire eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date. Claim Forms
must be received no later than eighteen (18) months following the Effective Date. Apart
from the benefit in ¶ 54(a), settlement benefits will not be administered until after the
Effective Date.
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
57.
Notice of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members shall be provided pursuant to
orders of the Court.
58.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendants agree that reasonable notice of this Agreement
consistent with Due Process requirements of the United States Constitution shall be given
to any and all Settlement Class Members. To effectuate such notice, Plaintiffs’ Counsel
and Defendants have agreed to engage the Class Action Settlement Administrator to
advise them and administer the notice process. The Class Action Settlement
Administrator shall implement the Notice Plan, which will be accomplished through a
combination of: (a) a joint press release; (b) Direct Notices; (c) Short Form Notice; (d)
Long Form Notice; (e) notice through the Settlement Website; and (f) notice through
social media, including a Facebook page and internet banners. The text of the notices
and the mechanisms for distributing the notices shall be subject to the approval of the
Court and shall be the responsibility of the Class Action Settlement Administrator.
59.
Within a reasonable time following the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Parties will
issue a joint press release.
60.
As part of the Notice Plan, the Class Action Settlement Administrator shall send the
Direct Notices, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, by U.S. Mail,
proper postage prepaid, to each member of the Settlement Classes identified by the
Parties through reasonable efforts, including all Settlement Class Members who paid
Remington to replace the Walker trigger mechanism in their Model 700 or Model Seven
rifles with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism, as identified by Remington’s records. This
will be done as part of efforts to notify Settlement Class Members of their entitlement to
a cash refund pursuant to ¶ 54(b) above. Remington shall provide to the Class Action
Settlement Administrator this information within ten (10) days after issuance of the
Preliminary Approval Order. In the event that any Direct Notice mailed to a Settlement
Class Member is returned as undeliverable a second time, then no further mailing shall be
required. The Class Action Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Direct
Notice that is returned as undeliverable and shall provide copies of the log to Class
Counsel and Defense Counsel. The Class Action Settlement Administrator shall take
reasonable steps to re-mail all undeliverable Direct Notices to updated addresses
958514
18
provided by the National Change of Address Database maintained by the United States
Post Office or by other means.
61.
As part of the Notice Plan, the Class Action Settlement Administrator shall cause the
publication of the Short Form notice, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
C, or in such other form as directed by the Court, in Parade Magazine, Athlon Sports,
Field & Stream, Guns & Ammo, North American Hunter, American Rifleman, and
American Hunter as described in the Declaration and Supplemental Declaration of the
Class Action Settlement Administrator in support of the Motion for Preliminary
Approval.
62.
The Long Form Notice, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B or in such other
form as directed by the Court, shall advise Settlement Class Members of the following:
(a)
General Terms: The Long Form Notice shall contain a plain and concise
description of the nature of the Action; the fact of preliminary certification of the
Settlement Classes for settlement purposes; and the proposed Settlement itself,
including a description of the Settlement Class Members, the benefits under the
proposed Settlement, and what claims are released under the proposed Settlement.
(b)
Requests for Exclusion: The Long Form Notice shall inform Settlement Class
Members that they have the right to exclude themselves from (opt out of) the
Settlement. The Long Form Notice shall provide the deadlines and procedures for
exercising this right.
(c)
Objections: The Long Form Notice shall inform Settlement Class Members of
their right to object to the proposed Settlement and appear at the Final Approval
Hearing. The Long Form Notice shall provide the deadlines and procedures for
exercising these rights.
(d)
The Long Form Notice shall inform Settlement Class Members about the amounts
being sought by Class Counsel as Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and as
Representative Plaintiff Awards to the individual Plaintiffs, and shall explain that
Remington will pay the fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel and the
Representative Plaintiff Awards to the individual Plaintiffs in addition to the
benefits to Settlement Class Members under the Settlement.
63.
The Long Form Notice shall be available on the Settlement Website. The Class Action
Settlement Administrator shall send the Long Form Notice via first-class mail to those
persons who request it in writing or through the Settlement Phone Number.
64.
The Long Form Notice and Settlement Website shall include the Claim Forms, which
shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and which shall inform
Settlement Class Members that he or she must fully complete and timely return a Claim
Form within the Claims Period to be eligible for settlement benefits.
65.
No later than the publication of the first notice to be published pursuant to Section V, the
Class Action Settlement Administrator shall establish a toll-free telephone facility that
958514
19
will provide settlement-related information to Settlement Class Members. The toll-free
telephone number of such facility shall be included in the published notice. The
telephone facility shall be capable of: (a) receiving requests for Claim Forms, and/or the
Long Form Notice of the Settlement described in Section V or any other materials
described in this Section; (b) providing general information concerning deadlines for
opting out of the Settlement or objecting to it, and the dates of the relevant Court
proceedings, including the Final Approval Hearing; and (c) mailing materials to
Settlement Class Members as provided in this Section. The toll-free telephone facility
and the Settlement Phone Number shall be maintained for twenty (20) months after the
Effective Date. All costs associated with establishing and maintaining the toll-free
telephone facility and the Settlement Phone Number shall be paid by Defendants.
66.
The Class Action Settlement Administrator shall immediately (within three (3) business
days) mail Long Form Notices or Claim Forms to anyone requesting them. The Class
Action Settlement Administrator shall maintain records of all of its activities, including
logs of all telephone calls received and all mailings, and shall maintain an electronic
database reflecting the running tally of all calls received and number and types of
materials mailed by it in connection with this Settlement.
67.
No later than the publication of the first notice to be published pursuant to Section V, the
Class Action Settlement Administrator shall establish a Settlement Website that will
inform Settlement Class Members of the Settlement. The contents of the website must be
approved by Class Counsel and Defendants. The internet address of the website shall be
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com and shall be included in the Notices.
The Settlement Website shall include information such as: (a) generalized information
concerning deadlines for opting out of or objecting to the Settlement, Claim Forms; (b)
dates of relevant Court proceedings, including the Final Approval Hearing; (c) listing of
the Settlement Phone Number; (d) a current list of RARCs; and (e) electronic copies of
the Settlement Agreement, joint press release, Short Form Notice, Long Form Notice,
Motion for Preliminary Approval, Preliminary Approval Order, Motion for Final
Approval, Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Final Approval Order, and Claim Form that
Settlement Class Members can download and print. The Settlement Website shall be
maintained while claims are being processed by the Class Action Settlement
Administrator under this Agreement and for a period that continues for twenty (20)
months after the Effective Date.
68.
Remington’s and Class Counsel’s websites may contain a link titled “Remington Class
Action Settlement.” Clicking on the link will take the user to the Settlement Website.
69.
Notice of the settlement via First Class Mail pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a), will be served on the appropriate federal and state officials no
later than 10 calendar days after the filing of this Settlement Agreement with the Court.
A proposed form of CAFA notice, without the accompanying attachments, is attached as
Exhibit E.
70.
The cost of the above Settlement Class Notice (with the exception of that appearing on
Class Counsel’s websites under ¶ 68) shall be paid by Remington. If the Court requires
958514
20
methods of notice in addition to that defined above, Remington shall bear the cost of such
additional notice.
71.
The Class Action Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for, without limitation:
(a) printing, mailing or arranging for the mailing of the Direct Notices; (b) handling
returned mail not delivered to Settlement Class Members; (c) attempting to obtain
updated address information for any Direct Notices returned without a forwarding
address; (d) making any additional mailings required under the terms of this Settlement
Agreement; (e) responding to requests for the Long Form Notice; (f) receiving and
maintaining on behalf of the Court any Settlement Class Member correspondence
regarding requests for exclusion and/or objections to the Settlement; (g) forwarding
written inquiries to Class Counsel or their designee for a response, if warranted; (h)
establishing a post-office box for the receipt of any correspondence; (j) establishing the
Settlement Website and Settlement Phone Number with a voice response unit with
message capabilities to which Settlement Class Members may refer for information about
the Action and the Settlement; and (k) otherwise implementing and/or assisting with the
dissemination of the Notice of the Settlement.
The Class Action Settlement
Administrator shall also be responsible for, without limitation, implementing the terms of
the Claims Process and related administrative activities.
72.
If the Class Action Settlement Administrator makes a material or fraudulent
misrepresentation to, or conceals requested material information from, Plaintiffs’
Counsel, or Defendants’ Counsel, then the Party to whom the misrepresentation is made
shall, in addition to any other appropriate relief, have the right to demand that the Class
Action Settlement Administrator immediately be replaced. If the Class Action Settlement
Administrator Notice Administrator fails to perform adequately on behalf of Defendants
or the Settlement Class, the Parties may agree to remove the Class Action Settlement
Administrator. Under such circumstances, the other Party shall not unreasonably
withhold consent to remove the Class Action Settlement Administrator, but this event
shall occur only after Defendants’ Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Counsel have attempted to
resolve any disputes regarding the retention or dismissal of the Class Action Settlement
Administrator in good faith, and, if they are unable to do so, after the matter has been
referred to the Court for resolution.
73.
The Class Action Settlement Administrator may retain one or more persons to assist in
the completion of his or her responsibilities as reasonably necessary to fulfill the Class
Action Settlement Administrator’s duties herein.
74.
Not later than twenty-one (21) days before the date of the Final Approval Hearing, the
Class Action Settlement Administrator shall file with the Court a list of those persons
who have opted out of or objected to the Settlement. The Class Action Settlement
Administrator shall also file with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of the
aforesaid publications and mailings as well as the details outlining the scope, method and
results of the notice program.
958514
21
75.
The Class Action Settlement Administrator and the Parties shall promptly after receipt
provide copies of any requests for exclusion, objections and/or related correspondence to
each other.
VI. OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION
A.
Requests for Exclusion
76.
A Settlement Class Member may opt out of one or both Settlement Classes. To exercise
this exclusion right, the Settlement Class Member must send a written notification of the
decision to request exclusion via certified or first class mail to the Class Action
Settlement Administrator. The request for exclusion must bear the signature of the
Settlement Class Member (even if represented by counsel), the Settlement Class
Member’s current address and telephone number, and state the firearm’s model and serial
number. If the Settlement Class Member has entered into a written or oral agreement to
be represented by counsel, the request for exclusion shall also be signed by the attorney
who represents the Settlement Class Member. Such requests must be postmarked or
personally delivered on such schedule as the Court may direct. In seeking Preliminary
Approval of this Agreement, the parties will request that the deadline for submission of
requests for exclusion shall be set on a date no less than sixty (60) days after the
publication of the final notice to be published pursuant to Section V. Exclusions sent by
any Settlement Class Member to incorrect locations shall not be valid. The Class Action
Settlement Administrator shall promptly forward copies of any written requests for
exclusion to Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel. A list reflecting all requests for
exclusion shall be filed with the Court by the Class Action Settlement Administrator no
later than twenty-one (21) days before the Final Approval Hearing. If a potential
Settlement Class Members files a request for exclusion, he or she may not file an
objection under ¶ 80.
77.
Any Settlement Class Member who has not timely and properly filed a written request for
exclusion as provided in ¶ 76 shall be bound by the Settlement and all subsequent
proceedings, orders, and judgments, including, but not limited to, the Release and Final
Approval Order. Any Settlement Class Member who elects to opt out of the Settlement
Class pursuant to this Agreement shall not be entitled to relief under or affected by this
Agreement.
78.
Settlement Class Members who have elected to opt out of the Settlement Class may
withdraw their opt out requests prior to the Effective Date, but only if they accept the
benefits and terms of this Settlement and dismiss with prejudice any other pending action
against Defendants for economic losses arising out of the marketing and sale of firearms
containing the Walker trigger mechanism and X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.
79.
Class Counsel shall have the right to contact persons who file exclusion requests and to
challenge the timeliness and validity of any exclusion requests, as well as the right to
effect the withdrawal of any exclusion filed in error and any exclusion request which a
Settlement Class Member wishes to withdraw for purposes of participating in the
958514
22
Settlement as set forth in this Agreement. The Court shall determine whether any of the
contested opt-outs are valid.
B.
Objections
80.
A Settlement Class Member may object to the Settlement. To exercise this certified or
objection right, the Settlement Class Member must provide written notice of the objection
via certified or first class mail to the Court and the Class Action Settlement
Administrator. The objection must bear the signature of the Settlement Class Member
(even if represented by counsel), the Settlement Class Member’s current address and
telephone number, the firearm’s model and serial number, and state the exact nature of
the objection including any legal support the Settlement Class Member wishes to
introduce in support of the objection, and whether or not the Settlement Class Member
intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. If the Settlement Class Member is
represented by counsel, the objection shall also be signed by the attorney who represents
the Settlement Class Member and state whether the attorney representing the objector
will appear at the Final Approval Hearing. Such objection must be postmarked or
personally delivered on such schedule as the Court may direct. In seeking Preliminary
Approval of this Agreement, the parties will request that the deadline for submission of
notice of objections shall be set on a date no less than sixty (60) days after the publication
of the final notice to be published pursuant to Section V. Objections sent by any
Settlement Class Member to incorrect locations shall not be valid.
81.
The Class Action Settlement Administrator shall forward any objection(s) to Class
Counsel and Defense Counsel within five (5) days of receipt.
82.
Any Settlement Class Member who fails to comply with the provisions of ¶ 80 above
shall waive and forfeit any and all rights he or she may have to appear separately and/or
to object, and shall be bound by all the terms of this Settlement Agreement and by all
subsequent proceedings, orders and judgments, including, but not limited to, the Release,
the Final Order and the Final Judgment in the Actions. The exclusive means for any
challenge to this Settlement shall be through the provisions of this Section VI.B. Without
limiting the foregoing, any challenge to the Settlement or Final Approval Order shall be
pursuant to appeal under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and not through a
collateral attack.
83.
Any Settlement Class Member who objects to the Settlement shall be entitled to all of the
benefits of the Settlement if this Settlement Agreement and the terms contained herein
are approved, as long as the objecting Settlement Class Member complies with all
requirements of this Settlement Agreement applicable to Settlement Class Members,
including the timely submission of a Claim Form and other requirements herein.
VII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
84.
In advance of the date set by the Court for Objections, Class Counsel agrees to request
approval of an award of all attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in a total amount not to
exceed $12,500,000. Defendants agree to pay any fees and costs awarded by the Court in
958514
23
an amount not to exceed $12,500,000, and will do so within seven (7) days of the
Effective Date. The amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses was negotiated after
the substantive terms of the Settlement, including the benefits to Settlement Class
Members, and had been negotiated and agreed upon during the mediation. The Motion
for Preliminary Approval, Long Form Notice, and Short Form Notice shall state that
Class Counsel will seek an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in an amount not
to exceed $12,500,000.
85.
If the request for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is finally approved by
the Court and upheld on any appeal, then Remington shall pay the amount ordered by the
Court via electronic transfer to Class Counsel within seven (7) business days after the
Effective Date, provided that Class Counsel has submitted appropriate routing
information and payment information reasonably necessary for Remington to process
such transfer.
86.
Class Counsel shall distribute attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
Should a dispute arise regarding the distribution, the cost shall be borne by Class Counsel
and/or Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
VIII. REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF AWARDS
87.
In addition to the relief outlined above in Section IV, prior to the date set by the Court for
objections Class Counsel shall seek the Court’s approval of a representative plaintiff
award of $2,500 each for Plaintiffs Dylan Anderson, Rodney Barbre, Wallace Brown,
John Corsi, Chase Delperdang, Gordon Hardaway, Roger Keesy, William Massie,
William Moodie, Gary Otis, Ian Pollard, James Waterman, and Mitchell Winterburn.
The representative plaintiff awards are to compensate Plaintiffs solely for their time and
effort associated with their participation in Pollard and Moodie, and shall not be
considered reimbursement or compensation for damages or any such other payment or
other relief sought in the Action. If the request for representative plaintiff awards is
finally approved by the Court and upheld on any appeal, then Remington shall pay the
amount ordered by the Court to each representative plaintiff within seven (7) business
days after the Effective Date. The representative plaintiff awards do not preclude
Plaintiffs from receiving settlement benefits. The Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Long Form Notice, and Short Form Notice shall state that Class Counsel will seek
representative plaintiff awards of $2,500 per plaintiff.
IX. RELEASE
88.
As consideration for the relief provided under the Settlement Agreement, the Releasing
Persons agree to release the Released Persons from any and all claims, demands, rights,
damages, obligations, suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements and causes of action of
every nature and description whatsoever, ascertained or unascertained, suspected or
unsuspected, existing or claimed to exist, including those unknown, both at law and in
equity which were or could have been brought against Defendants, or any of them, based
upon or related in any way to the trigger mechanisms in the rifle models subject to the
Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to those claims asserted in the Action,
958514
24
whether sounding in tort, contract, breach of warranty, violation of any state or federal
statute or regulation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received, restitution,
equitable relief, punitive or exemplary damages or any other claims whatsoever under
federal law or the law of any state. Released claims also include any claim for attorneys’
fees, expenses, costs, and catalyst fees under any state’s law or under federal law.
Released claims do not include claims for personal injury and personal property damage.
89.
If any Settlement Class Member brings an action or asserts a claim against one or more
Defendants contrary to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, that Defendant shall
provide Class Counsel with a copy of the Settlement Class Member’s complaint. Class
Counsel agrees to contact counsel of record for the Settlement Class Member and advise
him or her of the Settlement Agreement.
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A.
For Settlement Purposes Only/No Admissions
90.
The Settlement Agreement is for settlement purposes only, and neither the fact of, nor
any provision contained in, this Agreement or its Exhibits, nor any action taken
hereunder shall constitute, be construed as, or be admissible in evidence as an admission
of: (a) the validity of any claim or allegation by Plaintiffs, or of any defense asserted by
Defendants in the Action; (b) the propriety of class certification or proceeding in whole
or in part on a classwide basis for purposes of litigation and/or trial in this Action or any
future action against one or more Defendants or any Released Party; or (3) any
wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability if any kind on the part of any Defendant
or Released Party.
91.
The Settlement Agreement is without prejudice to the rights of any Defendant or any
Released Party to oppose class certification in the Action for purposes of litigation and
trial should the Settlement not be finally approved or implemented for any reason.
92.
In the event that this Agreement does not become effective for any reason, this
Agreement shall become null and void and of no further force and effect. In such
instance, this Agreement and any negotiations, statements, communications, proceedings,
and pleadings relating thereto, and the fact that the Parties agreed to the Agreement, shall
be without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiffs or Defendants or any Settlement Class
Member, shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever in any subsequent proceeding in
this action or in any other action in any court or tribunal, and shall not be construed as an
admission or concession by any party of any fact, matter, or allegation. In the event that
this Agreement does not become effective, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Settlement
Class Members shall be restored without prejudice to their respective positions as if the
Agreement, any application for its approval by the Court, and the proposed amended
complaint in the Pollard action had not been made, submitted, or filed. Defendants
further agree that they will not seek to dismiss the Moodie action or the Moodie class
representatives on the account the Moodie class representatives were named as class
representatives in the Pollard proposed amended complaint filed in conjunction with the
approval of this proposed Settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that
958514
25
the Court should refuse to approve any material part of this Agreement or the Exhibits
thereto or if, on appeal, an appellate court fails to affirm the judgment entered pursuant to
this Agreement, then the Parties may (but are not obligated to) agree in writing to amend
this Agreement and proceed with the Settlement as so amended. Neither any award to a
representative plaintiff in an amount less than that sought, nor an award of attorneys’
fees, costs, and disbursement to Class Counsel in an amount less than that requested by
Class Counsel, nor a reversal on appeal of any such award shall be deemed to be a
modification of a material part of this Agreement that causes the Agreement to become
null and void pursuant to this section.
B.
Arms’ Length Negotiations
93.
The Mediator has agreed to submit a declaration regarding the arms’ length nature of the
negotiation and overall fairness of the settlement, which shall be submitted with the
Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval.
C.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
94.
So that the Settling Parties do not have to return to court, if any disputes arise out of
finalization of the settlement documentation or out of the Settlement itself, said disputes
are to be resolved by the Mediator first by way of mediation, and if mediation is
unsuccessful then by way of final binding non-appealable arbitration. If for any reason
the Mediator is unavailable or has a conflict, the Settling Parties will agree on a substitute
neutral so that this clause may be enforced without returning to Court. If the Settling
Parties cannot agree upon a substitute neutral, they will jointly petition either the
Mediator or the Court to select a neutral for them to enforce this clause. The Court shall
retain jurisdiction to enter and enforce any award arising from such arbitration.
95.
The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, including all
terms that are not arbitrable issues and will otherwise retain jurisdiction to compel
arbitration in accordance with the above provision, as well as to enforce the terms of any
award in arbitration to the extent required by law.
96.
Nothing in this provision is intended to prevent the Court from exercising its authority to
inquire about the bases for settlement, settlement terms, the implementation of the
settlement, or the information provided to the Court in connection with preliminary or
final approval of the Settlement.
D.
Exclusive Remedy; Dismissal of Actions; Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court
97.
Each and every Settlement Class Member who has not requested exclusion pursuant to
this Agreement submits to the jurisdiction of the Court and will be bound by the terms of
this Settlement (including, without limitation, any and all releases).
98.
This Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for any and all Released Claims,
and upon entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, each Settlement Class Member who
has not opted out of the Class shall be barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting
any such Released Claims against Defendants.
958514
26
99.
Upon the entry of the Final Approval Order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice.
100.
No later than ten (10) days following the Effective Date, the Parties shall file a joint
stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice and without costs under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41 in case number 2:13-cv-00172-JCC, Moodie et al. v. Remington et al. (W.D. Wash.,
Coughenour, J.).
E.
Irreparably Unsafe Firearms
101.
With respect to firearms returned to Remington for a retrofit, Remington retains the
discretion to deem any firearm unsafe due to damage, corrosion, alteration, deterioration,
defects, misuse, or any other cause unrelated to the condition of the trigger mechanism.
In other words, these firearms cannot be readily repaired to a safe condition. Any such
firearm will be returned to the Settlement Class Member, along with a written statement
from Remington informing the Settlement Class Member that: (1) the firearm is unsafe
and cannot be readily repaired to a safe condition; and (2) accepting the return of the
firearm amounts to an acceptance by the owner of, and absolves Defendants from, any
and all responsibility and liability in connection with the rifle. Remington will also send
the owner the DVD described in ¶ 55. Any disputes arising under the terms of this
provision may be submitted to Mr. Chris Ruger, a master gunsmith whom the parties
have agreed will resolve such disputes.
F.
Firearms Requiring Maintenance
102.
With respect to firearms returned to Remington for a retrofit, Remington retains the
discretion to deem any firearm as requiring maintenance due to damage, corrosion,
alteration, deterioration, defects, misuse, or any other cause. If Remington believes that
the firearm can be remedied through cleaning or other maintenance, Remington agrees to
provide the Settlement Class Member with the option of forwarding to Remington
payment for such services, after which Remington will remedy the firearm pursuant to
the terms of this Settlement Agreement. If the Settlement Class Member does not wish to
provide payment for the cost of maintenance, the firearm will be returned to the
Settlement Class Member, along with a written statement from Remington informing the
Settlement Class Member that: (1) the firearm requires maintenance; (2) the Settlement
Class Member has chosen not to have Remington perform the required maintenance; and
(3) accepting the return of the firearm amounts to an acceptance by the owner of, and
absolves Defendants from, any and all responsibility and liability in connection with the
firearm. Remington will also send the Settlement Class Member a safety/instructional
DVD. Any disputes arising under the terms of this provision may be submitted to the
same independent third party charged with the resolution of other claims process disputes
pursuant to ¶101; Mr. Chris Ruger, a master gunsmith whom the parties have agreed will
resolve such disputes.
G.
Best Efforts
103.
The Parties, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and Defendants’ Counsel agree to use their best efforts
to obtain Court approval of this Settlement, and agree to support all terms of the
958514
27
Settlement Agreement in documents filed with the Court. They further agree to execute
all such additional documents as shall be reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions
of this Agreement.
H.
Defendants’ Liability
104.
The Parties understand and acknowledge that Defendants are not jointly and severally
responsible for the benefits provided to Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members under
this Agreement, and that Defendants are each limited to the specific obligations assigned
to them by the terms of this Agreement. Defendants represent that they have the financial
wherewithal to comply with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
105.
Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. guarantees the financial obligations of Remington
Arms Company, LLC arising under the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
I.
Administrative Costs
106.
Except as provided in Sections V (Notice), VII (Representative Plaintiff Awards), and
VII (Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses), each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
shall be solely responsible for his, her, or its own costs and expenses.
J.
Taxes
107.
Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall be responsible for
paying any and all federal, state, and local taxes due on any payments made to them
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
K.
Public Statements
108.
The Parties, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and Defendants’ Counsel shall not disparage the terms of
this Settlement Agreement.
L.
Complete Agreement
109.
This Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits represent the complete agreement as to each
and every term agreed to by and among Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class(es), and
Defendants. The Settlement contemplated by this Agreement is not subject to any
condition not expressly provided for herein, and there exist no collateral or oral
agreements relating to the subject matter of the Agreement. In entering into this
Settlement Agreement, no Party has made or relied on any warranty, promise,
inducement or representation not specifically set forth herein. Any agreement purporting
to change or modify the terms of this Agreement or the Exhibits hereto must be in
writing, signed by Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel.
110.
All the Exhibits attached hereto or referred to herein are incorporated as if fully set forth
in the body of the Agreement.
M.
Headings for Convenience Only
958514
28
111.
The headings in this Settlement Agreement are for the convenience of the reader only and
shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Settlement Agreement.
N.
Severability
112.
In the event that any provision hereof becomes or is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be illegal, unenforceable, or void, this Settlement Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect without said provision.
O.
No Party Is the Drafter
113.
None of the Parties shall be considered to be the primary drafter of this Settlement
Agreement or any provision hereof for the purpose of any rule of interpretation or
construction that might cause any provision to be construed against the drafter.
P.
Binding Effect
114.
This Settlement Agreement shall be binding according to its terms upon, and inure to the
benefit of Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, Defendants, the Settling Parties, and their
respective successors and assigns.
Q.
Authorization to Enter Settlement Agreement
115.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel represents that they are fully authorized to conduct settlement
negotiations with counsel for Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class,
and to enter into, and to execute, this Settlement Agreement on behalf of Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class, subject to Court approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).
116.
Defendants represent and warrant that: (a) it has all requisite corporate power and
authority to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement and to consummate the
transactions contemplated hereby; (b) the execution, delivery, and performance of this
Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of
Defendants; (c) its signatories to the Agreement have full authority to sign on behalf of
and to bind Defendants to its terms; and (d) this Agreement has been duly and validly
executed and delivered by Defendants and constitutes its legal, valid and binding
obligations.
117.
The undersigned counsel represent that they have been fully authorized to execute this
Agreement on behalf of their respective clients.
R.
Execution in Counterparts
118.
This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and the execution of
counterparts shall have the same effect as if all Parties had signed the same instrument.
Facsimile signatures shall be considered as valid signatures as of the date signed,
although the original signature dates shall thereafter be appended to the Settlement
958514
29
Agreement. This Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed executed until signed by
Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel.
S.
California Civil Code § 1542
119.
The Parties have read, understood, and consulted with their attorneys and have been fully
advised by them as to the contents and meaning of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of
California, which provides that:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him or her must have
materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
The Releasing Persons shall be deemed to have knowingly and
voluntarily waived and relinquished all rights and benefits afforded
by California Civil Code Section 1542, and by any comparable
statutory provision or common law rule that provides, in sum or
substance, that a general release does not extend to claims which
the party does not know or suspect to exist in its favor at the time
of executing the release, which if known by it must have materially
affected the settlement. The Parties hereby agree and acknowledge
that this waiver is an essential term of this Settlement Agreement
without which the consideration given herein by Defendants would
not have been given.
T.
Cancellation
120.
Remington shall be entitled, at its option, and in its sole and absolute good-faith
discretion, to cancel the Settlement and rescind its agreement to the Settlement
Agreement if a sufficient number of Settlement Class Members excluding themselves
from the Settlement reaches a level that, in Remington’s judgment, threatens to frustrate
the purposes of the Agreement. To cancel the settlement, Remington must provide
written notice to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and to the Court no later than 10 days prior to the
Final Approval Hearing. In the event of cancellation of the Final Approval Hearing or
this Settlement Agreement, all cost shall be borne by the Parties that incurred the
expenses.
U.
Confirmatory Discovery
121.
Defendants have provided information requested by Plaintiffs’ Counsel related to the
former and current X-Mark Pro assembly process, the X-Mark Pro specialty cleaning,
testing and inspection process, and potential Settlement valuation issues. Defendants
agree that this confirmatory discovery may be communicated by Plaintiffs’ Counsel to
the Court. Defendants further agree to make best efforts in providing all responsive
documents in reasonable time prior to December 5, 2014. Defendants further agree to
amend, supplement, and/or otherwise correct this confirmatory discovery to the extent
958514
30
one or more Defendants learns information that renders such discovery incomplete,
unreliable, or inaccurate. Defendants remain under such an obligation until the Effective
Date. Defendants are under no additional obligations with respect to confirmatory
discovery apart from those in this paragraph.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement as of the
dates set forth below.
958514
31
DATED: April 8, 2015
s/ Richard Arsenault
Class Counsel
Richard Arsenault
Charles E. Schaffer
Brian F. Fox
Eric D. Holland
R. Seth Crompton
HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE, LLC
300 North Tucker Blvd., Ste.801
St. Louis, MO 63101
W. Mark Lanier
LANIER LAW FIRM
6810 FM 1960 West
Houston, TX 77069
John R. Climaco
John A. Peca
CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO &
GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Jordan L. Chaikin
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard Suite
103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Richard Ramler
RAMLER LAW OFFICE, PC
202 W. Madison Avenue
Belgrade, MT 59714
Timothy W. Monsees
MONSEES & MAYER, PC
4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 820
Jon D. Robinson
Christopher Ellis
BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP
202 South Franklin, 2nd Floor
Decatur, IL 62523
Remainder of page intentionally left blank.
958514
32
DATED: April 8, 2015
Counsel for Defendants Remington Arms
Company, LLC, Sporting Goods
Properties, Inc., E.I. DuPont Nemours &
Company
Dale G. Wills
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
s/ John K. Sherk
John K. Sherk
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
2555 Grand Blvd.
Remainder of page intentionally left blank.
958514
33
EXHIBIT 1-A
REMINGTON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM
FOR MODELS 600, 660, AND XP-100
INSTRUCTIONS: If you need help determining the model number or the serial number for your firearm,
please visit www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or call 1-800-876-5940 for assistance.
This Claim Form may be used for one firearm only. Please fill out additional Claim Forms if you seek
settlement benefits for more than one firearm. Claim Forms must be fully completed to receive any
settlement benefits. If you have questions regarding this Claim Form, please call 1-800-876-5940.
You
may
complete
and
submit
your
Claim
Form
online
at
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com, or you may complete your form and then submit it
by U.S. Mail or e-mail at the addresses listed below. In order to participate in this settlement, completed
Claim Forms must be received by Month 00, Year. Please note that the benefits listed herein will not be
provided until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court order, but you
may submit your Claim Form now. You will be notified if final approval is not achieved.
Please fill out all four sections of this Claim Form and submit either:
By Mail:
Angeion Group
By E-Mail:
SECTION 1 - YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION
First Name: ________________________________Last Name:____________________________
Street Address: __________________________________________________________________
Suite or Apartment Number_________________________________________________________
City____________________________State______________________Zip___________________
E-mail address: ___________________________________________________________________
SECTION 2 – SERIAL NUMBER OF YOUR FIREARM:
Enter the Serial Number of your Firearm in the boxes below:
953362
SECTION 3 – ELECTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT WITH RESPECT TO YOUR FIREARM:
Check the box below to confirm that you currently own a firearm with one of the model numbers listed
below and you are hereby electing to participate in this settlement and receive the benefit outlined
below.
Yes, I currently own a Model 600, 660, or XP-100, and I want Remington to send me a voucher code
for $12.50 redeemable for Remington products at Remington’s online store
(www.shopremingtoncountry.com). Remington will also send me an educational DVD regarding
safe firearms handling practices. Please Note: You do not need to return your firearm to
Remington to claim this benefit.
SECTION 4 – ATTESTATION
I attest, by my signature below, that the statements made and answers given in this Claim Form are true
and correct and that the documents submitted herewith are true and genuine.
Executed this _____________day of __________________
(Month/Year)
(Sign your name here)
(Print your name here)
953362
EXHIBIT 1-A-1
953362
REMINGTON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM FOR MODELS 721, 722, AND 725
You
may
complete
and
submit
your
Claim
Form
online
at
Claim Forms must be received by Month 00, Year. Please note that the benefits listed herein will not be
provided until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court order, but you
may submit your Claim Form now. You will be notified if final approval is not achieved.
Please fill out all four sections of this Claim Form and submit either:
By Mail:
Angeion Group
By E-Mail:
First Name: ________________________________Last Name:
Street Address:
Suite or Apartment Number
City____________________________State______________________Zip
E-mail address:
953362
below and you are hereby electing to participate in this settlement and receive the benefit outlined
below.
Yes, I currently own a Model 721, 722, or 725, and I want Remington to send me a voucher code for
$10.00
redeemable
for
Remington
products
at
Remington’s
online
store
(www.shopremingtoncountry.com). Remington will also send me an educational DVD regarding
safe firearms handling practices.
Please Note: You do not need to return your firearm to Remington to claim this benefit.
(Month/Year)
953362
EXHIBIT 1-A-2
953362
REMINGTON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM FOR
SPORTSMAN 78 AND MODEL 673 FIREARMS
CONTAINING A TRIGGER MECHANISM UTILIZING A TRIGGER CONNECTOR
You
may
complete
and
submit
your
Claim
Form
online
at
Claim Forms must be received by Month 00, Year. Please note that, unless your firearm has been
involved in an unintended or accidental discharge that resulted in personal injuries or property damage
(see below), the benefits listed herein will not be provided until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement
has been finally approved by court order, but you may submit your Claim Form now. You will be notified
if final approval is not achieved.
Please fill out all five sections of this Claim Form and submit either:
By Mail:
Angeion Group
By E-Mail:
Street Address:
City____________________________State______________________Zip
E-mail address:
953362
below and you are hereby electing to participate in this settlement.
Yes, I currently own a Sportsman 78 or Model 673 containing a trigger mechanism utilizing a
trigger connector, and I want to participate in this settlement.
SECTION 4 – BENEFIT ELECTION:
Please answer the following question and check the corresponding box to confirm the benefit you are
electing (if more than one option is provided).
Do you claim that this firearm has fired without a trigger pull, which resulted in personal injuries or
property damage? (Note any such claim is not included in or affected by this settlement.)
Yes - I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how to return my
firearm to Remington for a full inspection as well as an X-Mark Pro retrofit at no cost. This benefit
is available now, even if final court approval of this settlement has not been achieved as of the
date this Claim Form is submitted. After the retrofit, Remington will return my firearm to me at no
cost. Remington will also send me an educational DVD regarding safe firearms handling practices.
WARNING: STOP USING YOUR FIREARM. Any unintended discharge has the potential to cause injury or
death. Immediately cease use of your firearm and return it to Remington as outlined below. Your
firearm will be inspected, cleaned, tested, retrofitted with a new trigger mechanism, and returned as
soon as possible, at no cost to you. DO NOT attempt to diagnose or repair your firearm.
Check the box below to indicate you have read and acknowledge this warning.
□ I have read and acknowledge the warning provided.
No - (Choose One Option below)
□
953362
Option 1. I want to take my firearm to a Remington Authorized Repair Center for an
X-Mark Pro retrofit at no cost. A list of Remington Authorized Repair Centers can be
found by visiting www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or calling 1-800876-5940. Although I will shortly receive a Ticket ID# from Remington, I may not take
my firearm to the Remington Authorized Repair Center to have my firearm retrofitted
until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court
order. Remington will also later send me an educational DVD regarding safe firearm
handling practices.
□
Option 2. I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on
how to ship my firearm to a Remington Authorized Repair Center for an X-Mark Pro
retrofit at no cost. Although I will shortly receive a Ticket ID# from Remington, I will
not receive my shipping materials and will not be able to ship my firearm to a
Remington Authorized Repair Center to have my firearm retrofitted until after the
Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court order. Remington
will also later send me an educational DVD regarding safe firearm handling practices.
PLEASE GO TO SECTION 5.
(Month/Year)
953362
EXHIBIT 1-A-3
953362
REMINGTON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM FOR MODEL 710, 715, AND 770
You
may
complete
and
submit
your
Claim
Form
online
at
By Mail:
Angeion Group
By E-Mail:
First Name: ________________________________Last Name:____________________________
Street Address: __________________________________________________________________
Suite or Apartment Number_________________________________________________________
City____________________________State______________________Zip___________________
E-mail address: ___________________________________________________________________
953362
below and you are hereby electing to participate in this settlement.
Yes, I currently own a Model 710, 715, or 770 containing a trigger mechanism utilizing a trigger
connector, and I want to participate in this settlement.
electing.
Yes - I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how to return
my firearm to Remington for a full inspection. Remington will also retrofit the trigger
mechanism in my firearm with the current Model 770 connectorless trigger mechanism.
This benefit is available now, even if final court approval of this settlement has not been
achieved as of the date this Claim Form is submitted. After the retrofit, Remington will
return my firearm to me at no cost. Remington will also send me an educational DVD
regarding safe firearms handling practices.
WARNING: STOP USING YOUR FIREARM. Any unintended discharge has the potential to cause injury
or death. Immediately cease use of your firearm and return it to Remington as outlined below. Your
No - I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how to return my
firearm to Remington for a current Model 770 connectorless trigger mechanism retrofit.
Although I will shortly receive a Ticket ID# from Remington, I will not receive my shipping
materials and will not be able to ship my firearm to Remington to have my firearm
retrofitted until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court
handling practices.
953362
(Month/Year)
953362
EXHIBIT 1-A-4
953362
REMINGTON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM FOR MODEL 700 AND MODEL SEVEN
INSTRUCTIONS: If you need help determining the model number, serial number or trigger mechanism for
your firearm, please visit www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or call 1-800-876-5940 for
assistance.
You
may
complete
and
submit
your
Claim
Form
online
at
By Mail:
Angeion Group
By E-Mail:
Street Address:
City____________________________State______________________Zip
E-mail address:
953362
Check the box below to confirm that you currently own a firearm with one of the model numbers and
trigger mechanism listed below and you are hereby electing to participate in this settlement.
Yes, I currently own a Model 700 or Model Seven containing a trigger mechanism utilizing a
trigger connector, and I want to participate in this settlement.
Yes - I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how to return
my firearm to Remington for a full inspection as well as an X-Mark Pro retrofit at no cost.
This benefit is available now, even if final court approval of this settlement has not been
achieved as of the date this Claim Form is submitted. After the retrofit, Remington will
return my firearm to me at no cost. Remington will also send me an educational DVD
regarding safe firearms handling practices.
WARNING: STOP USING YOUR FIREARM. Any unintended discharge has the potential to cause injury or
death. Immediately cease use of your firearm and return it to Remington as outlined below. Your
□
953362
Option 1. I want to take my firearm to a Remington Authorized Repair Center for an
X-Mark Pro retrofit at no cost. A list of Remington Authorized Repair Centers can be
found by visiting www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or calling 1-800876-5940. Although I will shortly receive a Ticket ID# from Remington, I may not take
my firearm to the Remington Authorized Repair Center to have my firearm retrofitted
until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court
handling practices.
□
Option 2. I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on
how to ship my firearm to a Remington Authorized Repair Center for an X-Mark Pro
retrofit at no cost. Although I will shortly receive a Ticket ID# from Remington, I will
not receive my shipping materials and will not be able to ship my firearm to a
Remington Authorized Repair Center to have my firearm retrofitted until after the
Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court order. Remington
will also later send me an educational DVD regarding safe firearm handling practices.
(Month/Year)
953362
EXHIBIT 1-A-5
953362
REMINGTON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM FOR MODEL 700 AND MODEL
SEVEN CONTAINING AN X-MARK PRO TRIGGER MECHANISM MANUFACTURED FROM
MAY 1, 2006 TO APRIL 9, 2014 NOT PREVIOUSLY REMEDIED UNDER THE VOLUNTARY XMARK PRO PRODUCT RECALL
INSTRUCTIONS: If you need help determining the model number, serial number or trigger mechanism for
your firearm, please visit www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or call 1-800-876-5940 for
assistance.
You
may
complete
and
submit
your
Claim
Form
online
at
Claim Forms must be received by Month 00, Year. Please note that some of the benefits listed herein will
not be provided until after the Parties’ Settlement Agreement has been finally approved by court order,
but you may submit your Claim Form now. You will be notified if final approval is not achieved.
Please fill out all six sections of this Claim Form and submit either:
Angeion Group
By Mail:
By E-Mail:
Street Address:
Suite or Apartment Number:
City____________________________State______________________Zip
E-mail address:
953362
Check the box below to confirm that you currently own a firearm with one of the model numbers and
trigger mechanism listed below and you are hereby electing to participate in this settlement.
Yes, I currently own or previously owned a Model 700 or Model Seven rifle with an X-Mark Pro
trigger manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014, I did not participate in the voluntary X-Mark
Pro Product Recall prior to ___________________, and I want to participate in this settlement.
Please note that these models, with X-Mark Pro triggers manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9,
2014, are the subject of a voluntary Product Safety Recall. Both this settlement and the Product
Safety Recall entitle current owners of these firearms who have not already participated in the
Voluntary Product Safety Recall to have their old X-Mark Pro trigger retrofitted with a new X-Mark
Pro trigger. However, the Product Safety Recall does not provide for any other benefit described
herein. Current owners of rifles subject to the Product Safety Recall may still participate in this
settlement. Visit http://xmprecall.remington.com for additional details about the Product Safety
Recall.
DESCRIPTION OF THE HAZARD: Remington has determined that some Model 700 and Model Seven
rifles with X-Mark Pro triggers could, under certain circumstances, unintentionally discharge. A
Remington investigation has determined that some X-Mark Pro triggers might have excess bonding
agent used in the assembly process. While Remington has the utmost confidence in the design of the
X-Mark Pro trigger, it is undertaking a voluntary product recall in the interest of consumer safety to
replace these triggers with new X-Mark Pro triggers.
WARNING: STOP USING YOUR FIREARM. Any unintended discharge has the potential to cause
injury or death. Immediately cease use of your firearm and return it to Remington as outlined
below. Your firearm will be retrofitted with a new trigger mechanism, and returned as soon as
possible, at no cost to you. DO NOT attempt to diagnose or repair your firearm.
953362
SECTION 4 – RETROFIT BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO CURRENT OWNERS:
Do you claim that this firearm has fired without a trigger pull, which resulted in personal injuries or property
damage? (Note any such claim is not included in or affected by this settlement.)
Yes - I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how to return my
firearm to Remington for a full inspection as well as an X-Mark Pro retrofit at no cost. This
benefit is available now, even if final court approval of this settlement has not been achieved as
of the date this Claim Form is submitted. After the retrofit, Remington will return my firearm to
me at no cost. At a later time, Remington will also send me an educational DVD regarding safe
firearms handling practices.
□
Option 1. I want to take my firearm to a Remington Authorized Repair Center for an XMark Pro retrofit at no cost. A list of Remington Authorized Repair Centers can be found
by visiting www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or calling 1-800-876-5940.
I will receive a Ticket ID# to take to the Remington Authorized Repair Center to have my
firearm retrofitted. This benefit is available now, even if final court approval of this
settlement has not been achieved as of the date this Claim Form is submitted. At a later
time, Remington will also send me an educational DVD regarding safe firearm handling
practices.
□
Option 2. I want to receive pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how
to ship my firearm to a Remington Authorized Repair Center for an X-Mark Pro retrofit at
no cost. This benefit is available now, even if final court approval of this settlement has
not been achieved as of the date this claim form is submitted. After the retrofit,
Remington will return my firearm to me at no cost. At a later time, Remington will also
send me an educational DVD regarding safe firearms handling practices.
953362
SECTION 5 – ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE REFUND BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO CERTAIN CURRENT AND
FORMER OWNERS:
Please answer the following question and check the corresponding box to confirm the additional benefit (if
any) you are electing.
DO YOU OWN OR DID YOU PREVIOUSLY OWN A MODEL 700 OR SEVEN AND DID YOU REPLACE, AT YOUR
OWN COST, THAT FIREARM’S ORIGINAL WALKER TRIGGER MECHANISM WITH AN X-MARK PRO TRIGGER
MECHANISM?
No.
PLEASE GO TO SECTION 6, AS NO REFUND BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU.
Yes - I want Remington to refund the money I paid for that replacement. Refunds will be capped
at $119. Refunds will not be processed until after the parties’ Settlement Agreement has been
finally approved by court order. (Choose One Option below):
I paid Remington to remove the Walker trigger mechanism in my rifle and replace it with a
Remington X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.
PLEASE GO TO SECTION 6 (NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NECESSARY).
I paid someone other than Remington to remove the Walker trigger mechanism from my
rifle and replace it with a Remington X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. (Choose One Option
below):
953362
□
I have included a copy of my installation receipt, which documents that a Remington
X-Mark Pro was installed in my rifle and which documents the amount I paid for the XMark Pro installation. PLEASE GO TO SECTION 6.
□
I do not have a copy of my installation receipt. PLEASE FILL OUT THE REPLACEMENT
ATTESTATION BELOW, THEN GO TO SECTION 6.
REPLACEMENT ATTESTATION
I attest that I paid $_________ for the installation. In addition, I have taken this Claim Form to a person
qualified to make rifle repairs. He or she has read and signed the statement appearing below:
I am qualified to make rifle repairs. I have inspected or am aware of the condition of the Remington Model
700 or Model Seven rifle currently or previously owned by the person whose name appears in the following
paragraph and hereby attest that the Walker trigger mechanism was removed and replaced with a
Remington X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.
Name of person qualified to make rifle repairs: ___________________________________________
Phone Number of person qualified to make rifle repairs: _________________________________________
I attest, by my signature below, that the foregoing statement regarding the condition of the Model 700 or
Model Seven rifle is true and accurate.
Executed this _________day of ________________(Month/Year)
(Signature of person qualified to make rifle repair)
I attest, by my signature below, that the statements made and answers given in this Claim Form are true and
correct and that the documents submitted herewith are true and genuine.
(Month/Year)
953362
EXHIBIT 1-B
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
If You Own or Owned Certain Remington Firearms,
You Could Receive Benefits From a Class-Action Settlement.
A U.S. federal court authorized this notice. It is not from a lawyer. You are not being sued.
• A proposed nationwide Settlement resolves a class-action lawsuit against Defendants
Remington Arms Company, LLC; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; and Sporting Goods
Properties, Inc. concerning certain firearms that contain a trigger mechanism with a component
known as a “trigger connector” and certain firearms that contain an X-Mark Pro® trigger
mechanism. Settlement Class Members have legal rights and options and deadlines by which
they must exercise them.
• The Settlement provides benefits to:
(1) Current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600,
660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector;
(2) Current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing an X-Mark
Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not
participate in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall prior to [insert date of preliminary
approval order]; and
(3) Current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles who replaced
at their own cost their rifle’s original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism.
THIS SETTLEMENT DOES NOT RESOLVE OR AFFECT ANY CLAIM FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.
• Settlement Class Members may be entitled to: (1) have their trigger mechanism retrofitted with
a new X-Mark Pro or other connectorless trigger mechanism; (2) receive a voucher code for
Remington products redeemable at Remington’s online store; and/or (3) be refunded the
money they spent to replace their Model 700 or Seven’s original Walker trigger mechanism
with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. All valid claimants will also be provided with a DVD
regarding safe firearm handling practices.
Please read this Notice carefully. You must file a Claim Form in order to receive benefits under
the Settlement Agreement. You have from now until eighteen (18) months after the Effective
Date to file a Claim Form. (“Effective Date” means the date on which the order approving the
Settlement Agreement becomes final.) Your legal rights are affected, whether you act or don’t
act. You are encouraged to periodically check the Settlement Website,
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com, because it will be updated with additional
information.
BASIC INFORMATION
1. What is this Notice about?
A Court authorized this Notice because you may have a right to know about a proposed
Settlement of a class-action lawsuit and about your rights, options and associated deadlines
before the Court decides whether to give final approval to the Settlement. The name of the
lawsuit is Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00086-ODS (W.D.
Mo.). The Defendants are Remington Arms Company, LLC; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.;
and Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. This Notice explains the lawsuit, the proposed Settlement,
and your legal rights and options. The Court still has to decide whether to finally approve the
Settlement. Certain benefits will be provided only if the Court finally approves the Settlement
and after any appeals are resolved in favor of the Settlement. Please check the Settlement
Website identified in this Notice regularly.
Your legal rights may be affected even if you do not act.
Please read this Notice carefully.
YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
SUBMIT A CLAIM
You must submit a Claim Form to receive benefits under the Settlement.
The deadline for submitting a Claim Form is eighteen (18) months after the
Effective Date of the Settlement. You will not receive any benefits under
the Settlement if you do not submit a timely Claim Form.
EXCLUDE
YOURSELF
If you do this, you are not entitled to Settlement benefits, but you keep
your right to sue Defendants on your own about the issues in the lawsuit.
OBJECT
If you do not exclude yourself, you can write to the Court about why you
don’t like the proposed Settlement.
GO TO A
HEARING
If you do not exclude yourself, you can appear and ask to speak to the
Court directly about the Settlement. You may also appear at the hearing
through your own lawyer.
DO NOTHING
You will not receive Settlement benefits that you may otherwise be eligible
for and you give up the right to sue Defendants about the issues in the
lawsuit.
2. What is the lawsuit about?
The class action lawsuit claims that trigger mechanisms with a component part known as a
trigger connector are defectively designed and can result in accidental discharges without the
QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL FREE (800) 876-5940 OR VISIT
WWW.REMINGTONFIREARMSCLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT.COM
PLEASE CONTINUE TO CHECK THE WEBSITE AS IT WILL BE PERIODICALLY UPDATED
2
trigger being pulled. The lawsuit further claims that from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014, the XMark Pro trigger mechanism assembly process created the potential for the application of an
excess amount of bonding agent, which could cause Model 700 or Seven rifles containing such
trigger mechanisms to discharge without a trigger pull under certain limited conditions. The
lawsuit contends that the value and utility of these firearms have been diminished as a result of
these alleged defects. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and claim that the design of the
firearms is not defective and that the value and utility of these firearms have not been
diminished. The Parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues were decided by the
Court.
This Settlement does not involve claims of personal injury or property damage.
3. What is a class action?
In a class action, one or more plaintiffs called “class representatives” sue one or more defendants
on behalf of other people who have similar claims. A court decides whether any lawsuit may
proceed as a class action, and this Court has not finally decided that the lawsuit may be certified
as a class action. All of these people with claims, together, are the “Settlement Class” or
“Settlement Class Members” if the Court approves this procedure. Then, that Court resolves the
issues for all Settlement Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class.
4. Why is there a Settlement?
Both sides in the lawsuit agreed to a settlement so that the Settlement Class Members can get
benefits, to avoid the cost and risk of further litigation, including a potential trial, and in
exchange for releasing Defendants from liability. The settlement does not mean that Defendants
broke any laws and/or did anything wrong, and the Court did not decide which side was right.
The Settlement here has been preliminarily approved by the Court, which authorized the issuance
of this Notice. The class representatives and the lawyers representing them (called “Class
Counsel”) believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of all Settlement Class Members.
The essential terms of the Settlement are summarized in this Notice. The Settlement Agreement
along with all exhibits and addenda sets forth in greater detail the rights and obligations of the
parties. If there is any conflict between this Notice and the Settlement Agreement, the
Settlement Agreement governs.
3
A. WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
5. Who is included in the Settlement?
•
All current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600,
660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector; and
•
All current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing an X-Mark
Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not
participate in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall prior to [insert date of preliminary
approval order]; and
•
All current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles who
replaced their rifle’s original Walker trigger mechanism at their own cost with an X-Mark
Pro trigger mechanism.
6. I’m not sure if I’m included in the Settlement.
If you are not sure whether you are included in the Settlement Classes, you may call 1-800-8765940. You can also go to the Settlement Website for instructions and photos that can help you
determine what model firearm you own and what trigger mechanism it contains.
7. Are there exceptions to being included in the Settlement?
You are not a Settlement Class Member even if you are included in one or both Settlement
Classes if:
•
•
•
•
You exclude yourself from this Settlement;
You are a governmental entity;
You are a subsidiary or affiliate of any of the Defendants;
You are the Judge in the lawsuit or a member of the Judge’s immediate family.
8. How do I know if I have a firearm described in Question 5 that is subject to this lawsuit?
If you are not certain if your firearm is covered by this lawsuit, call 1-800-876-5940. You can
also go to the Settlement Website for instructions and photos that can help you determine what
model firearm you own and what trigger mechanism it contains.
4
B. THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS—WHAT YOU GET AND HOW TO GET IT
9. What does the Settlement provide?
If you are a Settlement Class Member, what you are eligible to receive depends on several
factors, including the model and trigger mechanism of your firearm. The Settlement benefits are
outlined generally below, but more information can be found at the Settlement Website,
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com, or by calling 1-800-876-5940.
Please note that you must submit a Claim Form to receive benefits. If you do nothing, you will
not receive benefits from the Settlement. If you do nothing, you will still be considered a
Settlement Class Member, but you will not be able to sue Defendants about the issues in the
lawsuit.
Claim Forms are available online at www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or by
calling 1-800-876-5940. You may submit your Claim Form online, or you may complete your
form and then submit it by U.S. mail or e-mail at the addresses listed below:
Online: www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com
By E-Mail: remington@angeiongroup.com
By U.S. Mail: Angeion Group
a. X-Mark Pro and Model 770 Connectorless Trigger Mechanism Retrofit
Current owners of Model 700 and Seven firearms containing an X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who have not participated in
the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall are entitled to have their trigger mechanism replaced
with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism as follows. A Remington Authorized Repair Center
(“RARC”) will remove the trigger mechanism and retrofit your firearm with an X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism manufactured under the new assembly process at no cost to you. You must
first submit a timely Claim Form to be eligible for this benefit. Then, you can choose either to
take your firearm to the RARC for the retrofit or to ship your firearm to the RARC for the
retrofit. If you choose to ship your firearm, Remington will send you pre-paid shipping tags,
boxes, and written instructions. If you choose to take your firearm to a RARC, you can find a
current list of Remington Authorized Repair Centers on the Settlement Website or by calling the
Settlement Phone Number. Please note: These models, with X-Mark Pro triggers manufactured
from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014, are the subject of a voluntary Product Safety Recall (see
xmprecall.remington.com for additional information). Both this Settlement and the Product
Safety Recall entitle current owners of these firearms who have not already participated in the
Product Safety Recall to have their old X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism retrofitted with a new XQUESTIONS? CALL TOLL FREE (800) 876-5940 OR VISIT
5
Mark Pro trigger. However, the Product Safety Recall does not provide for any other benefit
described herein. Current owners of rifles subject to the Product Safety Recall may still
participate in this settlement. Due to the ongoing Product Safety Recall, the trigger mechanism
retrofit for these models is available now and you may submit your Claim Form now.
Current owners of Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78 and 673 firearms that contain a trigger
mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector are also entitled to have their trigger mechanism
replaced with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism under the same process outlined above. Please
note: With certain limited exceptions (see the Claim Form for further details), this benefit will
not be provided until the Effective Date, but you may submit your Claim Form now.
Current owners of Model 710, 715 and 770 firearms that contain a trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector are entitled to have their trigger mechanism replaced with a Model
770 connectorless trigger mechanism. Remington will remove the original trigger mechanism
and retrofit the firearm with the current Model 770 connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost to
you. Remington will send you pre-paid shipping tags, boxes, and written instructions on how to
ship the firearm to Remington for the retrofit. You must first timely submit a Claim Form to be
eligible for this benefit. Please note: With certain limited exceptions (see the Claim Form for
further details), this benefit will not be provided until after the Effective Date, but you may
submit your Claim Form now.
Please visit the Settlement Website, www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com, or
call 1-800-876-5940 if you have any questions about these benefits.
b. Remington Voucher Codes
Owners of Model 600, 660, or XP-100 firearms are entitled to receive a voucher code in the
amount of $12.50 redeemable for Remington products at Remington’s online store,
(www.shopremingtoncountry.com). Owners of Model 721, 722, or 725 firearms are entitled to
receive a voucher code in the amount of $10.00 redeemable for Remington products at
Remington’s online store (www.shopremingtoncountry.com). These voucher codes are
transferable, may be combined with other Remington coupons or vouchers, and do not expire.
You are not required to return your firearm(s) to Remington in order to receive a voucher code,
but you must first timely submit a Claim Form to be eligible for this benefit. Please note: These
benefits will not be provided until after the Effective Date, but you may submit your Claim Form
now.
Please visit the Settlement Website, www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com, or
call 1-800-876-5940 if you have any questions about these benefits.
c. Refund for Prior Trigger Mechanism Replacement
In addition to the retrofit in (a) above, if you own or previously owned a Model 700 or Seven
firearm and you replaced your firearm’s original Walker trigger mechanism at your own
6
cost with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9,
2014, you may also seek a refund of the amount of money you paid for the replacement. You
must first timely submit a Claim Form and include any required documentation. Refunds shall
not exceed $119, which represents the most that Remington has ever charged for an X-Mark Pro
installation in Model 700 or Model Seven rifles originally containing a Walker trigger
mechanism. Refunds will be batch mailed four times per year. Please note: These benefits will
not be provided until after the Effective Date, but you may submit your Claim Form now.
d. Additional Benefits
All Settlement Class Members who timely submit Claim Forms will be provided with an
educational DVD regarding safe firearm handling practices.
10. Making a claim – when should I submit my claim?
You may submit your Claim Form now, but certain benefits will not be available until after the
Effective Date. Please see section 9 of this Notice for details on when benefits will be available.
Claim Forms must be received no later than eighteen (18) months following the Effective Date,
which will be posted on the Settlement Website when it is known. You may also call 1-800-8765940 or visit the Settlement Website for more information.
11. When is the Settlement’s Effective Date?
For information about the Settlement’s Effective Date, check the website,
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com. The Effective Date will be the date of the
Court’s Order giving final approval to the Settlement if there are no objections or appeals. If
there are objections or appeals, the date will be later. When the date becomes known, it will be
posted on the website. It is estimated that the Effective Date will not occur before June 2015.
12. What happens if the Settlement is not approved by the Court?
If the Settlement is not approved at the Final Approval hearing, then the Settlement will
terminate and all class members and Parties will be restored to the positions in which they were
before the Settlement Agreement was signed.
13. When will I receive my benefits?
You may submit your Claim Form now, but certain benefits will not be available until after the
Effective Date. Please see sections 9 and 11 of this Notice for details on when benefits will be
available. You may also call 1-800-876-5940 or visit the Settlement Website for additional
information.
7
C. REMAINING IN THE SETTLEMENT
15. What am I giving up if I stay in the Settlement Classes?
If the Settlement becomes final, Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves from
the Settlement Classes will release Defendants from liability and will not be able to sue
Defendants about the issues in the lawsuit. The Settlement Agreement at paragraphs 26-28
describes the released claims in necessary legal terminology, so read it carefully. The Settlement
Agreement is available at www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com. The full release
section is also attached as Appendix A to this Notice. You can talk to one of the lawyers listed
in Question 22 for free or you can talk to your own lawyer at your own expense if you have
questions about the released claims or what they mean.
D. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
You do not have to take part in the Settlement or be a Settlement Class Member. You can do
what is called “excluding” yourself or “opting out.” If you exclude yourself, you will not receive
any benefits under the Settlement and you cannot object to the Settlement. Any Court orders
will not apply to you. By excluding yourself, you keep any right to file or proceed with a lawsuit
against the Defendants over the legal issues in this lawsuit.
16. If I don’t exclude myself, can I sue later?
Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Defendants for the issues resolved by
this Settlement. If the Settlement is finally approved, you will be permanently enjoined and
barred from initiating or continuing any lawsuit or other proceeding against Defendants about the
issues in the lawsuit.
17. If I exclude myself, can I get anything from this Settlement?
If you exclude yourself, you cannot get Settlement benefits and you cannot object to the
Settlement. But, if you timely and properly exclude yourself, the Settlement will not prevent you
from suing, continuing to sue or remaining or becoming part of a different lawsuit against
Defendants in the future about the issues in the lawsuit. If you exclude yourself, you will not be
bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit and you may not object to the Settlement.
18. How do I get out of the Settlement?
To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying that you want to
be excluded from the Settlement in Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, et al., and identify the
case number (No. 4:13-cv-00086-ODS). In the letter, you must include your name; address;
model and serial number of your firearm; telephone number; and your signature. If you have
entered into a written or oral agreement to be represented by counsel, the letter must also be
8
signed by the attorney who represents you. You can’t ask to be excluded over the phone or at
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com.
You must mail your exclusion request to:
Angeion Group
Your exclusion request must be received by Month 00, Year. The deadline found in this Notice
may be changed by the Court. Please check www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com
regularly for updates regarding the Settlement.
E. OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court if you don’t agree with the Settlement or some part of it.
19. How do I tell the Court if I don’t like the Settlement?
If you are a Settlement Class Member, and you don’t exclude yourself from the Settlement
Classes, you can object to the Settlement if you don’t like some part of it. You can give reasons
why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views but may
approve the Settlement anyway.
To object, you or your lawyer must send a written objection containing all of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The name and title of the lawsuit, Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, et al., Case No.
4:13-cv-00086-ODS;
A written statement of objections clearly specifying the grounds and reasons for each
objection;
A statement of whether or not you or your lawyer will ask to appear at the Final Approval
Hearing to talk about your objections, and if so, how long you will need to present your
objections;
Copies of any documents you or your lawyer will present at the Final Approval Hearing;
Your current address, telephone number and e-mail address, and that of your attorney, if any;
Information showing that you are a member of one or more Settlement Classes, including a
list of the firearms to which your objection applies (with serial number and the model of each
firearm); and
Your signature and that of your attorney, if you have one.
You must mail your objection postmarked no later than Month 00, Year to:
Angeion Group
9
In addition, your objection must be received by Month 00, Year to have your objection
considered by the Court. You must also file the objection with the Clerk of Court (identified
below) so that it is received and filed no later than Month 00, Year. If you retain an attorney to
object to the Settlement, the attorney must file a notice of appearance and serve it on Class
Counsel and Defense Counsel no later than five (5) days after objecting to the Settlement. Send
your objection to:
Clerk of Court
Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse
Attn: Clerk’s Office
400 East 9th Street
20. What is the difference between objecting and excluding myself from the Settlement?
Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the Class. If you exclude
yourself, you have no basis to object because the Settlement no longer affects you. Objecting is
telling the Court that you don’t like something about the Settlement. You can only object if you
stay in a Settlement Class.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will remain a Settlement Class
Member and all of the Court’s orders will apply to you, you will be eligible for the Settlement
benefits described above as long as you satisfy the conditions for receiving each benefit, and you
will not be able to sue Defendants over the issues in the lawsuit.
21. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will remain a Settlement Class
Member and all of the Court’s orders will apply to you, you will be eligible for the Settlement
benefits described above as long as you satisfy the conditions for receiving each benefit, and you
will not be able to sue Defendants over the issues in the lawsuit.
F. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
22. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
Yes. The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you and other Settlement Class Members.
These lawyers are:
10
Richard J. Arsenault
Charles E. Schaffer
Eric D. Holland
HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER &
STOLZE, LLC
300 N. Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63101
W. Mark Lanier
LANIER LAW FIRM
6810 FM 1960 West
Houston, TX 77069
You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you
may hire one at your own expense.
23. How will the lawyers be paid?
The lawyers who represent the Settlement Classes will ask the Court for reimbursement of their
out-of-pocket expenses and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs based on their work in this
litigation in an amount not to exceed $12.5 million. The amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded
will be determined solely by the Court. The amount of the award will in large part be based on
the amount of time spent by the lawyers litigating this case since 2012. The Court must approve
any request for fees, expenses and costs. These payments of legal fees and expenses will not
reduce the value of the Settlement benefits made available to Settlement Class Members.
Defendants will also separately pay the costs to provide notice of and to administer the
Settlement.
24. Will the class representatives who have worked with lawyers receive any extra
payment?
Yes. To compensate them for the work in this litigation, Class Counsel will ask the Court for an
incentive award in the amount of $2,500 for each class representative. These payments will not
reduce the value of the Settlement benefits made available to Settlement Class Members.
G. THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to grant final approval to the Settlement. If you
have filed an objection on time and attend the hearing, you may ask to speak, but you don’t have
to attend or speak.
11
25. When and where will the Court decide whether to grant final approval of the
Settlement?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 00 am/pm on Month 00, Year at the Charles
Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 East 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. At this hearing,
the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are
written objections, the Court will consider them, and the Court will listen to people who have
asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to grant final
approval of the Settlement and, if so, how much to pay the lawyers representing Settlement Class
Members. We do not know how long it will take the Court to render these decisions.
26. Do I have to come to the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer any question the Court may have. But you are welcome to come
at your own expense. If you send an objection, you don’t have to come to court to talk about it
as long as you filed a written objection with all of the required information on time with the
Court and delivered it on time to Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, the Court will
consider it. You may also have a lawyer attend the hearing on your behalf, but it is not required.
27. When will the Settlement be final?
The Settlement will not be final unless and until the Court grants final approval of the Settlement
at or after the Fairness Hearing and after any appeals are resolved in favor of the Settlement.
Please be patient and check the website identified in this Notice regularly.
H. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. You can get a copy of the detailed Settlement
Agreement
and
other
important
information
about
the
case
at
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com. You may also call 1-800-876-5940, or write
to:
Angeion Group
You can also look at and copy the legal documents filed in the lawsuit at any time during regular
office hours (9:00am–4:30pm) at the Office of the Clerk of Court, United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E. 9th Street, 1st
Floor, Room 1510, Kansas City, MO 64106.
12
EXHIBIT 1-C
LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
If you own certain Remington firearms, you may be eligible for benefits from a class action
settlement.
A proposed nationwide Settlement has been preliminarily approved in a class action lawsuit
involving certain Remington firearms. The class action lawsuit claims that trigger mechanisms
with a component part known as a trigger connector are defectively designed and can result in
accidental discharges without the trigger being pulled. The lawsuit further claims that from May
1, 2006 to April 9, 2014, the X-Mark Pro® trigger mechanism assembly process created the
potential for the application of an excess amount of bonding agent, which could cause Model 700
or Seven bolt-action rifles containing such trigger mechanisms to discharge without a trigger pull
under certain limited conditions. The lawsuit contends that the value and utility of these firearms
have been diminished as a result of these alleged defects. Defendants deny any wrongdoing.
Who’s included?
The Settlement provides benefits to:
(1) Current owners of Remington Model
700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710,
715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721,
722, and 725 firearms containing a
Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector;
(2) Current owners of Remington Model
700 and Model Seven rifles
containing an X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured from May
1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not
participate in the voluntary X-Mark
Pro product recall prior to [insert
date of preliminary approval order];
and
(3) Current and former owners of
Remington Model 700 and Model
Seven rifles who replaced their
rifle’s original Walker trigger
mechanism with an X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism.
What does the Settlement provide?
Settlement Class Members may be entitled
to: (1) have their trigger mechanism
retrofitted with a new X-Mark Pro or other
connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost
to the class members; (2) receive a voucher
code for Remington products redeemable at
Remington’s online store; and/or (3) be
refunded the money they spent to replace
their Model 700 or Seven’s original Walker
trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism.
How can I obtain benefits?
Submit a Claim Form. Claim Forms can be
found at www.remingtonfirearmsclassaction
settlement.com or by calling 1-800-8765940.
What are my legal rights?
Even if you do nothing you will be bound by
the Court’s decisions. If you want to keep
your right to sue the Defendants yourself,
you must exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class by Month 00, 2015. If you
stay in the Settlement Class, you may object
to the Settlement by Month 00, 2015.
The Court will hold a hearing on Month 00,
2015 to consider whether to approve the
Settlement and a request for attorneys’ fees
of up to $12.5 million, plus a payment of
$2,500 for each named Plaintiff. You or
your own lawyer may appear at the hearing
at your own expense.
For more information or a Claim Form:
1-800-876-5940 or www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com
EXHIBIT 1-D
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about certain Remington firearms. You may be eligible for a trigger
mechanism replacement, Remington vouchers, and/or a cash refund.
What is the lawsuit about?
The class action lawsuit claims that trigger mechanisms with a component part known as a trigger connector are defectively
designed and can result in accidental discharges without the trigger being pulled. The lawsuit further claims that from May 1, 2006
to April 9, 2014, the X-Mark Pro® trigger mechanism assembly process created the potential for the application of an excess amount
of bonding agent, which could cause Model 700 or Seven rifles containing such trigger mechanisms to discharge without a trigger
pull under certain limited conditions. The lawsuit contends that the value and utility of these firearms have been diminished as a
result of these alleged defects. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and claim that the design of the firearms is not defective and
that the value and utility of these firearms have not been diminished. The Parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues
were decided by the Court.
Who’s Included? The Settlement provides benefits to:
•
Current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector;
•
Current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured
from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not participate in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall prior to [insert date of
preliminary approval order]; and
•
Current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle’s original Walker
trigger mechanism at their own cost with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9,
2014.
What does the Settlement provide? Settlement Class Members may be entitled to: (1) have their trigger mechanism retrofitted
with a new X-Mark Pro™ or other connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost to the class members; (2) receive a voucher code for
Remington products redeemable at Remington’s online store; and/or (3) be refunded the money they spent to replace their Model
700 or Seven’s original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro™ trigger mechanism. Further information about the
Settlement, attorneys’ fees, and other detail can be found at www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or by calling 1-800-8765940.
How can I get Settlement benefits? Submit a Claim Form. Claim Forms can be found at www.remingtonfirearmsclassaction
settlement.com or by calling 1-800-876-5940.
What are my legal rights? Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court’s decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue
the Defendants yourself, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class(es) by Month 00, 2015. If you stay in the Settlement
Class(es), you may object to the Settlement by Month 00, 2015. This settlement does not involve claims of personal injury or
property damage.
The Court will hold a hearing on Month 00, 2015 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys’ fees up
to $12.5 million, plus a payment of $2,500 for each named Plaintiff. You or your own lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own
expense.
For more information or a Claim Form: 1-800-876-5940 or
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com
953318
EXHIBIT 1-E
December __, 2014
Re: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
Dear Attorney General:
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City
Missouri 64108-2613
816.474.6550
816.421.5547 Fax
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Remington Arms Company, LLC (“Remington”), E.I. Du
Pont De Nemours & Company (“Du Pont”), and Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.
(“SGPI”), hereby give notice of a proposed nationwide class action settlement in Pollard
et al. v. Remington Arms Company, LLC, et al., No. 4:13-cv-00086 (W.D. Mo.)
(hereinafter “class action”). The class action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri in January 2013. The class action includes two
settlement classes. Settlement Class A includes all current owners of Remington Model
700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector.
Settlement Class B includes all current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model
Seven rifles containing an X-Mark Pro® trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1,
2006 to April 9, 2014; and all current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and
Model Seven rifles who previously replaced their rifle’s original Walker trigger
mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to
April 9, 2014.
Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint,
and the materials filed with those Complaints are included with this letter as Attachments
A and B. See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(1). The Notice of Settlement is included with this
letter as Attachment C. The Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement
Classes, Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Notice Plan,
Appointment of Class Action Settlement Administrator, and Appointment of Lead Class
Counsel (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”), which was filed with the court on
December 5, 2014, is included with this letter as Attachment D. See id. § 1715(b)(4).
The Proposed Settlement Agreement is Exhibit 1 to the Motion for Preliminary Approval.
See id. § 1715(b)(4). The Proposed Class Notice Plan is described in the Motion for
Preliminary Approval and in the Proposed Settlement Agreement; the proposed long
form notice, short form notice, and direct notice are included with this letter as
Attachments E, F, and G. See id. § 1715(b)(3).
The Court has scheduled a preliminary approval hearing for February 4, 2014. The
Parties have requested a Final Hearing on July 31, 2015. See id. § 1715(b)(2). The court
has not entered any final judgment or notice of dismissal in the class action at this time.
See id. § 1715(b)(6). Apart from the Notice of Settlement and the Motion for Preliminary
Approval, there are no settlements or other agreements contemporaneously made
953319
Denver
Geneva
Houston
Kansas City
London
Miami
Orange County
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Washington, D.C.
between class counsel and counsel for Remington, Du Pont, and SGPI. See id. §
1715(b)(5). There are no written judicial opinions relating to class notice, opt-out rights,
the proposed class action settlement, agreements between class counsel and counsel for
Remington, Du Pont, and SGPI, and/or a final judgment or notice of dismissal in this
class action at this time. See id. § 1715(b)(8).
December 15, 2014
Page 2
It is not feasible to give the names of the class members who reside in each state and the
estimated proportionate share of their claims. See id. § 1715(b)(7)(A).
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John K. Sherk
Attorney for Remington, Du Pont, and SGPI
Denver
Geneva
Houston
Kansas City
London
Miami
Orange County
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Washington, D.C.
953319
EXHIBIT 2
IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
KANSAS CITY DIVISION
IAN POLLARD, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, )
SPORTING GOODS PROPERTIES, INC., )
and E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND )
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 4:13-cv-86-ODS
DECLARATION OF DEREK L. WATKINS
DEREK L. WATKINS, being first duly sworn on oath, states and declares as follows:
1.
I am over 21 years of age and am competent to testify concerning and have personal
knowledge of each of the matters set forth herein.
2.
I am the President and Chief Engineer of Nth-Level, LLC. Prior to July 15, 2014,
I was employed by Remington Arms Company, LLC (“Remington”). (A copy of my current
resume detailing my professional experience and qualifications is attached to this Declaration as
Exhibit A.)
3.
On April 11, 2014, Remington announced a voluntary recall of Model 700™ and
Model Seven™ rifles with X-Mark Pro® (XMP®) trigger assemblies manufactured from May 1,
2006, to April 9, 2014. The recall was based on Remington’s discovery that some XMP trigger
assemblies may have been manufactured with excess bonding agent used in the assembly process,
which could cause an unintentional discharge under certain circumstances. (A copy of the
Remington recall notice is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B.)
4.
As a result of the XMP recall, Remington charged me with working with other
Remington engineers and employees to develop processes to repair recalled Model 700™ and
Model Seven™ rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies manufactured prior to April 9,
2014. I was also charged with working with other Remington engineers and employees in
developing a new manufacturing process for XMP trigger assemblies on a going-forward basis.
This declaration will summarize the specialty cleaning/repair process for returned consumer rifles
and the pertinent changes to the new manufacturing process for X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies.
5.
The X-Mark Pro recall included the return and specialty cleaning/repair of Model
700™ and Model Seven™ rifles made from May of 2006 through April 9, 2014 with X-Mark Pro
trigger assemblies. X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies were (and continue to be) manufactured in two
basic iterations, i.e., externally adjustable (“EA”) and not externally adjustable (“NA”). The
bonding agent referenced in the XMP recall was Loctite® 660. (The Technical Data Sheet for
Loctite® 660 is attached to this Declaration as Ex. C.) Under the prior manufacturing process,
Loctite® 660 was to be placed on the threads of the blocker screw and the trigger engagement
screw to allow Remington to adjust and set the positions of the blocker screw and the trigger
engagement screw during the manufacturing process.
Once the proper adjustments were
confirmed, the Loctite® 660 would then be allowed to cure so as to seal the screws in their properly
set positions.
6.
Under the April 2014 recall, XMP trigger assemblies on consumer rifles returned
to Remington’s Ilion, New York manufacturing plant were subject to a specialty cleaning/repair
process. After removal of the trigger assembly from the barreled action, Remington would inspect
2
each trigger assembly for any evidence of post-manufacture alteration or tampering, such as
stoning, filing or excessive wear on the sear, trigger, and other trigger assembly components. If
the trigger assembly was found to have been altered in any material way, the consumer’s rifle
would simply receive a new X-Mark Pro trigger assembly manufactured and assembled under the
new manufacturing process, described below in ¶¶ 7, 17-18. If there was no evidence of any
material alteration, the blocker screw, trigger engagement screw, trigger pull adjustment screw,
safety detent spring, primary trigger pull spring, and sear spring would be removed from the trigger
assembly and discarded. The remaining components, called the trigger sub-assembly, would be
tagged with an identifier so that that specific trigger assembly could be reinstalled on the
consumer’s rifle upon completion of the specialty cleaning/repair process. After removal of the
screws and springs, the trigger sub-assembly would then be subjected to a submersive acetone bath
augmented with heat and ultrasound to remove any remaining Loctite® 660. The heat would
accelerate the chemical action of the acetone, and the ultrasound would provide mechanical energy
to remove any remaining Loctite® 660 residue. Upon completion of the acetone bath, each trigger
sub-assembly would be inspected 100% to confirm that all Loctite® 660 residue had been removed
from the trigger sub-assembly.
7.
The XMP trigger sub-assembly would then be sent to the re-work line for
reassembly with new screws and springs using Loctite®263™ to set the blocker screw and the
trigger engagement screw. Under the new manufacturing process, Remington uses Loctite®
263™ instead of Loctite® 660. Loctite® 263™ was chosen by Remington as a result of extensive
testing and confirmation that it could be metered in small amounts onto the threads of the blocker
screw and the trigger engagement screw while still retaining the intended function of permanently
3
bonding the screws in place at the time of manufacture. (The Technical Data Sheet for Loctite®
263™ is attached to this Declaration as Ex. D.)
8.
Upon arrival at the re-work area, the trigger sub-assembly would again be 100%
inspected to confirm that all Loctite® 660 had been removed. (Photographs of a specialty-cleaned
X-Mark Pro trigger sub-assembly as received and inspected in the re-work area are attached to this
Declaration as Exhibits E, F, G, and H.) Once the trigger sub-assembly passes inspection at the
re-work area, it would then be placed in line for reassembly with new screws and springs, and the
adjustment and setting of the blocker screw and the trigger/sear engagement.
9.
In installing a new blocker screw, the operator uses a peristaltic dispenser or
metering device to apply one drop of Loctite® 263™ to the rear threads of the blocker screw. The
blocker screw is placed in a fixture which exposes only the rear threads of the screw as the Loctite®
263™ is applied. The metering process prevents application of too little or too much Loctite®
263™ prior to installation of the screw. The operator then installs the blocker screw in the trigger
sub-assembly. The operator uses a video comparator to properly set the blocker screw so it will
perform its intended function of restoring full engagement (minimum 75%) of the trigger
underneath the sear upon engagement of the manual safety.
10.
The operator then applies Loctite® 263™ to the trigger engagement screw. (A
photograph of the application process is attached as Exhibit I). The metering process permits only
two drops of Loctite® 263™ to be applied to the rear threads of the trigger engagement screw.
Once the Loctite® 263™ is applied to the trigger engagement screw, the operator installs the
trigger engagement screw into the trigger sub-assembly. Each trigger sub-assembly is placed on
a video comparator for the setting of the specified trigger/sear engagement of .020 ± .001 of an
inch. Following the setting of the blocker adjustment screw and the trigger engagement screw,
4
each screw and the trigger assembly is visually inspected by microscope by the operator to confirm
that there is no excess Loctite® 263™ present in the trigger assembly or at the ends of the blocker
adjustment screw or the trigger engagement screw. (A photograph of the comparator setting of
the trigger engagement screw is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit J.)
11.
During the trigger reassembly process, new springs are installed and the trigger pull
adjustment screw is set by the operator. No Loctite® 263™ or other bonding agent is applied to
the threads of the trigger pull adjustment screw as this screw may be adjusted after manufacture
by a competent gunsmith. Once the blocker screw, trigger engagement screw, and trigger pull
adjustment screw are all properly set in accordance with Remington specifications, the head of
each of the three screws receives a coating of Duco cement to provide evidence of any postmanufacturing alteration or changes to any of the three screws.
12.
Once the springs have been installed and the blocker adjustment screw, trigger
engagement screw, and trigger pull adjustment screw have been properly adjusted and set by the
operator, the trigger assembly is then set aside to permit the Loctite® 263™ to cure for 24 hours.
(A photograph of a curing station is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit K.) The curing process
confirms that the Loctite® 263™ has had more than sufficient time to cure and permanently bond
the blocker screw and trigger engagement screw in their proper positions.
13.
Following the 24-hour cure, the operator tests each trigger assembly with a torque
wrench to confirm that the screws will not move when torqued. The torque testing is completed
on a video comparator which allows the operator to visually confirm that the screws have not
moved under torque and that the trigger/sear engagement and the blocker setting are still within
Remington specifications.
5
14.
Once each trigger assembly has passed all tests and inspections, the operator places
a center punch on the bolt release to signify that the trigger assembly has received the specialty
cleaning/repair under the recall program, and that it has successfully undergone and passed the
new manufacturing process.
15.
After the consumer’s trigger assembly has been specialty cleaned and reassembled,
it would be returned to the Arm Service Department for reinstallation on the consumer’s rifle. The
Arm Service operator would set the externally adjustable trigger pull to Remington’s trigger pull
specification. Each rifle would be function-tested by the Arm Service operator to confirm that the
trigger assembly is working properly. Each rifle would then be sent to the Gallery area at the
Remington plant for test firing. If the rifle does not pass either the function test by the Arm Service
operator or all Gallery tests, the rifle would be rejected and returned for further repair.
16.
The specialty clean/repair process for consumer returned X-Mark Pro trigger
assemblies was implemented at Remington’s Ilion, New York firearms plant on about June 6,
2014.
17.
In addition to establishing the specialty clean/repair process for returned consumer
rifles under the XMP recall, Remington also instituted a new manufacturing process for new XMark Pro trigger mechanisms of both EA and NA types. In the revised trigger assembly
manufacturing process, newly-manufactured housing and trigger components are utilized. The
installation, setting, adjustment, and inspection of newly manufactured trigger assemblies is the
same as that for specialty cleaned/repaired trigger mechanisms. Specifically, the Loctite® 263™
application, cure, and inspection processes are identical to those utilized in the specialty
clean/repair process. XMP trigger assemblies serviced under the specialty clean/repair process of
6
the XMP recall are identical and equivalent in all respects to new trigger assemblies made under
the revised trigger assembly manufacturing process.
18.
Once assembled, the new trigger assembly is sent to the rifle production line to be
installed on a new rifle. New rifles are then taken to the Gallery area for proof testing, live-firing,
and function testing. Once the rifle passes the Gallery tests, it is sent to the Pack area. The operator
in the Pack area will then externally set rifles with EA trigger mechanisms to Remington’s trigger
pull specification before packing the rifle in the shipping box along with the owner’s manual and
other product literature. The trigger pull force for Model 700™ and Model Seven™ rifles with XMark Pro NA trigger assemblies is set to Remington’s trigger pull specification during the
assembly of the trigger assembly.
19.
I understand that the manufacturing process records and standards of work for both
the specialty clean/repair operations performed on recalled consumer trigger assemblies and the
manufacturing process records for new X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies have been produced to
plaintiffs’ counsel under protective order in this litigation.
20.
Remington began production of new X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies under the
revised manufacturing process on about May 30, 2014. Remington anticipates operating that
production line to manufacture X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies for the retrofit of rifles returned
under the terms of the proposed class action settlement calling for retrofitting certain Remington
bolt-action rifles with new X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies. Remington has the capacity to produce
1,000 new X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies per day and does not anticipate any difficulty in being
able to produce new X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies sufficient to retrofit into consumer rifles
returned for retrofit under the terms of the class action settlement.
7
21.
I have also examined two X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms which had been
specialty cleaned/repaired under the X-Mark Pro recall program and returned to consumers. Those
two rifles are serial nos. RR11152F and RR11465F. Those rifles had been returned to Remington
with reports that upon bolt closing, the consumer believed the firing pin had fallen without a trigger
pull. I inspected each of the trigger assemblies and found them to be in proper working order
without excessive Loctite.
Remington spoke with the consumers and determined that the
consumer was simply raising the bolt handle of the uncocked rifle without retracting the bolt to
the rear to cock or reset the mechanism. When the handle was lowered, the firing pin had not been
reset or cocked and would simply go forward a short distance as the bolt was lowered. This “shortstroke” condition from an uncocked mechanism is not a malfunction of the trigger assembly and,
in any event, would not result in the discharge of a chambered cartridge.
22.
It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering and scientific certainty that
Remington X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies made after April 9, 2014, under the new manufacturing
process, and consumer X-Mark Pro trigger assemblies specialty cleaner/repaired under the X-Mark
Pro recall, have and will result in the production of reasonably safe and reliable trigger assemblies
suitable for installation and use in Remington Model 700™ and Model Seven™ bolt-action rifles.
23.
I am also familiar with the design and manufacture of the Remington Model 770™
connectorless trigger assembly which has been installed in Model 770™ rifles manufactured since
July of 2010. It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering and scientific certainty that
the Remington Model 770™ connectorless trigger assembly has and will result in the production
of reasonably safe and reliable trigger assemblies suitable for installation and use in Remington
Model 710™, Model 715™, and Model 770™ bolt-action rifles returned for retrofit under the
terms of the class action settlement.
8
EXHIBIT 3
IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
IAN POLLARD, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, )
SPORTING GOODS PROPERTIES, INC., )
and E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND )
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 4:13-cv-86-ODS
AMENDED DECLARATION OF CHARLES W. POWELL
CHARLES W. POWELL, being first duly sworn on oath, states and declares as follows:
1.0
I am over 21 years of age and am competent to testify concerning and have personal
knowledge of each of the matters set forth herein.
2.0
I am a Registered Professional Engineer. I am the President and founder of Support
Services Engineering Corporation (SSEC) and have been since 1992. For the last 28 years I have
been engaged in the business of engineering failure analysis of products and structures and
accident investigation. My qualifications and education are set forth in my Curriculum Vita, a
true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration. I have qualified to
testify as a materials engineering expert in state and federal court jurisdictions in Oklahoma,
Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, California, Florida, Michigan, and Montana.
A listing of the last four years of my trial and deposition testimony is attached as Exhibit B to
this Declaration.
Case
Case4:13-cv-00086-ODS
4:13-cv-00086-ODS Document
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page12ofof41
42
Support Services Engineering Corporation 3360 Allspice Run Norman, OK 73026
Page 2
3.0
In my engineering profession I evaluate the physical aspects of material failures,
fractures, and the accident forces and conditions which cause them. I am trained in the
application of advanced nondestructive evaluation techniques for product in-service reliability,
structural integrity, and component design. I taught nondestructive testing principles and
material defect identification to airworthiness inspectors at the Federal Aviation Administration
Academy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for eight years. I have taught materials analysis
techniques and microscopic analysis techniques to university students, professional
organizations, and state agencies, like the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. I have successfully
completed the American Society for Nondestructive Testing national examination for Level III
Certification in Penetrant Testing, Magnetic Testing, and Ultrasonic Testing (Certification
Number GV-764). My engineering projects are performed for government agencies, such as the
US Department of Defense, the US Department of Transportation, the US Coast Guard, the
Federal Aviation Administration, the US Department of Justice and the Royal Australian Air
Force, as well as private industry, insurance companies, and plaintiff or defense attorneys.
4.0
History of the Remington Walker Fire Control:
Historically, the Remington Arms company has manufactured rifles, particularly bolt action rifles,
for many decades. This includes bolt action rifles used by the United States military services in
World War I and World War II. Remington Arms is an experienced manufacturer of these rifles and
of their fire control systems. A rifle's "fire control system" is that assembly of rifle components that
contains the trigger and sear. When the rifle user cocks a bolt action rifle by opening and closing
the bolt, the rifle's firing pin is held back under spring pressure by the sear. When the rifle user pulls
on the trigger, it disengages the sear from the firing pin head, releasing the firing pin to fly forward
and impact the cartridge primer, firing the chambered cartridge in the rifle.
4.1
Prior to 1948, the bolt action fire control assemblies for center fired rifles made
by Remington Arms required a significant amount of trigger pull force and trigger travel to
release the sear and fire the rifle. Alteration of the trigger pull force or other fire control
properties in the older fire control designs could only be accomplished by the re-manufacture of
the fire control components by the manufacturer or by the alteration of the fire control
components by rifle owners or gunsmiths.
4.2
In 1948, US Patent No. 2,514,981, "Firing Mechanism For Firearms", was applied
for by Remington employees Merle H. "Mike" Walker and Philip R. Haskell. This new fire
control system, called the "Walker" fire control system for its inventor, was initially
manufactured into the Remington Model 721 bolt action rifle in 1948 and subsequently used for
many Remington manufactured bolt action rifles, including the Model 700 rifles that began
manufacture in 1962. This new "Walker" fire control system, based on a target model fire
control used on the Remington Model 37 rimfire competition bolt action rifle, was composed of
a trigger, trigger connector, and sear with a number of small pins, springs, and adjustment screws
installed within a housing. The diagram below identifies some of the internal components of the
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page23ofof41
42
Page 3
Walker fire control
Figure 1
Cross section diagram of the Walker fire control. The U-shaped Connector is shown in black in
this diagram.
4.3
In the Walker fire control, a flat U-shaped steel bar called a "Trigger Connector"
is placed around the front of the Trigger. The Connector is not attached to the trigger, but is a
slip fit and pushed into contact with the front of the Trigger by the Trigger Spring. It is the top
rear corner of the Connector that engages and supports the Sear and keeps the rifle firing pin
rearward, under spring pressure, until the Connector moves forward, as the trigger is pulled, and
allows the sear to drop and release the firing pin head. This creates a trigger that is, in fact, two
pieces not a single piece. The specified Trigger Connector engagement underneath the sear is
designed to be very small in order to create a quick release of the firing pin with minimal
movement of the trigger. The general design of this type of fire control is termed a "sear
override" fire control design.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page34ofof41
42
Page 4
Figure 2
Closer view of the Connector engagement of the Sear. The Connector is shown in black in this
diagram.
4.4
For field rifles this engagement is currently specified at 0.020" to 0.025" as shown in
Figure 2, although for some of the Model 700 manufacturing period the field rifle engagement was
specified at 0.015" to 0.020". For target rifles the engagement is specified at 0.010" to 0.015". Only
very slight movement of the Connector will release the firing pin and fire the rifle. Every time the
rifle is fired, the Connector snaps forward, leaving a small gap between the trigger body and the
Connector rear surface. Slow motion video has shown that, as a rifle is fired, the Connector also
whips back and forth from the trigger surface due to rifle movement generated forces, separating
from the trigger body during this whipping.
4.5
The Trigger Connector in the Walker fire control is susceptible to either reducing
its already minute engagement with the sear step corner or to fail to engage the sear step at all by
its interaction with dirt, debris, corrosion deposits, condensation, frozen moisture, lubricant
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page45ofof41
42
Page 5
deposits, firing deposits or manufacturing particles. Figure 3 below shows that the presence of a
small amount of debris trapped between the Trigger Connector and Trigger body will keep the
Connector edge from engaging correctly with the overhead sear and allow the fire control to
malfunction. The Trigger Connector is an internal fire control component, uncontrolled by the
rifle user. Its engagement position within the fire control housing cannot be seen or ascertained
by the rifle user while using the rifle in its normally assembled state.
Figure 3
A small amount of debris (red) between the Trigger Connector and Trigger pushes the Connector
rear edge forward to reduce or eliminate the engagement between the Connector and the Sear.
4.6
The mechanical safety on Remington 700 rifles is built into the Walker fire
control assembly. The safety has a pivoting lever that, when moved to the "Safe" position, cams
the Sear upward and supports its rear surface instead of using the Connector corner edge to
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page56ofof41
42
Page 6
support the Sear. When the safety lever is moved from the "Safe" position to the "Fire" position,
the safety lowers the Sear back down on top of the Trigger Connector, hopefully back into full
engagement contact with the Connector corner. As a result of interferences as depicted above,
the Connector does not always provide full engagement.
4.7
The interaction of the Trigger Connector with different types of interferences and the
operational movement of the safety lever, first supporting and then lowering the sear, creates
unintended firings of the Remington 700 rifles that use the Walker fire control. These unintended
firing modes have occurred frequently enough that Remington Arms has designated them with
abbreviations in their manufacturing and testing literature. These are:
4.7.1 Unintended Fire on Safety Release - abbreviated "FSR"
This condition occurs when the Connector has been displaced from full
engagement with the Sear step as a result of an interference or from improper manufacturing
dimensions within the fire control components. When the safety lever is in the "Safe" position,
this safety component supports the sear, not the Connector. When the safety lever is moved from
"Safe" to "Fire", the unsupported sear immediately drops down, releasing the firing pin, and
firing the rifle without a trigger pull. In essence, the safety lever acts as an unintended second
trigger when an interference prevents the Connector corner from proper engagement. A second
type of unintended firing can occur if the Sear lift distance by the safety lever is too low. When
the safety lever is in a mid-position, between "Safe" and "Fire", and the Trigger is pulled, the
Connector will not properly re-engage the Sear when the Trigger is released. This also will
allow the rifle to FSR. This second type of unintended firing by safety lever movement is called
"tricking" by Remington. This, however, is no trick, but a manufacturing defect of the fire
control components.
4.7.2 Unintended Fire on Bolt Closure - abbreviated "FBC" and Unintended Fire
on Bolt Opening - abbreviated "FBO"
This condition occurs when an interference causes insufficient engagement of the
Connector corner with the Sear step and the Connector fails to securely support the Sear. When
the bolt handle is moved from its rest position, either closing an open bolt (FBC) or opening a
closed bolt (FBO), the insufficient engagement allows the Connector to dislodge and
unintendedly fire the rifle without a trigger pull. This discharge can occur with only a minor
mechanical disturbance of bolt movement.
4.7.3 Unintended Fire from Normal Rifle Jarring - abbreviated "Jar Off"
This condition occurs when an interference causes insufficient engagement of the
Connector corner with the Sear step and the cocked rifle is impacted by a force during its use.
The cocked rifle, with the safety lever in the "Fire" position, is unintendedly fired as the
vibrations and inertial forces associated with the jar to the rifle causes the Connector to loose
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page67ofof41
42
Page 7
engagement with the Sear and allows the firing pin to spring forward and hit a chambered
cartridge primer.
4.7.4 Unintended Fire from Bolt Closure without Connector Engagement abbreviated "Soft Follow Down"
This condition occurs when an interference prevents any engagement between the
Trigger Connector and Sear and occurs when the rifle bolt is closed. The rifle, in essence, does
not cock and the firing pin goes forward with the closing bolt and impacts the chambered
cartridge primer. This condition often does not have enough firing pin energy to fire a
chambered cartridge, but its presence is evidence of the failure of the fire control assembly
components to operate safely.
4.8
All of the conditions leading to unintended firings of the Remington 700 rifle
models with Walker triggers, as listed in Paragraph 1.7 above, are allowed to occur because this
fire control design includes a Trigger Connector that does not reliably return to full engagement
with the Sear each time the rifle bolt is cocked. The Walker trigger is the only fire control
assembly used in a consumer rifle that has a Trigger Connector component. Remington Arms,
through the large amount of engineering and testing data produced, is clearly aware that the
insufficient engagement of the Walker fire control Connector is a root cause in unintended
firings of Remington Model 700 rifles that discharge without trigger pull.
4.9
The Walker fire control Trigger Connector does not benefit the performance of the
Walker fire control. Other manufacturers' fire controls, without connectors, provide the same
trigger performance. The only manufacturing benefit of the Connector is cost reduction. By the
use of a trigger connector, the trigger body itself requires no further machining of its engagement
corner. The Walker fire control was conceived for the target shooter or highly experienced
shooter, but Remington produced it in rifles intended for hunters and recreational shooters.
Remington advertised the Model 700 rifle for use by hunters and other common users of the rifle,
never restricting it to target or highly experienced users only.
5.0
Introduction of the Remington X-Mark Pro Fire Control
5.1
Beginning in 2006, Remington Arms installed newly designed fire controls on
some of its bolt action rifles, the Model 700 and Model Seven rifles. The new fire control was
called a "Safety Pivoted Link" (SPL) fire control design and was marketed by Remington as the
X-Mark Pro (XMP) fire control.
5.2
This fire control, like the Walker fire control, was a sear-override design fire
control with some major differences. The Trigger Connector component was eliminated, thus
eliminating the potential for debris or other interference between the Trigger Body and the
Trigger Connector. The new XMP fire control contained an addition component called a Blocker
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page78ofof41
42
Page 8
that worked in conjunction with the safety lever. The Blocker is a steel lever component with an
adjustable screw set in correct position by the manufacturer. When the safety lever is moved
from the "Fire" position to the "Safe" position, the Blocker Screw pushes the top of the trigger
rearward to engagement under the Sear and blocks the movement of the Trigger. With the
addition of the Blocker, the fire control is assured of the presence of proper Trigger / Sear
engagement when the safety lever is moved to the "Fire" position, eliminating the "Fire on Safe
Release" behavior. Therefore the X-Mark Pro fire control has two different types of safety
systems activated by the safety lever, 1) a lifting of the sear and its mechanical support by the
safety lever, and 2) the forced correct engagement distance of the trigger and its mechanical
block. This redundant safety is superior to the Walker fire control safety system.
5.3
Figures 4 and 5 below show the location of the Blocker Screw. This screw is
installed on a separate lever that is moved forward and rearward by the movement of the two
position safety lever.
5.3.1 When the safety lever is moved to the "Safe" position, the Blocker Screw
moves rearward and pushes the top of the Trigger into engagement under the Sear. This Blocker
Screw contact with the Trigger also keeps the Trigger from moving from its engagement position
until the Blocker Screw is moved forward.
5.3.2 When the user is ready to shoot a rifle with an XMP fire control, he moves
the safety lever to the "Fire" position. This action moves the Blocker Screw away from contact
with Trigger, allowing the Trigger to be pulled, releasing the engagement, and allowing the Sear
to fall and the rifle to fire.
5.4
A similar functioning but different design fire control was also created by
Remington for its Model 770 rifles. The M770 rifle has polymer components as part of its fire
control housing and necessitated a fire control design that was a variance from the XMP. This
M770 fire control, like the XMP, also eliminated the Trigger Connector and provided a sliding
portion of the fire control housing coupled to its safety lever. When the safety lever was placed
in the "S" or "Safe" position, this Blocking Slide pushed the Trigger into engagement under the
Sear and prevented Trigger movement until the safety lever was moved to the "Fire" position.
Figures 6 and 7 show the new design fire control as-installed on an exemplar Remington M770
rifle, S/N M71804075, manufactured in 2012. This exemplar rifle was purchased locally at a
vendor in Norman, Oklahoma. The new M770 fire control, like the X-Mark Pro for the M700
rifles, has the two safety systems to block the firing mechanism when the mechanical safety is
placed in the "S" position: 1) the safety lifts and holds the sear upward, preventing its movement,
and 2) the blocker screw blocks the trigger in the full engagement position until the safety is
placed in the "F" position. The Walker fire control does not have this second blocking safety
feature. This newly designed M770 fire control is a safe replacement for the M770 Walker fire
control and can be retrofitted not only into M770 rifles, but also equivalent rifle models M710
and M715 rifles that also were originally manufactured with Walker triggers.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page89ofof41
42
Page 9
5.5
After its original introduction, the Remington XMP fire control also added a nonsealed adjustment screw for trigger pull force adjustment by the user. This adjustment feature
was added in approximately 2008. This screw allowed the adjustment of trigger pull force
between approximately 3- 6 pounds force. A separate internal trigger force spring prevented the
trigger pull force from being reduced below 3 pounds.
Figure 4
An overall schematic of the Remington X-Mark Pro (XMP) fire control. This fire control design
eliminates the Trigger Connector used in the Walker fire control. This XMP design adds a
Blocker lever and Blocker screw that act in conjunction with the safety lever to insure
engagement between the Trigger and Sear as well as blocking the Trigger from loosing
engagement while the safety lever is in the "Safe" position.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed 02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page 910ofof4142
Page 10
Figure 5
This Figure is a closer view of the engagement between the Trigger and the Sear in the XMP fire
control system. The Blocker Screw (green) pushes on the forward top of the Trigger when the
safety lever is in the "Safe" position. This forces the correct sear/ trigger engagement and
prevents the Trigger from moving and potentially reducing the engagement until the safety lever
is moved to the "Fire" position.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page10
11ofof41
42
Page 11
Figure 6
Photographs of the Right and Left sides of the M770 fire control with the same features as the
M700's X-Mark Pro design. The Left side of a M770 fire contol housing is a polymer
component. In this rifle, the Left side housing has had windows machined into it to reveal the
movement of the internal fire control components. This fire control's trigger has no connector
and has a sliding Blocker engaged in a mechanical linkage with the Safety Lever. The Blocker is
shown in these photos that maintains a safe engagement beneath the Sear
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page11
12ofof41
42
Page 12
Figure 7
In a closer photograph the same safety features from the X-Mark Pro design can be observed in
the M770 fire control design. When in the safety lever is placed into the "S" position, the trigger
is pushed into proper Engagement under the sear with the Blocker Screw. The Blocker Screw
remains in place, blocking the movement of the trigger, until the mechanical safety lever is
placed in the "F" position, moving the Blocker screw forward and allowing the trigger to be
pulled to fire the rifle.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page12
13ofof41
42
6.0
Page 13
Manufacture of the XMP Fire Control by Remington Arms
6.1
The XMP fire control, like the Walker fire control, is composed of a number of
components installed into a housing. These components include levers, pins, springs, and
screws, as well as the Sear, Trigger, Safety Lever, and Blocker. The manufacture of all these
components to close tolerances and their correct assembly and sealing is critical to
manufacturing a safe XMP fire control with as-designed performance. Remington has the
correctly manufactured components provided in lots to their individual assemblers. These
assemblers install, adjust, inspect, and seal all fire control components at assembly benches in
the Remington facility. Because of the small tolerances and engagement distances, the triggers
are adjusted under magnification on optical comparators.
6.2
On July 08, 2014, I accompanied Remington attorney Mr. Dale Wills, Remington
Engineer Mr. Derek Watkins, and Plaintiff attorneys Mr. Tim Monsees and Mr. Judd Waltman
through the assembly and testing of Remington X-Mark Pro fire controls, both those of new
manufacture and those that had been removed from previously assembled rifles that were being
re-worked. Figure 6 shows a typical assembly and inspection station at the Remington facility in
Ilion, New York, on the date of my evaluation.
6.2.1 In 2014, Remington issued a voluntary Product Safety Recall on all XMP
fire controls manufactured from May 1, 2006 through April 9, 2014. It was determined by
Remington that those XMP fire controls in the recall group had not been correctly manufactured.
6.2.2 In a presentation by Remington on July 08, 2014, it was explained that the
Blocker Screw on the XMP fire control was adjusted during original manufacture to provide
correct engagement when pressing against the Trigger and then sealed in place with a clear
thread locking compound, Loctite 660. During original assembly, Remington assembly
personnel applied the Loctite 660 in such a fashion that excessive Loctite 660 remained within
the fire control housing and could leave a wet film on the Trigger surface. In certain low
temperature conditions within the operating range for the rifle, the Blocker Screw could "stick"
to the Trigger when the safety lever was placed in the "Safe" condition. When the safety lever
was next moved to the "Fire" position, the stuck Blocker Screw pulled the Trigger out of
engagement with Sear and allowed the firing pin to move forward under spring action. This
action would cause a Fire on Safe Release (FSR) that could cause an unintended discharge of the
rifle. Additionally, this excessive polymer material within the fire control housing could result in
other interferences that could affect fire control performance or engagement. Loctite thread
blocking materials were never used during the manufacture of Remington Walker fire controls.
6.3
After the discovery of the excessive Loctite 660 in the XMP fire controls and the
recall of all XMP fire controls, Remington instituted a number of manufacturing changes and
additional inspections to detect any future manufacturing problems of the XMP fire control.
These are:
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page13
14ofof41
42
Page 14
6.3.1 Replacement of the Loctite 660 thread blocker liquid which is clear with
Loctite 263 thread blocker liquid which is colored red. The red color makes it easy to see if any
Loctite is in any other location within the fire control housing other than its proper location on
the Blocker Screw.
6.3.2 Remington fire control assemblers now use precise positioning of the
Loctite 263 on the Blocker Screw thread surfaces with a micro-needle applicator and a partial
shield on the screw when the Loctite is applied. It was stated that by keeping the red Loctite off
the end of the Blocker Screw, any excess Loctite is forced toward the outside of the housing and
not toward the inner end of the Screw.
6.3.3 When I viewed the assembly of the XMP fire controls by Remington, they
were still placed on the magnifying optical comparator and adjusted until the engagement
distance was set. Remington demonstrated a new machine vision adjustment stand that utilized a
digital camera system to easily adjust these distances. Figures 8 through 12 below show the two
different types of adjustment mechanisms. The viewablilty of the the newer digital camera
system appears very good and its software helps the assembler to correctly adjust the engagement
distance between the trigger and the sear.
6.3.4 After adjustment of the XMP springs and screws, each fire control is
microscopically inspected at a digital video workstation at 50X. Any excess red Loctite within
the fire control housing is easily viewed and removed with small swabs by the inspector. These
inspectors can also reportedly send any fire control back for re-assembly as a result of detected
discrepancies by the microscopic inspection system.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page14
15ofof41
42
Page 15
Figure 8
A typical assembly line station at the Remington facility, Ilion, New York, on July 08, 2014. The
fire control assemblers have ready access to parts and Loctite for assembly. The assembly
benches are well lit and clean for easy installation of all the components of the fire control.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page15
16ofof41
42
Page 16
Figure 9
Adjustment of XMP fire control on optical comparator.
Figure 10
A view of the optical comparator screen shown in Figure 7. The tolerances and adjustment
positioning is recorded on each inspection screen.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page16
17ofof41
42
Page 17
Figure 11
A view of the newly installed machine vision / digital camera system for the adjustment of the
XMP fire controls by Remington
Figure 12
A view of the inspection monitor on the digital camera system shown in Figure 9. The inspection
software helps the Remington assembler in determining the proper assembly distances and sear
engagement.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page17
18ofof41
42
Page 18
6.4
After curing the Loctite for 24 hours, the XMP fire control has its adjustment
screws sealed with a liquid polymer cement and has graphite blown into the fire control housing
for smooth engagement of the Trigger and Sear. The assembled fire controls are then assembled
to barrel/receiver assemblies and the final trigger pull force and sear lift is set with each rifle's
individual bolt. Gallery testing fires test cartridges through each rifle for function testing and
proof testing.
6.5
At the time of the July 8, 2014 inspection, Remington was also rebuilding the
XMP fire controls returned in the voluntary recall program. If an XMP fire control is on a rifle
returned from a consumer as a result of the recall program, the fire control is tagged with a code
matching the rifle it came from when it is removed. It was explained by Remington that many of
their customers wanted the exact fire control sold with the rifle to be returned to the same rifle.
If an XMP fire control is on a rifle returned from a vendor, not a consumer, then the fire control
is removed and not tagged with a code. Remington also stated that periodically they rejected
returned XMP fire controls for any conditions that could have affected the performance or safety
of the rifle. If rejected, then a new XMP is substituted for the rejected one.
6.6
The XMP fire controls returned in the recall program have their internal
components disassembled from their housings, using heat to loosen the thread blocking
compounds. The housing and major components are ultrasonically cleaned and new springs and
screws used during their reassembly. The assembly, inspection, and testing of these refurbished
XMP fire controls, before and after re-installation on the matching rifle, is the same as those used
for a new fire control. The re-manufactured XMP fire controls are therefore equivalent in terms
of safety and performance as the newly manufactured XMP fire controls utilizing the improved
assembly and inspection process.
6.7
It was recently reported that Remington now has sufficient newly assembled
XMP fire controls in-house and will begin to replace all returned XMP fire controls with new
ones instead of rebuilding them.
6.8
The Remington assembly and inspection process is dependent on the capability
and diligence of their assembly and inspection personnel. Remington has designed the assembly
process to be logical and easily understood. The training of the assembly and inspection
personnel was reported to be on the job with other senior personnel. A step-by-step procedure
card with graphic display of tasks was observed at each work station I toured.
6.9
Remington utilizes a manufacturing technique termed metal injection molding (MIM) for
the production of components of the XMP fire control.
6.9.1 MIM is a method of manufacture of small complex parts from molded
powdered metals that are consolidated, sintered, and case hardened into a dense metal
component. Two of the XMP fire control components that are manufactured by MIM are the
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page18
19ofof41
42
Page 19
trigger and sear.
6.9.2 Some have criticized the use of MIM for the manufacture of fire control
components. However, greater uniformity of shape and material properties are produced from
MIM fire control components over individually machined components. MIM components are all
formed from the same high precision machined mold. That mold is created by highly skilled
machinists using precision machining and grinding equipment. A manufacturer is far less likely
to make a machining mistake in creating the single MIM mold than in the individual machining
of thousands of fire control components. Each MIM component is a duplicate of its precision
mold and the effects of machine variations, cutter wear, machinist differences, etc. are
eliminated.
6.9.3 Many people confuse MIM components with those manufactured by
press / sinter type powder metallurgy techniques. Powder metallurgy is an older technology that
creates components from large irregular particle size powders, lower sintering temperatures,
greater final porosity, and a reduction of physical properties of that alloy material. MIM
components are very different. MIM components are created from small spherical metal
powders approximately 10 times smaller than powder metallurgy particles. MIM components
are sintered at higher temperature for a much longer time. This creates almost no porosity in the
dense finished component and material properties at the same handbook level as those same
alloys created by traditional techniques (Reference 1 to this report). In the two important
Remington XMP fire control MIM components, the sear and trigger, the components are
additionally heat treated and case hardened to increase their surface hardness and core strengths.
6.9.4 Correctly manufactured MIM components have good hardness and
strength properties and are appropriate for use in fire controls. Many firearms manufacturers
besides Remington use this manufacturing technique for fire control components. I have seen no
evidence to date that a MIM component that was correctly manufactured compromised the safety
of any fire control, including the X-Mark Pro. I have found no evidence that correctly
manufactured MIM components in the XMP fire control have been responsible for any
unintended firings of a Remington bolt action rifle.
7.0
Testing and Conclusions
7.1
I have examined three different XMP fire controls, each obtained from a nonRemington source. All three are subject to the current Remington Product Safety Recall but have
not yet been submitted for repair. All three fire controls exhibit some clumping of the graphite
dust around the Blocker Screw, indicating excessive Loctite on the threads, but none of the
exemplar XMP fire controls exhibited liquid Loctite on the front top of the trigger. All three
exemplars exhibit appropriate engagement, safety lift, and overtravel dimensions as received.
All worked well on the rifles they were installed on :
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page19
20ofof41
42
Page 20
Exemplar 1 - Purchased new from firearms supply company Brownell's. This fire control
was sold as a new replacement part to be installed by a gunsmith. The trigger pull force
adjustment screw was not sealed by the manufacturer, awaiting final adjustment and sealing by a
gunsmith. This fire control was installed on Remington Model 700 ML rifle (1998) S/N
ML226434. Its measured values were:
Trigger Pull Force Sear Engagement Sear Safety Lift Trigger Overtravel -
4.8 - 5.8 lbs
.020"
.014"
.007"
Exemplar 2 - Purchased without a rifle in an online auction. This fire control was
installed on Remington Model 700 rifle (1997), S/N S6322245. This fire control has a user
adjustable trigger force screw. The fire control was tested as received. Its measured values were:
5.9 - 6.3 lbs
.021"
.010"
.011"
Exemplar 3 - Purchased new with Remington Model 700 rifle (2012) S/N RR78763A.
This fire control has a user adjustable trigger force screw. The fire control was tested as
received. Its measured values were:
4.6 - 5.3 lbs
.021"
.015"
.014"
7.2
The Exemplar 3 XMP fire control as-installed in its new M700 rifle was dry fired
1000 times and live fired 100 times to examine the use characteristics of the MIM trigger and
sear used in the XMP fire control. One dry-fire cycle consisted of 1) opening the rifle's bolt with
the safety lever in the “F” position; 2) closing the bolt; 3) moving the safety lever from the “F”
position to the “S” position and then back to the “F” position; 4) pulling the rifle trigger to dry
fire the rifle. The Exemplar 3 XMP fire control was not lubricated during this testing. At
approximately 800 dry fire cycles, the rifle bolt was field stripped, cleaned, and lubricated in
accordance with the Remington Owners Manual, as a result of bolt/firing pin head stiffness. The
reassembled bolt was restored to the rifle and the testing completed.
7.2.1 After dry firing and live firing the Exemplar 3 rifle, the XMP fire control
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page20
21ofof41
42
Page 21
was removed from the rifle and the fire control was ultrasonically cleaned in acetone for 15
minutes to dissolve sealants and disassembled to remove the trigger and sear components. For a
comparison, the Exemplar 1 XMP fire control was also similarly disassembled. The Exemplar 1
XMP had never been live fired and had been dry cycled less than 50 times since its original
purchase from Brownell's.
7.2.2 The photographs below show the Exemplar 3 XMP fire control asdisassembled, with its sear and trigger lying in their installation relationship on top of their
housing. The engagement corner of the trigger and sear for the Exemplar 1 and Exemplar 3
XMP fire controls are also shown at higher magnification. Some burnishing and smoothing of
the metal surfaces are noted from the cycling of Exemplar 3 components, but no significant wear
was created that would affect the safe functioning of the components.
Figure 13
A photograph of the Exemplar 3 XMP fire control housing with its Sear and Trigger lying on top
of the housing. The Engagement Corner designated with the blue arrow is shown at
magnification in Figures 15 and 17 below.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page21
22ofof41
42
Page 22
Figure 14
Engagement Corner of the little used XMP Exemplar 1 Trigger
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page22
23ofof41
42
Page 23
Figure 15
A magnified view of the Engagement Corner on the XMP Exemplar 3 trigger after testing. Little
wear is noted.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page23
24ofof41
42
Page 24
Figure 16
This is a magnified photograph of the Engagement Corner on the XMP Exemplar 1 Sear with
little use.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page24
25ofof41
42
Page 25
Figure 17
A magnified view of the Engagement Corner on the XMP Exemplar 3 sear after testing. Little
wear is noted.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page25
26ofof41
42
Page 26
7.2.3 The measured values from the Exemplar 3 fire control pre-test and posttest are shown below:
Pre-Test
4.6 - 5.3 lbs
.021"
.015"
.014"
Post-Test
Trigger Pull Force
Measured Trigger Pull Force: 4.36, 4.08, 4.20, 4.22, 4.26, 4.54, 4.58, 4.00, 4.14, 4.02 lbs.
Average: 4.24 lbs.
Standard Deviation: .20
The slight decrease in Trigger Pull Force from the Pre-Test trigger pull force range is
attributable to the burnishing and smoothing of the fire control components through use.
This rifle's Trigger Pull force range was easily returned to its Pre-Test trigger pull force
values by adjustment of the user's adjustment screw provided by the XMP design.
Remington Arms reported that after 5,000 dry-fire cycles, the Trigger Pull Force for the
XMP increased by approximately .5 pounds.
Sear Engagement
Microscopically Measured Sear Engagement: .024, .024, .023, .023, .023 inches
Average: .023 inches
The slight increase in Sear Engagement would provide greater safety from firearm
operation and impact jarring.
Sear Safety Lift
Microscopically Measured Sear Safety Lift: .013, .013, .014, .014, .013 inches
The slight decrease in Sear Safey Lift has no affect in the safety or performance of the
XMP fire control. The minimum value for Sear Safety Lift in the XMP fire control is .
008 inches.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page26
27ofof41
42
Page 27
Trigger Overtravel
Microscopically Measured Trigger Overtravel: .022, .021, .024, .024, .023 inches
The slight increase in the Trigger Overtravel has no effect on the safety of the XMP fire
control system. Trigger Overtravel distance must be present in some value greater that
about .010 inches to allow the trigger to clear the sear corner when the trigger is pulled.
7.3
I have reviewed four test studies conducted by Remington Arms from 2007 –
2009. Each test program consisted of dry cycling a number of XMP fire controls for up to
10,000 cycles and live firing the test fire controls for up to 5,000 rounds each. Some test rifles
were additionally drop tested and jar-off tested. No trigger or firing related problems or
malfunctions were recorded in any of the test XMP fire controls. All XMP fire controls passed
all the test parameters. After 10,000 dry fire cycles, Remington reported that the Trigger Pull
Forces increased slightly by about 1 pound and that the Sear Safety Lift distances held very
steady from their pre-test values.
7.4
The Remington X-Mark Pro fire control design is a safe alternative to the Walker
fire control. It can be retro fitted to older Remington rifles without affecting its performance or
safety. The XMP fire control design eliminates the Connector from its design and adds a trigger
blocking safety mechanism that reestablishes a safe engagement every time the safety lever is
moved to the "Safe" position as well as blocking the trigger from movement while the safety
lever is in "Safe".
7.5
Remington has the in-house capability to correctly manufacture and assemble the
XMP fire control. The Remington changes to their assembly procedure and 100 per cent
microscopic inspection of all future XMP fire controls should insure that errors by their
personnel are prevented.
7.6
I have reviewed different fire control system designs for bolt action rifles by other
manufacturers such as Savage, Marlin, Weatherby, and Winchester. The designs have different
ways to create a safe and well performing fire control. For example, some Savage models,
Marlin models, and the Remington Model 783 bolt action rifle have a central "blade" in the
trigger that must be pulled before the trigger can be depressed, even when the rifle's safety is in
the "Fire" position. If, as in the manufacture of the XMP, the Trigger / Sear engagement is
correct when the safety lever is moved to "Fire", then the XMP will fire only when the trigger is
pulled, just like those other designs.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page27
28ofof41
42
Page 28
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page28
29ofof41
42
Page 29
Reference
Reference 1 - Metal Injection Molding, R.M. German, Metal Powder Industries Federation
(MPIF), Princeton, New Jersey, 2011, p 1-10.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page29
30ofof41
42
Page 30
Exhibit A
Curriculum Vita of Charles W. Powell PE
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page30
31ofof41
42
Page 31
CURRICULUM VITAE
Charles W. Powell PE
Support Services Engineering Corporation
3360 Allspice Run
Norman, Oklahoma 73026
(405) 321-0916 FAX (405) 321-3012 charlespowell@sbcglobal.net
Engineering Rates: $175 per hour.
Vita Date: June 1, 2014
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Accident investigation and engineering failure analysis of products and structures.
Product evaluation, materials selection, and design improvement as applied to industrial processes
and consumer products.
Physical metallurgical aspects of material failures.
Development of forensic scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray elemental analysis for the
characterization of material fractures, surface deposits, and microscopic fragment analyses.
Application of advanced nondestructive evaluation techniques for product in-service reliability,
structural integrity, and component design.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Registrations
Registered Professional Engineer, State of Oklahoma
PE Number 12501
Registered Professional Engineer, State of Alabama PE Number 28210-E
Active
Active
Level III Certification - Nondestructive Testing (general methods, magnetic inspection, ultrasonic
inspection, penetrant inspection). The American Society for Nondestructive Testing Certification
Number GV-764. Inactive
FAA NDE Repairman, Certification No. 2380799 (1979-1989) Inactive
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page31
32ofof41
42
Page 32
Patents
United States Patent No. 4,989,357 Muzzleloader Safety
Patent Date: February 5, 1991 (with J. W. Norman)
Abstract: A safety assembly for use with firing weapons is provided. The safety assembly may be
selectively positioned between an on position and an off position. In the on position, the safety
assembly prevents the hammer of the firing weapon from pivoting from a firing position to a fired
position. In the off position, the safety assembly permits the hammer of the firing weapon to fall
from the firing position to the fired position.
Professional History
1986 - Present
Support Services Engineering Corporation, 3360 Allspice Run, Norman, OK.
President, CEO
Support Services Engineering Corporation (SSEC) is a consulting engineering company
specializing in materials failure analysis, accident investigation, and materials evaluation.
1987 - 1995
Federal Aviation Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, Mike Monroney Aeronautical
Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
FAA Academy Instructor. Nondestructive testing, Identification of Material Discontinuities, and
Certification of FAA Repair Stations and NDE Inspectors.
1978 - 1989
Engineering and Materials Technology Corporation (EMTEC), 3511 Charleston Road, Norman,
OK.
1988 - 1989
1978 - 1988
Corporate President and CEO
Project Director; Director of Nondestructive Evaluation.
EMTEC is a materials testing and evaluation laboratory with capabilities in physical materials
testing, light and electron microscopy, nondestructive testing, and failure analysis.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page32
33ofof41
42
Page 33
1981 - 1982
Oklahoma City Community College, Natural and Applied Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK.
Adjunct Professor, Natural and Applied Sciences. Metallurgy, Welding and Joining Curriculum.
1977 - 1978
Oklahoma City Air Logistics Command, Physical Sciences Laboratory, Tinker Air Force Base, OK.
GS-11 Metallurgist, Failure Analyst
Failure analysis and quality control of aircraft engine components, airframe components, and jet
engine rebuilding processes. Extensive experience with high performance structural materials
design and high temperature alloy materials.
1976 - 1977
University of Oklahoma, School of Materials Science, Norman, Oklahoma
Graduate Teaching Assistant in Metallurgical Engineering
Courses Taught: "Structure and Properties of Materials"; "Physical Metallurgical Laboratories".
1974 - 1976
U. S. Army, Company A, 43rd Engineer Battalion (Combat), Ft. Benning, GA.
First Lieutenant, Honorable Discharge.
Executive Officer, Acting Company Commander, responsible for upper division maintenance of
combat battalion engineering equipment and command of post support civil engineering projects.
Company A was the top rated Engineering Group Company (Top three in the continental United
States) during tenure. Radiological/Chemical/Bacteriological Officer.
Education
University of Oklahoma, College of Engineering, Bachelor of Science Degree in Metallurgical
Engineering, 1974.
University of Oklahoma, College of Engineering, Course work completed for Master of Science
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page33
34ofof41
42
Page 34
Degree in Metallurgical Engineering. 1976 - 1977.
Lehigh University, Short Course in Fracture Mechanics, 1977.
Professional Offices and Affiliations
American Society for Metals (ASM International)
Central Oklahoma Chapter
Chapter Chairman (1980 - 1981), (1984 - 1985)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International)
Committee E58 Forensic Engineering
Committee F8 Sports Equipment and Facilities
Historical Metallurgical Society (HMS)
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
National Rifle Association (NRA) including NRA certificate – Metallic Reloading
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Honors
Moderator - Government Procurement
Oklahoma Conference for Small Business
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma July 1987.
Oklahoma Delegate
White House Conference on Small Business
Washington, D.C. August 1986.
University Scholar, University of Oklahoma
Gulf Merit Scholar, University of Oklahoma
NSF Undergraduate Research Scholarship, University of Oklahoma
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page34
35ofof41
42
Page 35
PUBLICATIONS AND INVITED LECTURES
"Effects of a Carbonaceous Overlayer on the Auger Spectra from Selected Stainless Steels", 61st
Annual Meeting, Oklahoma Academy of Science, Central State University, Edmond, Oklahoma,
1972.
"Metallurgical Analysis of Drill Pipe and Vena Caval Implants Using SEM/XES", 67th Annual
Meeting, Oklahoma Academy of Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1978.
"Detrimental Sigma Phase Formation in a Jet Engine Turbine Blade", 67th Annual Meeting,
Oklahoma Academy of Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1978.
"Investigation of Ranger I (offshore mobile drilling platform) Collapse - Metallurgical and Fracture
Analysis", OTC 3742, Proceedings of 12th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, 1980.
"Principles of Accident Investigation", Seminar Instructor, EMTEC Corporation, Norman,
Oklahoma, 1982.
"Utilization of the Scanning Electron Microscope for Forensic Materials Evaluation", invited
keynote speaker, 72nd Annual Meeting, Oklahoma Academy of Science, Oral Roberts University,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1983.
"Evaluation of Metallurgical and Imprint Evidence Created During a Tractor/Trailer and
Automobile Impact", the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 47th Annual Meeting, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 1985.
"Investigation of Defective Tank Construction". American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 47th
Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1985.
"Plastic Carbon Replication Techniques for Transmission Electron Microscopy", Oklahoma Society
for Scanning Electron Microscopy Spring Workshop, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma,
1985.
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page35
36ofof41
42
Page 36
Exhibit B
Case List Testimony of Charles W. Powell Over The Last Four Years
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page36
37ofof41
42
061001
William Martin v. MTD Products
United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma
Case No. CIV-10-520-F
Deposition Testimony, Norman, Oklahoma
May 16, 2011
Client: Mr. David Bernstein
060601
Richard Cates v. AHL, Inc., dba America Remembers, et al.
District Court of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma
Case No. CJ-2006-1474
Deposition Testimony, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
January 10, 2012
Client: Mr. Brad Norman
070305
Phillis Parsons, et al. v Conbraco Industries, Inc.. et a;/
District Court of Harris County, Harris County, Texas
129th Judicial District Court
April 26, 2010
Trial Testimony, Houston, Texas
April 1, 2011
Client: Mr. Don Wheeler
080601
Harry Carlson v Freedom Arms, Inc., et al.
County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Cause No. CC-08-04892-C
Deposition Testimony, Garland, Texas
June 4, 2010
Trial Testimony, Dallas, Texas
October 5, 2011
Client: Mr. Grady Chandler
080701
DOC Transportation v. Charlie's Trucking, et al.
District Court of Garvin County, State of Oklahoma
Case No. CJ-2009-505
November 13, 2012
Client: Mr. Scot Rhodes
Page 37
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page37
38ofof41
42
Page 38
090705
Michael L. Miller v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Case No. CIV-09-0644-M
Deposition Testimony, Norman, Oklahoma
August 26, 2010
Trial Testimony, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
June 14, 2011
Client: Mr. Cliff Naifeh
090905
Jerry Brace v. Polaris Industries and Sanders Sporting Goods & ATVs
District Court of Dewey County, State of Oklahoma
Case No. CJ-2010-15
September 27, 2011
Client: Mr. Duke Halley and Mr. Shane Smithton
091001
Enriqueta Real Leon v National Oil Well Varco LP. v Blue Water Fabricators, Inc.
District Court of Kingfisher County, State of Oklahoma
Case No. CJ-2009-292
July 12, 2011
Client: Mr. Duke Halley
091101
Kevin Scott Bryce v. GRLC, L.L.C. dba Valley Towing Products, et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-111
Deposition Testimony, Houston, Texas
January 12, 2011
Trial Testimony, Houston, Texas
April 1, 2011
Client: Mr. Don Wheeler
100201
Liberty Pressure Pumping, L.P. v. Stewart & Stevenson, LLC, et al.
District Court of Johnson County, Texas, 249th Judicial District
Cause No. C-2010-00341
Deposition Testimony, Dallas, Texas
January 15, 2014
Motion Hearing, Claiburn, Texas
September 3, 2014
Client: Mr. Todd Frank and Mr. Bradley Kirklin
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page38
39ofof41
42
Page 39
100802
Agape Flights, Inc., vs. Covington Aircraft Engines, Inc., et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
Case No. CIV-09-492-FHS
February 28, 2012
Client: Mr. Tim Martin
101201
Kelly Ann Morris, Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Shelby Morris
v. BoostPower U.S.A., Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Case No. CIV-10-722-M
February 20, 2012
Client: Mr. Mark Cox
110306
Creigh Landis and Brent Landis, Individually, v. Remington Arms, LLC, et al.
United States District Court for the District of New York, Northern Division
Case No. 8:11-CV-1377
September 6, 2012
Client: Mr. Tim Monsees
110307
Jeremy Pope and Kelly Pope v. Great Guns, Inc.
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, at Liberty
Case No. 12CY-CV05930 Division 2
May 20, 2014
Client: Mr. Kirk Presley
111002
Miracle Kayla Parker v. Remington Arms Company, LLC. et al.
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Div.
Case No. 1:11-cv-1370-JDB-egb
Deposition Testimony, Kansas City, Missouri
November 27, 2012
120101
Carol O'Neal v. Remington Arms Company, LLC, et al.
United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Southern Division
Case No. 11-4182
January 17, 2013
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page39
40ofof41
42
Page 40
120301
Brian Freeland & Robin Freeland v. Ameristep, Inc., et al.
District Court of Coal County, State of Oklahoma
Case No. CJ-23
February 27, 2014
120303
Jennifer L. Barton v. Pioneer Drilling Services, LTD, et al.
United States District Court, District of North Dakota, Northwestern Division
Case No. 4:11-cv-037
Deposition Testimony, Houston, Texas
July 1, 2013
Trial Testimony, Bismarck, North Dakota
July 9, 2013
Client: Mr. Mel Orchard
120505
Tyson Gurley v. Remington Arms Company
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
Case No. 4:13-cv-33-CVE-PJC
September 20, 2013
120701
James Mathis and Peggy Mathis vs. Stanley Services, Inc., et al.
District Court of Liberty County, Texas, 253rd Judicial District
Cause No. CV1003827
Deposition Testimony, Baytown, Texas
September 25, 2013
Client: Mr. Dan Linebaugh
120704
Cynthia Seamon vs. Remington Arms
United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
Case No. 2:12-cv-895
Deposition Testimony, Dallas, TX
October 23, 2013
120707
King Bradley Jr. and Christie Bradley v. Ameristep, Inc., and Primal Vantage Co.
Unites States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Jackson Division
Case No. 1:12-CV-0116
Deposition Testimony, Kansas City, MO
November 12, 2013
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page40
41ofof41
42
Page 41
121002
Wayne Trask, Beth Trask, and A.T. vs. Olin Corporation
United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Division
Case No. 2:12-cv-00340-NBF
Deposition Testimony, Pittsburgh, PA
October 31, 2013
Clients: Mr. Jason Schiffman and Mr. Michael Trunk
130101
Estate of Lincoln Ogle v Chrysler Group, Dorel Juvenile Group, et al.
District Court of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma
Case No CJ 2011-1766-L
February 14, 2013 and June 21, 2013
Trial Testimony, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
July 23-24, 2013
Client: Mr. John Norman
130103
Bonita L. Brown v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, Southern Division
Case No. 13-3130-CV-S-REL
Deposition Testimony, Oklahoma City, OK
September 16, 2014
Client: Mr. Kevin Krueger
130104
Estate of Edward Davis v. Alstead Gun Shop
Cheshire County District Court, New Hampshire
Case No. 213-2013-CV-00050
June 24, 2014
Client: Ms. Kristin Ross
Case
Document86-8
75 Filed
Filed02/03/15
04/08/15 Page
Page41
42ofof41
42
EXHIBIT 4
IAN POLLARD, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 4:13-cv-00086-ODS
vs.
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC.,
SPORTING GOODS PROPERTIES, INC.
and E.I. DU PONT NEMOURS AND
COMPANY,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
AMENDED JOINT DECLARATION OF RICHARD J. ARSENAULT, CHARLES E.
SCHAFFER, W. MARK LANIER AND ERIC D. HOLLAND
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION
OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, APPROVAL OF NOTICE PLAN,
APPOINTMENT OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR,
AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL
We, Richard J. Arsenault, Charles E. Schaffer, W. Mark Lanier and Eric D. Holland,
declare as follows:
1.
I, Richard J. Arsenault, am an attorney and partner with the law firm of Neblett,
Beard & Arsenault. I am admitted pro hac vice in this Court and am counsel of record for
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
herein, and if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto under oath. This
Joint Declaration is being made in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification of
Settlement Classes, Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Notice Plan,
Appointment of Class Action Settlement Administrator, and Appointment of Class Counsel.
2.
I, Charles E. Schaffer, am an attorney-at-law and partner with the law firm of
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman. I am admitted pro hac vice in this Court and am counsel of
record for Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts
set forth herein, and if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto under
oath. This Joint Declaration is being made in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
3.
I, W. Mark Lanier, am an attorney-at-law with the Lanier Law Firm. I am
admitted pro hac vice in this Court and am counsel of record for Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel
in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness,
could and would testify competently thereto under oath. This Joint Declaration is being made in
support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
4.
I. Eric D. Holland, am an attorney-at-law with the Holland Law Firm. I am
admitted pro hac vice in this Court and am counsel of record for Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel
in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness,
could and would testify competently thereto under oath. This Joint Declaration is being made in
support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
5.
In support of the Motion for Appointment of Class Counsel, Richard J. Arsenault
states that he has a diverse career spanning over 30 years as a trial lawyer, litigating hundreds of
complex class action and mass tort cases across the United States. Mr. Arsenault was appointed
to serve on the Toyota Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions in
the National Multi-District Litigation pending in California. The Judge remarked;
“The Court spent considerable time in evaluating candidates for leadership on the
Plaintiffs’ side in this proceeding. The Court believes that while many candidates
2
for leadership were well qualified, those chosen are of exceptional talent and
experience, and the Court has reposed great confidence in them.”
Mr. Arsenault served as co-counsel with Professor Arthur Miller in the Baycol
Multidistrict Litigation when the Plaintiff Steering Committee designated him along with
Professor Miller to argue the class certification motion before Judge Michael J. Davis in
Minneapolis. Later, at a class action fairness hearing in federal court, Professor Arthur Miller,
while testifying regarding class action related issues, described Arsenault as one of the “leaders
in the area of complex litigation.” Similarly, Professor Edward Sherman, former dean of
Tulane Law School, with whom Arsenault has participated in panel presentations and for whom
he has served as a guest lecturer at Tulane Law School, has described Mr. Arsenault as one of
the “experts” in class actions.
Judge Donovan Frank appointed Mr. Arsenault to serve as co-lead counsel in the Guidant
Multidistrict Litigation. As the litigation came to a close, the court acknowledged lead counsels’
significant mass tort experience and explained:
“This experience benefitted immensely the court’s ability to effectively and
expeditiously move the case along, and more importantly, this experience
benefitted the individual plaintiffs.”
The Guidant MDL presented many unique challenges and much of Mr. Arsenault’s time
was spent in critical management efforts which were essential to coordinating the litigation.
Again, this did not go unnoticed by Judge Frank:
“The attorneys had superb case management experience that permitted them to
efficiently handle this complex case. In addition, many of the managing attorneys
have the ability to combine their skills with experienced trial lawyers in a way
that proved efficient and a benefit to all plaintiffs as the bellwether trial dates
approached. Had it not been for the skill of counsel, there may have been no
settlement and no recovery for the plaintiffs here at all.”
3
Mr. Arsenault was one of the lead negotiators in the Guidant MDL and was involved in
every step of the process, all of which was directly supervised by Magistrate Judge Arthur
Boylan who noted that the negotiations were some of the “most complex” that he had been
involved in and praised the “professionalism, competence and skill of counsel” during the
settlement process. Judge Frank stated that Magistrate Judge Boylan’s observations were
consistent with what the court had observed throughout the case as well.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, at a fairness hearing for the New Iberia Train
Derailment litigation made the following remarks:
“It is my opinion this is a unique class action that has been handled in an exemplary
fashion by skilled, talented lawyers, an excellent Special Master, and an excellent court
disbursal agent, and I think that that adds value to the matter. It is rare that a train
derailment is taken from start to finish in approximately two years with pretty much
everybody happy and a tremendously high percentage of the monies that are expended
going to the litigants and the litigants getting their money within about two years. That is
almost unheard of, and I think that has true value, and I don't think it would have
happened without having the quality of counsel that was in this case, as well as the
Special Master and the court disbursal agent.”
Selected by courts nationwide to serve on Steering Committees in some of the nation’s
largest litigation, Mr. Arsenault’s appointments by the federal bench include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, Central District of California, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions in the Toyota
Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank, District of Minnesota, to serve as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the Guidant MDL.
U.S. District Judge Donald C. Nugent, Northern District of Ohio, to serve as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the Kaba Simplex Locks Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve as Liaison
Counsel in the Educational Testing Service Praxis MDL.
U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Vioxx MDL.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, Northern District of California, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Bextra/Celebrex MDL.
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. District Judge James M. Rosenbaum, District of Minnesota, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Medtronic MDL.
U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the
MDL Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products
Liability Litigation (Shell).
U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Discovery Committee in the Ortho Evra MDL.
U. S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry, Eastern District of Missouri, to serve as a
member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in Rice Contamination MDL.
U.S. District Judge Richard H. Kyle, District of Minnesota, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Leads MDL.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Martone, District of Arizona, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability MDL.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Northern District of Illinois, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Steven J. McAuliffe, District of New Hampshire, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to serve as
Interim Lead Counsel in the Imprelis Herbicide Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, Northern District of Texas, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products
Liability Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire, to serve as Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee in Colgate-Palmolive Softsoap Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing
and Sales Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, Western District of Louisiana, to serve as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Actos MDL.
U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2328.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen B. Burke, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Gentek Building Products, Inc. and Associated
Materials, LLC Litigation.
U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Discovery Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., Northern District of Indiana, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Biomet
M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2391.
Mr. Arsenault currently serves as Co-Lead Counsel in Actos MDL 2299 where, after an 11
week trial, the jury rendered a $9 billion punitive damage verdict against Eli Lilly and Takeda.
5
He has been appointed to steering committees with verdicts and recoveries exceeding $15 billion
and has personally negotiated over $1 billion in settlements in just the last 5 years. In the
Genetically Modified Rice MDL, where Arsenault serves as Chair of the Executive Committee,
seven trials produced verdicts exceeding $200 million and the litigation has now been partially
resolved for $750 million.
The Wall Street Journal featured Arsenault for his role in the Toyota Litigation, referring
to him as having “national notoriety” and as a “big gun” amongst attorneys who were in
competition for leadership roles. They also noted he hosts "must-attend" legal seminars on the
"hot cases" of the moment. Business Week has referred to him as “a dean of the Louisiana tort
bar," USA Today featured him as a member of the “Legal Elite” and the New Orleans Times
Picayune has referred to him as “an authority on class actions.” Arsenault's commitment to legal
excellence is reflected in years of serving as a faculty member for LSU's Trial Advocacy
Program, lecturing at Judicial Colleges and assuming leadership roles in both local as well as
national Bar Associations. For over 20 years Mr. Arsenault has had Martindale Hubbell’s highest
rating. He likewise is recognized by many other peer reviewed publications including the “Bar
Register of Preeminent Lawyers,” “Best of United States,” “SuperLawyers” and he has appeared
in the “Best Lawyers in America” publication for over 15 consecutive years. Mr. Arsenault’s
expansive background in the class action arena makes him well-qualified to serve as Co-Lead
Counsel in this action. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the Curriculum Vitae of Richard
J. Arsenault demonstrating his extensive experience handling complex litigation, class actions
and qualifications to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in this action.
6
6.
Charles E. Schaffer, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Levin Fishbein Sedran
& Berman, has extensive experience leading and prosecuting class action lawsuits in a wide
variety of contexts with a substantial focus on consumer protection, products liability, and
environmental or toxic torts. Mr. Schaffer has served as lead-counsel, co-lead counsel, liaison
counsel and in other leadership positions in, inter alia,: Davis v. SOH Distribution Company,
Inc., No. 09-CV-237 (M.D. Pa.); Gwaizdowski v. County of Chester, Civil Action No. 08-CV4463 (E.D. Pa. 2012); Meneghin, v. The Exxon Mobile Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
OCN-002697-07 (Superior Court, Ocean County, NJ 2012); Melillo, et al. v. Building Products
of Canada Corp., Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-00016-JGM (D. Vt. Dec. 2012); Vought, et al., v.
Bank of America, et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-2052 (C.D. Ill. 2013); In re Navistar Diesel
Engine Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2223 (N.D. Ill.); United Desert Charities, et. el.
v. Sloan Valve, et. el., Case No. 12-cv-06878 (C.D. Ca.); Kowa, et. el. v. The Auto Club Group
AKA AAA Chicago, Case No. 1:11-CV-07476 (N.D. Ill); In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall
Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.); In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1014 (E.D. Pa.); In re Diet Drug Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.).
In the consumer protection field, Mr. Schaffer and his firm served as Liaison counsel in
In re CertainTeed Corporation Roofing Shingles Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817
(E.D. Pa.). That case involved claims on behalf of 1.8 million homeowners who had
unknowingly purchased roofing shingles that were defectively designed and manufactured
thereby causing premature and unreasonable deterioration, cracking blistering, crumbling and
leaking. Mr. Schaffer was instrumental in bringing about a settlement which was approved by the
Court in 2010 and valued at between $687 to $815 million. Recently, Mr. Schaffer served as part
7
of Plaintiffs’ discovery and settlement committees in In re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding
Litigation, MDL No. 2270 (E.D. Pa. 2014). That case involved claims on behalf of tens of
thousands of homeowners who had unknowingly purchased fiber cement siding that was
defectively designed and manufactured thereby causing premature and unreasonable
deterioration, cracking and water intrusion. Mr. Schaffer was instrumental in bringing about a
common fund settlement in the amount of 103.9 million dollars which was approved by the
Court in 2014.
Mr. Schaffer also served as lead counsel in In re JP Mortgage Modification Litigation,
MDL No. 2290 (D.C. Mass). This MDL involved class actions filed across the United States all
which arose out of JPMorgan Chase’s implementation of the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP), one of the many programs designed to assist struggling homeowners in the
economic downturn. In exchange for receiving billions of dollars in TARP funds, JPMorgan
Chase and many other big banks agreed to offer homeowners loan modifications pursuant to
newly enacted federal guidelines. Numerous individuals sued JPMorgan Chase and certain other
related companies claiming that Chase failed to offer them a timely and proper permanent
mortgage modification after they completed trial period plans under HAMP or Chase’s own
equivalent programs. Mr. Schaffer was instrumental in every phase of the litigation including
settlement which culminated in a nationwide settlement of the consolidated litigation which will
provide a broad range of benefits to tens of thousands of homeowners. Under the settlement class
members the ability to re-apply for a permanent mortgage modification to be handled within
HAMP guidelines, a foreclosure hold during the application process, a dedicated toll-free phone
number for the application process, waiver of various charges, penalties, fees, and costs for those
who are approved for a permanent modification, and up to 50 hours of free credit counseling per
8
mortgage loan. The overall value of the settlement to class members was determined to be $506
million dollars by a former Treasury Department official who worked on the initial launch of the
government’s HAMP program.
These cases are just a few examples of the complex class action cases that Mr. Schaffer
and his firm led to a successful outcome. Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman’s Firm Resume is
attached as Exhibit B, and the firm has been recognized by its peers and Court’s nationwide for
its successful class action leadership
Currently, Mr. Schaffer is serving as lead counsel in In re IKO Roofing Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2104 (C.D. Ill.), a member of Plaintiffs Steering Committee in In re Pella
Corporation Architect And Designer Series Windows Marketing Sales Practices and Product
Liablility Litigation, MDL No. 2514 (D.C.SC.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee in In re Azek Decking Sales Practices Litigation, Civil Action No. 12-6627
(KM)(MCA) (D. NJ.), a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Citimortgage,
Inc. Home Affordable Modification (“HAMP”), MDL No. 2274 (C.D. Ca.); a member of the
Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL 2330
(N.D. Ca.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee In re Dial Complete Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation; MDL No. 2263 (D. NH.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee In re Colgate–Palmolive Soft Soap Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing and Sales
practice Litigation, (D. NH.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee In re
HardiePlank Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 2359 (D.C. Minn.) and is actively
participating in a number of other class actions and mass tort actions across the United States in
leadership positions.
9
In recognition of his accomplishments, Mr. Schaffer has achieved and maintained an AV
Martindale-Hubbell rating. Mr. Schaffer speaks nationally on a multitude of topics relating to
class actions and complex litigation.
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman is one of the nation’s preeminent and most experienced
plaintiff class action firms with extensive experience and expertise in consumer protection,
product liability, antitrust, securities, financial, commercial, and environmental and other
complex class action litigation. Mr. Schaffer and his firm possess the background, experience
and requisite legal knowledge and acumen to manage and prosecute the litigation and claims
asserted in this litigation.
7.
Attorney, Author, Teacher, Pastor and Expert Story Teller, W. Mark Lanier is no
stranger to the public rostrum. He founded The Lanier Law Firm in 1990. Since then, Mark
Lanier has earned international recognition as one of the top trial attorneys in the United
States. Firm offices in Houston, New York City, and Los Angeles, California support his
work for clients across the country. Mr. Lanier’s curriculum vitae is attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
Mark’s courtroom experience is significant as well as diverse. In 1993, Mark secured
a $473 million verdict for a small oil company in a business fraud case against one of the
nation's largest oil providers. His stunning verdict in the nation’s first Vioxx trial, Ernst v.
Merck, led to a client verdict of $253 million that officially set the tone for the other cases,
nationally. He followed up this record verdict with two more plaintiff verdicts against the
pharmaceutical giant totalling over $50 million. Mark Lanier further obtained a nine-figure
settlement for syringe manufacturer, Retractable Technologies, in an antitrust case against
Becton Dickinson & Company. This case served as the basis for the movie Puncture, starring
10
Chris Evans. His $118.3 million verdict on behalf of 21 asbestos victims in February 1998 is
considered one of the largest asbestos verdicts in U.S. history. As recently as April of 2014,
Mark again proved that he was not slowing down when he secured a staggering Actos verdict
for $9 billion dollars against Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Eli Lilly & Co.
Mark’s peers and the media consistently recognize him among the country’s leading
legal minds. The National Law Journal has twice named him one of the nation’s Top 10
Trial Attorneys, as well as as one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America of the
Decade.
The New York Times described him as “one of the top civil trial lawyers in
America…” In October of 2012, he was awarded the coveted Clarence Darrow Award. U.S.
News and World Report’s Best Lawyers has named Mark Lanier to its Best Lawyers in
America list for ten consecutive years and most recently as the 2013 Top Class Action
Attorney in America. He has been recognized as a Litigation Star in Benchmark Litigation
in 2013, 2014 and 2015. He has earned similar honors from other publications, including
being named to The Trial Lawyer Magazine’s America’s 100 Most Influential Trial Lawyers
of 2011. Mark also earned a spot on the 2012 Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers
for Business list. He also received special recognition as one of their “Leaders in Their
Field” based on his work in product liability and mass tort cases. This annual guide to the
best lawyers in the U.S. uses researchers to conduct independent interviews with thousands of
lawyers and law firm clients. It is also noteworthy that U.S. News and World Report has
named The Lanier Law Firm to its list of Best Law Firms over the last five years. He was
most recently named the 2015 Trial Lawyer of the Year by The National Trial Lawyers and
The Trial Lawyer magazine.
11
In addition to national recognition, Mark Lanier has earned accolades from his peers in
Texas. In a statewide attorney survey published in Texas Monthly magazine, Mark Lanier has
earned selection to the “Texas Super Lawyers” list in 2003 through 2014. Further he has
been recognized, in “Texas Super Lawyers”, as one of the Top 10 Attorneys in Texas for
several years and most recently in 2014. In 2002, 2007 and 2012, Texas Lawyer newspaper
named Mark Lanier as one of the Top 5 “Go To” Personal Injury Plaintiff Attorneys in
Texas. In the 2007 and 2012 editions of the same publication, which is published every five
years, he was named The Top “Go To” Personal Injury Attorney. Texas Best Lawyers
magazine has also listed him on their Texas Best Lawyers list for nine consecutive years
including the 2013 list.
Recently, Lanier received further recognition in the Verdict
Search/Texas Lawyer Top 50 Verdicts of 2012. In 2010, Texas Lawyer named Mark as one
of the Top 25 Attorneys of the Past Quarter Century.
What the news clips can't measure or define is Mark Lanier's commitment to and
passion for his clients. Often motivated by injustice and by a sense of fair play, he has sought
to even the score whether his client is an individual or a large corporation.
Mark’s courtroom work has resulted in feature articles in The Wall Street Journal,
The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Bloomberg News, and the
Houston Chronicle among others. He also is a frequent guest on news shows such as CNBC’s
“Squawk Box” and Fox News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto”. Additionally, he is a regular
co-host and contributor to Fox Business News’ highly rated “Varney and Company” with
Stuart Varney.
12
The Texas Board of Legal Specialization certifies Mark Lanier as a personal injury
trial specialist. He is licensed to practice in all Texas State and federal courts, as well as the
U.S. Supreme Court. He is also licensed to practice law in New York State. The Lanier Law
Firm represents clients from all over the world in courtrooms across the United States. Mark
frequently instructs other attorneys about his trial techniques and how to try better cases in
seminars held across the nation. He is solicited often to be the featured lecturer at many of
the nation’s top law schools including Harvard, Stanford, Pepperdine University, University
of Chicago and Texas Tech University.
A strong supporter of his alma mater, Mark Lanier earned his law degree from Texas
Tech University School of Law in 1984. He remains active at Texas Tech by serving on the
Law School's Foundation Board. He was selected as the Texas Tech University School of Law
Distinguished Alumnus for 2005. Mark Lanier was elected to The American Bar
Association’s Fellows of the American Bar Association and was named a Life Fellow of the
same organization in 2012. He is the founder of the Christian Trial Lawyers Association, a
non-profit organization whose goal is to create a network of principled attorneys to minister to
others through civic-minded endeavours.
Mark Lanier is enthusiastically involved in government and community activities
outside the practice of law. Chairmen, presidents, and senior executives from major American
corporations and universities often call on him for his respected business views on national
and international issues. In 2011, Mark was also bestowed the distinguished Ambassador of
Peace award by the Guatemalan government.
13
Mark
Lanier
is
the
founder
of
the
Lanier
Theological
Library
(www.LanierTheologicalLibrary.org), one of the nation’s largest private theological
collections. Also, Mark teaches a weekly, 700-plus-member Sunday school class focusing on
Biblical Literacy at Champion Forest Baptist Church. He serves on the boards of the
American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) and the Albright Institute. An accomplished
author, Mark recently published the book, Christianity on Trial (IVP 2014).
Mark is the father of five wonderful children and lives in Houston with his wife,
Becky.
8.
Eric D. Holland is the managing partner of the Holland Law Firm, LLC, where he
leads a nationally recognized trial practice. Mr. Holland has served as lead counsel, co-lead
counsel or on leadership committees in a variety of product liability, financial and consumer
class action tort matters. He has also been consistently recognized by his peers as one of the
country's leading trial attorneys.
Mr. Holland's recent leadership positions in class and mass actions include cases from
across the country as well as this District and State: Vought, et.al, vs. Bank of America, N.A.,
2:10 CV 2052 (CD of IL)(co-lead counsel), Parisot vs. U.S. Title Co., 8:22 CC 9381 (Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis)(co-lead counsel), In re: Michigan Oil Spill Litigation/Volstromer vs.
Enbridge, 1:10 CV 752 (WD of MI)(executive committee), In re: Yasmin and Yaz Sales,
Marketing Practices and Product Liability Litigation, MDL 2100 (SD of IL)(PSC’s Science
Committee), In re IKO Roofing Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2104 (CD of IL)(executive
committee), In re Dial Complete Sales and Marketing Practices Litigation, MDL 2263 (D of
NH)(executive committee), In re Colgate Palmolive Sales and Marketing Practices Litigation,
14
MDL 2320 (D of NH)(executive committee), In re JPMorgan Chase Bank Mortgage Loan
Modification Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-2290 (MDL 2290) (D. Mass.)(executive committee
and discovery chairman), In re Citibank HAMP Loan Modification Litigation, Case No. 2:11-ml02274 (MDL 2274)(C.D. CA)(executive committee), and In re KV Pharmaceutical Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv-01816 (E.D. MO)(liaison counsel), In re HardiePlank Fiber
Cement Siding Litigation, Case No. 12-md-2359(MDL 2359) (D. MN)(trial team), In re Eliason,
et al. v Gentek Building Products, Inc. Case No. 1:10-cv-2093 (ND OH)(executive committee),
In re Espinoza, et al v Whiting, et al. Case No. 4:12-cv-01711 (E.D. MO)(liason counsel), In re
Emerson Electric Wet/Dry Vac Sales and Marketing Litigation, MDL 2382 (E.D. MO)(co-lead
counsel), In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2434 (S.D. N.Y.)(plaintiffs’
steering committee), In re H&R Block IRS Form 8863 Litigation, MDL 2474 (W.D.
MO)(executive committee), In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL 2330 (N.D.
CA)(executive committee), Smith, et al. v Volkswagon Group of America, et al., 13-cv-00370SMY (S.D. IL)(co-lead counsel), Hayes v. Integrity Title Company, 11SL-cc-1529 (21st Judicial
Circuit, State of Missouri)(class counsel), among others. Notably, many of the cases in which he
has been selected by the courts to serve are pending in the state and federal courts of Missouri.
Mr. Holland is a 1988 graduate of the University of Illinois and a 1991 graduate of the St.
Louis University School of Law, where he was elected to the Law Review. He is admitted to
practice in the state courts of Missouri, Illinois and Michigan as well as in federal courts across
the United States. He has tried a large number of cases to verdict, obtaining several recordsetting jury verdicts. Mr. Holland still holds the record in Missouri courts for the largest F.E.L.A.
jury verdict in history. Mr. Holland has been recognized for his professional accomplishments
for many years including holding an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, recognition as a
15
Missouri “Super Lawyer”, and selection by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial
Lawyer.
Mr. Holland is a frequent lecturer regarding litigation topics including two recent
engagements regarding electronically stored information (ESI), one of which involved serving on
a panel with the Honorable E. Richard Webber of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. Mr. Holland has also been a featured speaker on class action litigation at a
series of nationally acclaimed Harris Martin symposia in Savannah, GA, Miami, FL and San
Diego, CA with a focus on consumer class action litigation. He has been an invited panelist for
several years at the Annual Class Action and Complex Litigation Symposium in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Mr. Holland's CV and firm resume is attached hereto as Exhibit D and is
incorporated herein by reference. In short, Mr. Holland and his firm possess the background,
experience and requisite legal knowledge and acumen to manage and prosecute the litigation and
claims asserted in this litigation.
9.
In addition to the above qualifications, Declarants note the impressive list of co-
counsel that has been assembled to assist them with this litigation. This list includes many of the
country’s most respected and successful law firms and trial attorneys.
10.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed four putative class actions against Defendants in federal
district courts in 2012 and 2013, including the instant case, arising out of the design,
manufacturing, advertising, marketing, warranting and sale of Model 700 bolt-action rifles
containing the Walker trigger mechanism. Chapman v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No.
1:12-cv-24561 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2012); Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No. 4:13cv-00086 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2013); Moodie v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No. 2:13-cv00172 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2013); Huleatt v. Remington Arms Co., LLC et al., No. 9:13-cv16
00113 (D. Mont. June 4, 2013). At their core, these lawsuits claimed that the Walker trigger
mechanism is defectively designed because it utilizes a trigger connector which can result in
unintended discharges without the trigger being pulled.
11.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel have conducted extensive discovery regarding Model 700
bolt-action rifles and the Walker trigger mechanism from prior and pending litigation against the
Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the facts and
circumstances related to this action; have employed consulting experts; have obtained written
discovery and reviewed over 1,000,000 pages of documents; have interviewed numerous
potential witnesses, conducted inspections of firearms; and have researched the legal principles
applicable to issues of liability, damages, jurisdiction, and procedure involved in the litigation.
Based on this discovery, investigation, and on the representations of Defendants, Plaintiffs’
Counsel have concluded that there are hundreds of thousands of Class Members geographically
dispersed throughout the United States.
12.
While vigorously litigating this action, the parties were simultaneously engaged in
settlement negotiations. The parties, through their counsel, attended and participated in five inperson mediation sessions with John W. Perry and Randi S. Ellis, an experienced mediation
team. In addition, the parties, through counsel, also separately engaged in extensive
communications with the mediators and each other in an attempt to resolve this action.
13. During the mediation process, the parties agreed that Remington's X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanism could be an appropriate retrofit for Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, and 673
firearms containing Walker trigger mechanisms. The parties also agreed that the then-current
Model 770 connectorless trigger mechanism would be a more safe and appropriate retrofit for
Models 710, 715, and 770 firearms containing trigger mechanisms that utilize a trigger
17
connector. This understanding and agreement was conditioned on a full vetting of these trigger
systems by Plaintiffs' counsel and firearms experts. Thereafter, Defendants and Plaintiffs'
Counsel learned that the then-existing X-Mark Pro assembly process sometimes caused the
application of an excess amount of bonding agent, which reportedly could cause some Model
700 and Model Seven rifles to discharge without a trigger pull under certain limited conditions.
14.
On April 11, 2014, Defendants undertook a voluntary recall of all Model 700 and
Model Seven rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms manufactured from May 1, 2006
to April 9, 2014. Because of this recall, Plaintiffs' Counsel have undertaken enhanced discovery,
research and testing, and Defendants have since changed and improved the manufacture,
assembly, inspection, and testing processes for the X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms to prevent
excess bonding agent issues.
See Declaration of Derek Watkins at Ex. 2 to Suggestions in
Support of Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes. Using the new process,
rifles returned under the X-Mark Pro recall program have been specially cleaned, tested, repaired
if necessary, and returned to the owner as quickly as possible, without charge of any kind.
15.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, based on the additional discovery, testing, representations of
Defendants and their experts, and on the opinions of experts retained by them, Defendants and
Defendants’ Counsel agree that the X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured under the
revised assembly process is a safer and more reliable alternative to the Walker trigger
mechanism, and as such, they agree that the new X-Mark Pro triggers are suitable for retrofit in
Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673 firearms. See Amended Declaration of Charles Powell at
Ex. 3 to Suggestions in Support of Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes;
Declaration of Derek Watkins at Ex. 2 to Suggestions in Support of Motion for Conditional
Certification of Settlement Classes. The X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured under the
18
revised assembly process can be retrofitted to these firearms without affecting overall
performance and safety. And although firearms are inherently dangerous, Plaintiffs’ Counsel,
Defendants’ Counsel and their respective experts agree that the connectorless X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured under the revised assembly process is superior, safer, and more
reliable than the Walker trigger mechanism, which includes the connector feature.
16.
Settlement negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and the parties had
substantial disagreements on numerous aspects of the action including, inter alia, the alleged
Walker fire control defect, the manifestation thereof, and the remediation required. Plaintiffs’
Counsel evaluated the time and expense that will be necessary to prosecute these cases to final
judgment, the delays that are likely before any judgment may be rendered, and the uncertainty
inherent in predicting the outcome of any complex litigation such as this and, based upon such
evaluation, have concluded that further proceedings in these actions are likely to be protracted,
complex and expensive, and that the outcome is highly uncertain. Plaintiffs’ Counsel determined
that this settlement is in the best interests of the class.
17.
After five in-person mediation sessions, the parties reached the material terms of a
nationwide settlement with respect to: (1) all Model 700, 721, 722, 725, Seven, Sportsman 78,
600, 660, 673, XP-100, 710, 715 and 770 firearms manufactured by Remington or SGPI that
contain trigger mechanisms that utilize a trigger connector; and (2) Model 700 and Seven boltaction rifles containing X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms that are subject to the April 2014
voluntary recall. A total of approximately 7,850,000 of these various firearms have been sold in
the United States.
18.
Following the agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs’ Counsel engaged in a
competitive bidding process to select both a notice provider and a settlement claims
19
administrator. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all costs of notice and claims
administration will be paid by Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendants have agreed to
engage, subject to Court approval, Angeion, as the notice provider and claim administrator. The
settlement provides for notice through a combination of: (1) a joint press release; (2) direct
notice; (3) summary notice; (4) long form notice; (5) notice through the settlement website; and
(6) notice through social media, including a Facebook page and internet banners. The notice will
include a publication of a summary settlement notice in newspapers, periodicals, magazines, and
other publications designed to reach owners of the firearms in question.
We declare under the penalty and perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 9th day of February, 2015, at Alexandria, Louisiana, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Houston, Texas, and St. Louis, Missouri.
/s/ Richard J. Arsenault
Richard J. Arsenault
/s/ Charles E. Schaffer
Charles E. Schaffer
/s/ W. Mark Lanier
W. Mark Lanier
/s/ Eric D. Holland
Eric D. Holland
20
EXHIBIT A
RICHARD J. ARSENAULT
rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
800.256.1050
____________________________________________
CURRICULUM VITAE
With a diverse career spanning over 30 years, Richard J. Arsenault’s experience as a trial lawyer, author and teacher
has provided a unique foundation for navigating complex litigation:
•
Arsenault currently serves as Co-Lead Counsel in Actos MDL 2299 where, after an 11 week trial, the jury
rendered a $9 billion punitive damage verdict against Eli Lilly and Takeda.
•
The Wall Street Journal featured Arsenault for his role in the Toyota Litigation, referring to him as having
“national notoriety” and as a “big gun” amongst attorneys who were in competition for leadership roles. In
2013, the Toyota litigation won final approval for a $1.1 billion settlement.
•
BusinessWeek has referred to Arsenault as “a dean of the Louisiana tort bar.”
•
The New York Times has referred to Arsenault as one of the “big players” in the legal community.
•
USA Today featured Arsenault as a member of the “Legal Elite,” a diverse grouping of America’s
leading attorneys.
•
The National Law Journal has recognized Arsenault as having one of the nation’s largest personal injury
verdicts.
•
The New Orleans Times Picayune has referred to Arsenault as “an authority on class actions.”
•
Law 360 has referred to Arsenault’s firm as one of the nation’s “heavyweights.”
•
In Louisiana State Bar Association MDL Conference materials, Arsenault was referred to as a “leader in
the field” with a “proven MDL background.”
•
Arsenault has been appointed to steering committees with verdicts and recoveries exceeding $15 billion
and has personally negotiated over $1 billion in settlements in just the last 5 years.
•
In the Genetically Modified Rice MDL Litigation, where Arsenault serves as Chair of the Executive
Committee, seven trials produced verdicts exceeding $200 million and the litigation has now been partially
resolved for $750 million.
•
Through a multi-phase selection process, the National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys has chosen
Arsenault to receive the organization’s Top 10 Attorney Award for the State of Louisiana.
1
•
For over 25 years, Arsenault has had Martindale Hubbell’s highest rating for legal ability and ethical
standards. He is also listed in other peer reviewed publications including the Bar Register of Preeminent
Lawyers and “Best of United States” and he has appeared in the “Best Lawyers in America” publication
for almost 20 consecutive years.
•
Arsenault served as a faculty member for LSU Law School’s Trial Advocacy Program; a faculty
composed of Federal and State Court Judges, professors and prominent attorneys. He has been a part of that
program since its inception over 20 years ago.
In addition to a busy litigation practice, Arsenault has also been retained to provide expert testimony and has served
as a mediator in mass tort litigation. Trial Magazine also regularly calls upon Arsenault to peer review articles they
consider for publication. He also serves as a peer reviewer for Martindale-Hubbell in connection with their attorney
evaluations process.
Arsenault has been named to the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) Top 100 Trial Lawyers in
Louisiana. The Association is a national organization composed of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers from each
state. Membership is obtained through special invitation and is extended only to those attorneys who exemplify
superior qualifications of leadership, reputation, influence, stature and profile as civil plaintiff or criminal defense
trial lawyers.
Arsenault has been selected by the American Society of Legal Advocates (ASLA) Top 100 Litigation Lawyers
in the State of Louisiana. The ASLA is an invitation only legal organization comprised of the nation’s most skilled
lawyers designed to identify and promote the most outstanding legal talent throughout the country. They invite
lawyers who combine stellar legal credentials with proven commitment to communication engagement, leadership
and the highest professional standards.
Arsenault, who according to the Wall Street Journal, “hosts must-attend legal seminars on the hot cases of
the moment,” has been featured on numerous occasions by The New York Times, L.A. Times, NPR, Associated
Press, CBS, BBC, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, Miami Herald and other national press outlets for his roles in
both Toyota and the Gulf Coast Oil Spill. Arsenault was appointed to serve on the Toyota Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel
Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions in the National Multi-District Litigation pending in California. The
Judge remarked:
“The Court spent considerable time in evaluating candidates for leadership on the Plaintiffs’ side
in this proceeding. The Court believes that while many candidates for leadership were well
qualified, those chosen are of exceptional talent and experience, and the Court has reposed great
confidence in them.”
Complex Litigation
Arsenault served as co-counsel with Professor Arthur Miller in the Baycol Multidistrict Litigation when the Plaintiff
Steering Committee designated him along with Professor Miller to argue the class certification motion before Judge
Michael J. Davis in Minneapolis. Later, at a class action fairness hearing in federal court, Professor Arthur Miller,
while testifying regarding class action related issues, described Arsenault as one of the “leaders in the area of
complex litigation.” Similarly, Professor Edward Sherman, former dean of Tulane Law School, with whom
Arsenault has participated in panel presentations and for whom he has served as a guest lecturer at Tulane Law
School, has described Arsenault as one of the “experts” in class actions.
Judge Donovan Frank appointed Arsenault to serve as co-lead counsel in the Guidant Multidistrict Litigation. As
the litigation came to a close, the court acknowledged lead counsels’ significant mass tort experience and explained:
“This experience benefitted immensely the court’s ability to effectively and expeditiously move
the case along, and more importantly, this experience benefitted the individual plaintiffs.”
2
The Guidant MDL presented many unique challenges and much of Arsenault’s time was spent in critical
management efforts which were essential to coordinating the litigation. Again, this did not go unnoticed by Judge
Frank:
“The attorneys had superb case management experience that permitted them to efficiently handle
this complex case. In addition, many of the managing attorneys have the ability to combine their
skills with experienced trial lawyers in a way that proved efficient and a benefit to all plaintiffs as
the bellwether trial dates approached. Had it not been for the skill of counsel, there may have been
no settlement and no recovery for the plaintiffs here at all.”
Arsenault was one of the lead negotiators in the Guidant MDL and was involved in every step of the process, all of
which was directly supervised by Magistrate Arthur Boylan who noted that the negotiations were some of the “most
complex” that he had been involved in and praised the
“professionalism, competence and skill of counsel”
during the settlement process. Judge Frank stated that Magistrate Boylan’s observations were consistent with what
the court had observed throughout the case as well.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, at a fairness hearing for the New Iberia Train Derailment litigation made the
following remarks: “This is a matter where counsel took it upon themselves to take this out of the norm and to
handle it somewhat creatively, and they have handled it efficiently, well, expeditiously, and it is -- has been
reflective of the collective talent, experience, and ability of the attorneys involved and the Special Master and the
court disbursal agent that this has gone as beautifully as it has.” “I think the novelty in which this was handled is
extremely laudable and great and high in the manner in which this matter was handled, and I think that is something
that the --particularly, the counsel that were the common benefit attorneys should be properly rewarded for. The
skill required to perform the legal services properly, I think, is perhaps one of the major factors in this matter. I
think the skill required by the common benefit lawyers in order to bring this matter from start to finish in two years
time with only 300 and something objections, almost all of them ultimately being resolved to the satisfaction of all
parties involved, is exemplary.” “The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys is exemplary. I think the
curriculum vitaes point that out, and I don't think it's every day that you have someone of Mr. Arthur Miller's stature
who says that you have some of the best in the country working in a given case. That is high praise not unnoted by
this Court that came from the expert witness this morning.” “It is my opinion this is a unique class action that has
been handled in an exemplary fashion by skilled, talented lawyers, an excellent Special Master, and an excellent
court disbursal agent, and I think that that adds value to the matter. It is rare that a train derailment is taken from
start to finish in approximately two years with pretty much everybody happy and a tremendously high percentage
of the monies that are expended going to the litigants and the litigants getting their money within about two
years. That is almost unheard of, and I think that has true value, and I don't think it would have happened without
having the quality of counsel that was in this case, as well as the Special Master and the court disbursal agent.”
Litigation Resolution
The architect of many significant litigation recoveries, Arsenault has been appointed to many negotiating teams,
some resulting in nine figure settlements. He served on the Executive Committee and as Class Counsel in
environmental litigation where the defendant agreed to a $330 million dollar settlement just days before trial. He
was Lead Counsel and one of the lead negotiators in a train derailment that was resolved in federal court by Judge
Rebecca Doherty in Lafayette, Louisiana. Subsequently, she invited Arsenault to make a presentation with her at
the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference regarding the innovative and progressive ideas employed in resolving that
litigation. Arsenault was one of the negotiators in a class action resolved before Judge Parker in the Middle District
of Louisiana and served as Class Counsel and one of the lead negotiators in that case. He was also appointed to the
Vioxx Plaintiff Steering Committee, which was resolved for $4.85 billion dollars.
Legal Excellence & Professionalism
Arsenault’s commitment to legal excellence is reflected in years of service which has included teaching at law
schools, publishing law review articles, lecturing at Judicial Colleges and assuming leadership roles in both local,
3
as well as national bar associations. Through an appointment by the President of the Louisiana Bar Association,
Arsenault joined the Professional Assessment Committee composed of a distinguished panel including Federal and
State Court Judges along with members of the Bar. He also coordinates an annual tort law presentation by several
United States District Judges and the former Dean of the University of Tennessee, College of Law, Thomas C.
Galligan, Jr. Other examples include service as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
President of the Alexandria Bar Association;
President of the American Inns of Court’s Crossroads Chapter. (U.S. District Judge F.A. Little and
Arsenault worked together to create the Alexandria Chapter);
Chair of American Trial Lawyers Association Admiralty Section;
Chair of both the Louisiana Bar Association’s Annual Admiralty Symposium and Annual Class Action
Symposium since their inception;
Speaker and guest lecturer at a variety of symposiums, including those sponsored by Tulane Law School,
LSU Law School, the Louisiana Judicial College and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference;
Editor of the Louisiana Bar Journal’s Recent Developments for the Section on Insurance, Negligence,
Worker’s Compensation and Admiralty;
Tulane Law School’s Continuing Legal Education Committee;
Chair of the Louisiana Bar Association’s Section on Insurance, Negligence, Worker’s Compensation and
Admiralty.
National Plaintiff Steering Committees
Selected by courts nationwide to serve on Steering Committees in some of the nation’s largest litigation, Arsenault’s
appointments by the federal bench include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, Central District of California, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel
Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions in the Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank, District of Minnesota, to serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel in
the Guidant MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Donald C. Nugent, Northern District of Ohio, to serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel
in the Kaba Simplex Locks Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve as Liaison Counsel in the
Educational Testing Service Praxis MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in the Vioxx MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, Northern District of California, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in the Bextra/Celebrex MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge James M. Rosenbaum, District of Minnesota, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in the Medtronic MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the MDL Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability MDL Litigation (Shell).
U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Discovery
Committee in the Ortho Evra MDL Litigation.
U. S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry, Eastern District of Missouri, to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee in Rice Contamination MDL.
U.S. District Judge Richard H. Kyle, District of Minnesota, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
in the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Leads MDL.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Martone, District of Arizona, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
in the Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Northern District of Illinois, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in the Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Steven J. McAuliffe, District of New Hampshire, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in the Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Litigation.
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to serve as Interim Lead Counsel
in the Imprelis Herbicide Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, Northern District of Texas, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire, to serve as Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee
in Colgate-Palmolive Softsoap Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing and Sales Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, Western District of Louisiana, to serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
in the Actos MDL Litigation.
U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in the Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen B. Burke, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee in the Gentek Building Products, Inc. and Associated Materials, LLC Litigation.
U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Discovery
Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Litigation, MDL No. 2197.
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., Northern District of Indiana, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2391.
U.S. District Judge David Norton, District of South Carolina, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
in the Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2514.
Presentations & Publications
Arsenault has been appointed to numerous editorial boards, and has made presentations throughout the U.S. and
Canada on a variety of mass tort, class action, and complex litigation related topics. He has over 250 articles and
presentations to his credit. Recently, Arsenault co-authored with Professor Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., a chapter in a
new treatise being published by the American Bar Association’s Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice Section (A
Practitioner's Guide to Class Actions). The chapter is titled “MDL’s – A Practitioner’s Global Positioning Guide.”
Arsenault has authored many Law Review articles including one published in the Federal Courts Law Review
(Knowledge is Power: A Practical Proposal to Protect Putative Class Members From Improper Pre-Certification
Communication).Its use was approved as a course material at Berkley Law School. Other recent publications
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“The Increasing Central Role of Bellwether Trials and MDL’s” published in The Brief, quarterly magazine
of the ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section.
“Settlement Strategies for Complex Global Litigation” published in “TRIAL” the Journal of the American
Association of Justice.
“Class Action Settlement of ‘Future Claims’” which appeared in a recent edition of the Louisiana Trial
Lawyers Association publication.
"Gathering Digital Data” published in “TRIAL” the Journal of the American Association of Justice.
“Daubert in Class Certification” published in the Louisiana Bar Journal.
“Will Daubert Challenge Your Class Certification?” published in “TRIAL” the Journal of the American
Association of Justice.
“Precertification Discovery: A User’s Guide” published in the Tulane Law Review, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 5/6
(June 2006).
“Multidistrict Litigation and Bellwether Trials: Leading Litigants to Resolution in Complex Litigation”
published in The Brief, quarterly magazine of the ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section.
National Press Coverage
Arsenault is known inside and outside the legal community as an authority on complex litigation issues. He has
been interviewed and featured in print, online, on television and radio regarding his expertise and involvement with
some of the nation’s largest litigation. Arsenault has been called upon and often quoted by leaders in the news
media, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, CBS 60 Minutes, CBS Evening News,
Washington Post, London Times, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, National Public Radio, MSNBC, Public
5
Broadcasting System, Morningstar.com, CBS News’ Moneywatch.com, The Boston Globe, The Miami Herald,
MarketWatch, Yahoo Finance, Reuters, Forbes, Bloomberg News, Huffington Post, NPR Market Watch, CBS
Radio Los Angeles, Houston Chronicle, Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, JD Journal Legal
News, TRIAL Magazine (Mar. 2011, p. 19), TV Tokyo America, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Edmonton Sun,
Calgary Sun, Metro News Ottawa, The Detroit Bureau, Real Simple Syndication, Businesswire.com, CNBC, KTVU
San Francisco, British Broadcasting Corporation Radio, British Broadcasting Corporation World Television
London, Reuters UK, New Zealand Herald, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Al Jazeera English TV News,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), and various other national and local media outlets.
Internet Articles Quoting
Louisiana Tire News-Tire Industry Today, Broker Forex Online, Biology and Medicine, Wall Street Journal blog,
Legal News Line, BusinessWeek, National Law Journal, Financial Hub, Leader-Post/Los Angeles Times, Ziet
Online, Yahoo! News, Oil Spill News, Online PR News, The American Lawyer, Reuters.
Nationwide Networking
Arsenault has helped chair national complex litigation programs with speakers that have included former President
Bill Clinton, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Eliot Spitzer, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, Morris Dees, Arianna
Huffington, Al Franken, Bob Woodward, Al Sharpton and Paul Begala. He has chaired dozens of symposiums with
guests ranging from Ken Starr to Jan Schlichtman (lawyer portrayed by John Travolta in “A Civil Action”).
Arsenault has organized numerous counsel meetings and conferences, comprising hundreds of law firms in venues
across the country. These have been designed to facilitate consensus for leadership roles, consider organizational
structures and promote coordinated litigation efforts. Arsenault recently co-chaired the national HarrisMartin
Toyota Recall Litigation Conference, which attracted over 100 plaintiff and defense attorneys seeking to learn more
about the unique circumstances of the Toyota litigation. The conference agenda featured some of the nation’s
preeminent attorneys, many with decades of experience handling large, complex national cases. The event, which
was held in San Diego was profiled by the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, National
Public Radio, CBS Radio, CBC Montreal and other national and international news organizations. Consequently,
he understands and functions well in the national complex litigation landscape.
6
_____________________________________________
CURRICULUM VITAE HIGHLIGHTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AV Martindale-Hubbell rating.
Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers listing.
“The Best Lawyers in America” Woodward/ White publication listing.
Licensed in Louisiana, Texas, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.
National Law Journal recognition for one of the nation's largest (top 100) verdicts in 2001; $21 million.
Faculty member at LSU Law School’s Trial Advocacy Training Program.
Guest Lecturer at Tulane and LSU Law Schools.
Past President of Alexandria Bar Association.
Past President of Crossroads Chapter of the American Inns of Court.
Guest lecturer at Louisiana Judicial College.
Guest lecturer at Federal Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference.
Numerous presentations at law schools, judicial conferences, and bar association functions throughout the
United States and Canada on a variety of mass tort, class action, maritime and litigation related topics
(nearly 200 articles and presentations).
Editor of Louisiana Bar Journal, Recent Developments for the Section on Insurance, Negligence, Workers'
Compensation and Admiralty Law (1983-2000).
Multi-District Litigation experience: Pedicle Screw, Breast Implant, Fen-Phen, Microsoft, Propulsid, Air
Bag, Sulzer Hip, PPA, Firestone, Baycol, Serzone and Meridia.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the
NUVARING Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1964. ($100 million recovery).
Class Counsel in Craig West, et al v. G& H Seed Company, et al, Docket No. 99-C-4984-A, 27thJudicial
District Court (ICON/CRAWFISH), St. Landry Parish, Louisiana ($45 million recovery during fifth week
of trial).
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge John Parker as Class Counsel for INGRAM litigation; served
on Settlement Committee ($40.5 million recovery).
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge Edith Brown Clement to serve as Liaison Counsel in KAISER
Litigation; served on Settlement Committee ($30,425,000.00 recovery).
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge Richard Haik to serve as Class Counsel and appointed to the
Settlement Committee for the EUNICE TRAIN DERAILMENT Litigation ($65 million recovery).
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge Rebecca F. Doherty to serve as Co-Liaison Counsel and Class
Counsel in NEW IBERIA TRAIN DERAILMENT LITIGATION ($5 million recovery).
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge Barker to serve on the FIRESTONE MDL No. 1373 Settlement
Committee.
Appointed to Repository Committee in In Re: Ford Motor Company CROWN VICTORIA Police
Interceptor Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1488.
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon to serve on State Liaison Committee in
PROPULSID MDL No. 1355 litigation.
Appointed by Federal District Court Judge Rothstein to serve on Federal/ State Coordination Committee in
PPA MDL No. 1407 litigation.
Appointed to Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and Executive Committee in SERZONE Products Liability
Appointed to Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in In Re: MERIDIA Product Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1481.
Chair for Louisiana State Bar Association’s Annual Class Action/Mass Tort Symposium since inception.
Chair of Louisiana State Bar Association’s Annual Admiralty Symposium since inception.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Feldman to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in
In Re: AIR BAGS Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1181.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
and Interim Class Counsel In Re: VIOXX Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657.
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon to serve as Interim Class Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee member and Executive Committee member In Re: Turner v. MURPHY OIL USA, Inc. Case
Number 05-4206, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Vance to serve as Liaison Counsel, In Re: OCA, Inc. Securities and
Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 05-2165, Section R(3), Judge Vance, United States District Court,
Eastern District of Louisiana.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer to serve as a member of the Plaintiff’s Steering
Committee In Re: BEXTRA and CELEBREX Marketing Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation,
Case No. M:05-CV-01699-CRB, MDL No. 1699, United States District Court, Northern District of
California.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel
Committee In re: GUIDANT Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 051708, United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge James M. Rosenbaum to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee In Re: MEDTRONIC, Inc. Implantable Defibrillators Litigation, MDL No. 05-1726, United
States District Court, District of Minnesota (1of the 3 lead negotiators for the settlement which including
the separate payment for attorney’s fees exceeds $113 million).
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee In Re LLRICE 601 Contamination Litigation, Case Number 4:06 MD 1811-CDP, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier to serve as Class Counsel in Lincoln, et al v. SHELL
Pipeline Company, L.P., et al, Civil Action no. 05-CV-4197 c/w 05-cv-4199 & 06-cv-5154, United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
Appointed by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan to serve on the Claims Review Committee
and the Common Benefit Attorneys’ Fees Committee In Re: MEDTRONIC, Inc. Implantable
Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05-1726 (JMR/AJB) United States District Court,
District of Minnesota.
Appointed by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan to serve on the Common Benefit Attorneys’
Fees Committee In Re: MEDTRONIC, Inc. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 05-1726 (JMR/AJB) United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Richard H. Kyle and United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron to
serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, In Re: Medtronic, Inc., SPRINT FIDELIS Leads Product
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 08-1905 (RHK/JSM), United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Appointed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan to serve on the Claims Review Committee, In re:
GUIDANT Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05-1708, United
States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, Central District of California, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions in the TOYOTA Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2151.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, Western District of Louisiana, to serve as Co-lead
counsel in ACTOS (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2299.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire, to serve on Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee in the Colgate-Palmolive SOFTSOAP Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing and Sales
Practice Litigation, MDL 2320.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, Southern District of West Virginia to serve on
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the C.R. Bard Inc., PELVIC REPAIR System Products Liability
Litigations, MDL No. 2187, MDL No. 2325, MDL No. 2326 and MDL No. 2327.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge David C. Norton, District of South Carolina, to serve on the Homeowner
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the MI WINDOWS and Doors, Inc. Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2333.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to serve
on the Settlement Class Counsel in the GENTEK Building Products Inc., and Associated Materials, LLC.
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:10cv2093.
8
_____________________________________________
EDUCATION
B.A. 1977 - State University of New York
J.D. 1980 - Louisiana State University Law Center
_____________________________________________
STATE COURT BAR ADMISSIONS
Louisiana (10/17/80)
Texas (04/17/92)
Colorado (01/01/91)
Washington, D.C. (11/06/91)
_____________________________________________
FEDERAL COURT BAR ADMISSIONS
United States Supreme Court (5/10/84)
United States Courts of Appeals
Fifth Circuit (12/04/80) Eleventh Circuit (10/01/81) Third Circuit (11/26/13)
United States District Courts of Louisiana
Middle District (12/09/80) Eastern District (11/14/80) Western District (01/30/81)
United States District Courts of Texas
Eastern District (06/17/88) Southern District (09/07/90) Northern District (07/11/90)
United States District Court of Colorado (3/2/12)
Admitted to appear Pro Hac Vice (1/10/94)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division
In the matter of the Complaint of NewCo Marine, Inc. as Bareboat
Charterer, Operator and Owner
Pro Hac Vice of the M/V HOOSIER STATE, Official No. 288407,
for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-00200
Special admission to appear
Tina Wall, et al v. Sunoco, Inc., et al
Case No. 3:CV-01-809
United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Admitted to appear Pro Hac Vice
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, et al
Case No. 02-10429
United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware
In re: Medtronic, Inc., Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation
MDL No. 1726 (JMR/AJB)
United States District Court, District of Minnesota
9
In re: Bextra and Celebrex Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation
MDL No. 1699(CRB)
United States District Court, Northern District of California
In re: Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation
MDL No. 1708
Arthur Sokol v. Pfizer, Inc.
Case No. 05-80750CV
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division
Admitted to appear Pro Hac Vice 2006
Joseph Birdsong, individually and as representative of the Class
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division
Ralph Shaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Continental Casualty Company & CNA Financial Corporation, d/b/a CNA, LTC.
Case No. CV06-2235 RGK (PJA)
United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division
Sondra Zekowski, et al v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
Case No. BC356095
Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles
Danny Dunham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Coffeyville Resources, LLC., et al
Case No. 6:07-cv-01186-JTM-DWB
United States District Court, State of Kansas
Luisi, et al v. Medtronic, Inc., et al
Civil Docket No. 0:07cv-04250-RHK-JSM
United States District Court, District of Minnesota (DMN)
Sydnes v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc. et al
Civil Docket No. 09-cv-01939-PAM-JSM
Poole v. MATRIXX Initiatives, Inc., et al
Civil Docket No. 2:10-cv-00127-FJM
United States District Court, District of Arizona
Gazaryan v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al
Civil Docket No. 2:10-cv-00849-AHM
United States District Court, Central District of California
10
Horn v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al
Civil Action No. 4-10-cv-0090
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Menssen v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al
Civil Docket No. 1:10-cv-00260-SO
United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Jerry Baker Auto Sales, LLC v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al
Civil Docket No. 2:10-cv-04025-NKL
United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
Halverson v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al
Civil Docket No. 2:10-cv-00626-SRB
United States District Court, District of Arizona
In Re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Case No. 8:10ML2151-JVS (FMOx)
United States District Court, Central District of California
Key West Tiki Charters, Inc. v. Transocean Ltd. et al
Case No. 4:10-cv-10039-KMM
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Johnson Investment Counsel, Inc. v. Transocean Ltd. et al
Case No. 1:10-cv-04515-NRB
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Luanne Miller v. E. I. Du Pont Nemours and Company
Case No. 1:11-cv-01517-DCN
United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Kristina Pearson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Case No. 11-C-6086
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
In Re: Navistar 6.0L Diesel Engine Products Liability Litigation
Case No. 11-C-2496
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Stout et al v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. et al
Case No. 1:12-cv-00033-IMK
United States District Court, Northern District of West Virginia
11
Gentek Building Products, Inc. and Associated Materials, Inc.
Case No. 1:11-cv-02719-PAG
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division
Ridley v. Boston Scientific Corporation
Case No. 2:12-cv-00034-RWS
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia
Davis et al v. Biomet Orthopedics, Inc. et al
Case No. 3:12-cv-00625-RLM-CAN
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division
Pollard v. Remington Arms Company, LLC et al
Case No. 4:13-cv-00086-ODS
U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
Moodie et al v. Remington Arms Company, LLC et al
Case No. 2:13-cv-00172-JCC
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Jemeliah Sade Smith v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Case No. 3:13-cv-00370
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis)
Glodo et al v. CPG International, Inc. et al
Case No. 3:13-cv-00402-DRH-SCW
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation
Case No. 7:13-md-02434-CS
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
James L. Mace, et al v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, et al
Case No. 3:13-cv-328-J-99TJC-MCR
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division
Stephen Trewin, et al v. Church & Dwight, Inc.
Case No. 3:12-cv-01475-MAS-DEA
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
12
Karen Jacobs-Poles and Dwayne Poles v. Wellnx Life Sciences, USA, et al
Case No. 2:13-cv-01884-CMR
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Kanawha Gourmet Sandwiches, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Freedom Industries, Inc., a West Virginia corporation; and West Virginia-American
Water Company, a West Virginia corporation
Case No. 14-C-55
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia
_____________________________________________
TEACHING/FACULTY/ALUMNI BOARD POSITIONS
LSU Trial Advocacy Faculty Member
Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Trial Advocacy Training Program
1991 - 1998, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
Guest Lecturer
Tulane Law School, New Orleans, LA
September 22, 2004
Topic: Class Actions
Guest Lecturer - March 1994
Advanced Tort Litigation Course
Topic: Deposition Practice
Faculty
Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, LA
Litigation Course
1983 to 1987
Faculty
Seventeenth Post Graduate Summer School for Lawyers at the
Presentation on June 11, 1994
Presentation topic: Deposition Practice
Guest Lecturer - February 1997
Topic: Discovery Strategy
Board Member
Vice President - (Alexandria, LA area)
National Alumni Board
13
Member
Chancellor's Council
Member
Professional Assessment Committee
Louisiana State Bar Association
Guest Lecturer - April 2006
Pre-Trial Litigation Class
_____________________________________________
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Eucharistic Minister and Lector
St. Frances Xavier Cathedral
1993 to 2001
Member - Stewardship Committee
1994
Co-Chairman
Annual Hope House Function
(Shepherd Ministries)
1994
Vice Chairman
Annual Arthritis Foundation Function
(Hotel Bentley) Alexandria, Louisiana
1994
Lector
Red Mass for the Alexandria
Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church
September 25, 1994 & September 21, 1997
Member - Major Gift Committee
Cathedral Restoration Project
1996
Elected Member of
St. Frances Xavier Cathedral Financial Board
1998
Host Committee Member
Alexandria Reception for Chancellor John Costonis
LSU Law Center
1998
14
SOLACE Program for the Louisiana State Bar Association - Volunteer
Support of Lawyers/Legal Personnel - Community Action Committee
2003
SOLACE Program for the Louisiana State Bar Association – Alexandria Coordinator
Support of Lawyers/Legal Personnel - Community Action Committee
2010
Soccer Coach
Country Day School (4th - 6th Grade)
2001, 2003 Seasons
_____________________________________________
EDITORIAL POSITIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Editor, Louisiana Bar Journal Recent Developments. (Insurance, Negligence, Workers' Compensation and
Admiralty Law). 1983 to 2000.
Co-Editor, American Trial Lawyers Association Admiralty Newsletter. 1990 to 1992.
Editorial Board Member, Maritime Law Reporter. 1987 to 2000.
Editorial Board Member, The Forum. 1982-1986.
Editor, Alexandria Bar Association Publication. 1983.
Editor, The Forum. 1987-1988.
Editor, Maritime and Auto Tort Column for the Louisiana Advocates (Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association
Monthly Publication). 2000-2001.
_____________________________________________
SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS AND RECOGNITION
1.
A-V Martindale-Hubbell rating.
2.
Recognized by THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA (1993 to date).
3.
Recognized by BEST LAWYER IN THE U.S. (2007 to date).
4.
Recognized by LOUISIANA SUPER LAWYERS (2007 to date).
5.
Included in the 2008 Louisiana Life Magazine’s Super Lawyer Section “Top Attorneys in Louisiana.”
6.
Included in the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers from 1992 to date.
7.
Selected by The Best of the U.S., Inc. as one of the “Best of Class” in the legal profession, 2006 to date.
8.
Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association's President's Advisory Committee, 1983.
9.
Chairman, Louisiana Bar Association Section on Insurance, Negligence, Compensation and Admiralty
Law, 1986-1987.
10.
Southern Trial Lawyers Association, Board of Governors, 1988 to 1992.
11.
President, Alexandria Bar Association, 1991-1992.
12.
Executive Committee Member, American Inns of Court, (Crossroads Chapter: Alexandria) 1992-1995.
15
13.
President, American Inns of Court, (Crossroads Chapter: Alexandria) 1992-1993.
14.
Chairman - Louisiana State Bar Association Section on Insurance, Negligence, Worker's Compensation
and Admiralty Law, 1994/1995.
15.
1st Chair (Chairman elect) - ATLA Admiralty Section, 1994/1995.
16.
Louisiana State Bar Association Sandestin Planning Committee Member, 1994/1995.
17.
Chairman - ATLA Admiralty Section, 1995-1996.
18.
Selected honored member of the National Directory of Who's Who, 1994/1995.
19.
Member of the Louisiana Coordinating Counsel for the American Inns of Court, 1994 to date.
20.
Committee Member - Louisiana State Bar Association's Bar Governance Committee, 1995/1996.
21.
Member - Louisiana State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Program Committee, 1996.
22.
Vice Chair - Louisiana State Bar Association Theme Seminar Sub-Committee of Continuing Legal
Education Program Committee, 1995/1996.
23.
June 1996 to June 1998 - Elected to Louisiana State Bar Association House of Delegates for the 9th
Judicial District.
24.
1996 Program Chairman - Section on Insurance, Negligence, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty
Section of the Louisiana State Bar Association.
25.
Member of the Louisiana State Bar Association's Long-Range Planning Committee, 1996 to-date.
26.
Vice Chair - testimonial dinner honoring retired Judge Alfred Mansour, April, 1996.
27.
Chair - Bar Governance Committee of the Louisiana State Bar Association, 1996/97.
28.
Louisiana State Bar Association - Nominating Committee - Sixth District, June 97/June 98.
29.
Invited for inclusion in the 1997/1998 Edition of "Who's Who in Executives and Professionals.”
30.
Louisiana State Bar Association's Long Range Planning Retreat member, Alexandria, Louisiana, March
2-3, 1996.
31.
Vice Chair of the Section on Insurance, Negligence, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Section of
the Louisiana State Bar Association for 1997/98 term.
32.
33.
Member - Louisiana State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Program Committee, 1997/1998.
34.
Member - Louisiana State Bar Association Theme Seminar Committee, 1997/1998.
35.
Chairman-Elect of the Section on Insurance, Negligence, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Section
of the Louisiana State Bar Association for 1997/98 term.
36.
Chairman of the Section on Insurance, Negligence, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Section of the
Louisiana State Bar Association for 1998/99 term.
16
37.
38.
39.
Invited for inclusion in the 2000/2001 Millennium Edition of "Who's Who in American Law.”
40.
Invited for inclusion in “The National Registry of Who’s Who,” 2000 edition.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Louisiana State Bar Association Amicus Brief Committee, 2000/2001.
45.
Louisiana State Bar Association Corporate Sponsorship Committee, 2000/2001.
46.
47.
Appointed as delegate from the Ninth Judicial District to the House of Delegates of the Louisiana State
Bar Association for the term of June 2002 - June 2004.
48.
Member - Louisiana State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Committee, 2002/2003.
49.
50.
Member - Outstanding Lawyers of America, 2003/2004.
51.
52.
Member - Louisiana State Bar Association's Professional Assessment Committee, 2004/2005.
53.
Chair - Examination of the Public’s Needs Subcommittee of the Louisiana State Bar Association's
Professional Assessment Committee, 2005.
54.
Law, 2005/2006.
55.
Selected by acceptance committee as one of several candidates from Alexandria for inclusion in the 20052006 Edition of America’s Registry of Outstanding Professionals.
56.
57.
Invited for inclusion in “America’s Who’s Who Registry,” 2006/2007 edition.
58.
Invited for inclusion in Prestige International Who’s Who Registries of Outstanding Professionals,
2006/2007.
59.
Selected as “Best of Class” and listed on www.bestofus.com website to inform the public who the “Best
of Class” are in fourteen professions including lawyers, 2007.
60.
Law, 2006/2007.
17
61.
62.
63.
Editor/Peer Reviewer for Trial Magazine regarding article for January, 2007 publication.
64.
65.
66.
Invited for inclusion in America’s Premier Lawyers, to be featured in Fortune Magazine, July 2007.
67.
Peer Reviewer - invited by Louisiana Super Lawyers to be part of a select group of Louisiana Lawyers
to serve on their Blue Ribbon Panel to assist in evaluating the 2008 Super Lawyers Nominees.
68.
Expert Peer Reviewer for Trial Magazine.
69.
Peer Reviewer for Louisiana Super Lawyers in connection with evaluating nominees for the 2009
Louisiana Super Lawyers Directory.
70.
71.
Selected to participate in the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings evaluation, 2009.
72.
Invited for inclusion in 2009/2010 Princeton Global Networks’ “Honors Edition” of the Registry of
Professional Business Leaders.
73.
Accepted for inclusion in the 2009/2010 edition of Presidential Who’s Who, a publication recognizing
key executives, professionals and organizations for outstanding business and professional achievements.
74.
Member - Louisiana State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Committee and Theme Seminar
Sub-Committee, 2009/2010.
75.
Named to the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Louisiana.
76.
Selected to participate in the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings evaluation, 2010.
77.
Selected for inclusion in the 2010 International Association of Business Leaders Hardcover Edition.
78.
Selected for inclusion in the 2010/2011 Edition of "Cambridge Who's Who.”
79.
80.
Selected as the Alexandria Coordinator for the Support of Lawyers/Legal Personnel – All Concern
Encouraged (SOLACE) program for the Louisiana State Bar Association. The SOLACE program
provides community outreach to members of the legal field and their families who have recently suffered
from a significant illness, accident, loss or injury. The program aims to provide simple, but meaningful
support to those in difficult and emergency situations. Many members of the legal community, which
includes judges, lawyers, court personnel, paralegals, legal secretaries and other professionals, have
already benefited from the outreach and support provided by SOLACE. In his role as Program
Coordinator, Arsenault oversees and coordinates support efforts in the greater Alexandria area and serves
as a liaison to the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Community Action Committee, which founded the
program.
81.
Selected for inclusion in the 2011-12 Edition of The Blackstone Who’s Who Registry of Accomplished
Professionals and Entrepreneurs.
18
82.
Selected for inclusion in Euromoney’s Benchmark Plaintiffs: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading
Litigation Firms and Attorneys.
83.
Member - Inaugural Executive Committee of the Class Action Trial Lawyers which is associated with
the National Trial Lawyers; an invitation-only trial lawyer organization consisting of premier plaintiff
trial lawyers.
84.
Selected to serve on the 2012 Executive Committee for The Environmental Trial Lawyers Association.
85.
Selected for inclusion in the 2012 Edition of Worldwide Who's Who Registry.
86.
Member – The Top Trial Lawyers in America: Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million
Dollar Advocates Forum.
87.
Selected by the American Society of Legal Advocates as one of the Top 100 Litigation Lawyers in the
State of Louisiana for 2013.
88.
Member – The American Society of Legal Advocates, 2013.
89.
Selected by the American Society of Legal Advocates as one of the Top 100 Litigation Lawyers in the
State of Louisiana for 2014.
90.
Recognized with America’s Most Honored Professionals 2014 Award.
91.
Selected by American Lawyer Media and Martindale-Hubbell as 2014 Top Rated Lawyers in Personal
Injury Law.
92.
93.
Selected by Best Lawyers to be included in the 2015 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
94.
Selected by The National Law Journal as one of the Top 50 National Law Journal Verdicts & Settlements
of 2014 for the case “Allen v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.”
95.
Recognized by the National Trial Lawyers for Top 100 Trial Lawyers – Civil Plaintiff.
96.
Arsenault is a 2014 Litigator Award Nominee for having achieved the distinction of winning MultiMillion and Billion Dollar cases.
97.
Selected as 2014 Lawyer of the Year by CorporateLiveWire for achievements in Personal Injury law.
_____________________________________________
PUBLICATIONS
1.
"Johnson v. Penrod: Years of Tradition Unhampered by Progress," Vol. 29, No. 1, Louisiana Bar Journal
(June 1981).
2.
"A Primer on Remedies Available to the Offshore Oil Worker,” Vol. 17, No. 9, Trial Magazine, 1981.
3.
"Maritime Personal Injury: Developing the Seaman's Claim,” Vol. 6, No. 7, Voir Dire, 1981.
4.
"Maritime Personal Injuries: Developing the Offshore Platform Worker's Claim,” Vol. 7, No. 2, Voir Dire,
1981.
19
5.
"Maintenance, Cure and Wages: General Principles and Recent Developments,” Vol. 14, No. 2, The
Forum, Winter, 1982.
6.
"Recognizing and Developing the Brownwater Seaman's Remedies,” The Federal Bar News, May, 1982.
7.
"The General Maritime Law Counterpart to Worker's Compensation: Maintenance, Cure and Wages,”
Vol. 16, No. 4, The Forum (Texas Trial Lawyers Publication), April-June, 1982.
8.
"Problems Associated with Fixed Platform Maritime Personal Injury Claims,” The Arkansas Trial
Lawyers Association, The ATLA Docket, April, 1982.
9.
"Remedies Available to Seamen Part I Maintenance, Cure and Wages,” The Arkansas Bar Association
Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1982.
10.
"Remedies Available to Seamen Part II Unseaworthiness,” The Arkansas Bar Association Journal, July,
1982.
11.
"Remedies Available to Seamen Part III The Jones Act,” The Arkansas Bar Association Journal, October,
1982.
12.
"The Maritime Consortium Action: Moragne Through Cruz,” The Journal of the Academy of Florida Trial
Lawyers, No. 235, April, 1982.
13.
"A Postscript,” The Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, The ATLA Docket, June, 1982.
14.
"Bringing Pleasure-Boat Accidents Under the Forum,” Trial Magazine, October, 1982.
15.
"Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson: Admiralty Jurisdiction Extended to Pleasure Craft Collisions,”
The Forum, Fall 1982.
16.
"Johnson v. Penrod Evidence of Inflation Admissible,” Louisiana Bar Journal, December, 1982.
17.
"An Analytical Starting Point: The Elusive Determination of Seaman's Status,” The Forum, Spring 1984.
18.
"Jones & McLaughlin v. Pfeiffer: No More Than Necessary,” The Louisiana Bar Journal, October 1983.
19.
"Maritime Personal Injury on Foreign Waters,” Trial Magazine, June, 1984.
20.
"Tort Immunity Under the Longshoreman Harbor Workers Compensation Act,” Louisiana Bar Journal,
October 1984.
21.
"Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Johnson: The Sudden Rise and Fall of General
Contractor Tort Immunity Under the LHWCA,” The Maritime Lawyer, Spring, 1984.
22.
"Longshoreman and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Tort Immunity Challenge,” Trial Lawyers
Forum, Volume 19, Nos. 1 and 2, 1984.
23.
"WMATA v. Johnson; LHWCA Tort Immunity Reconsidered,” The Forum, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1985).
24.
"Offshore Platform Workers: Remedies Available and Recent Developments in Defenses,” Trial
Magazine, July, 1985.
25.
"When is an Offshore Oilfield Worker a "Seaman" for Purposes of the Jones Act," Louisiana Bar Journal,
Vol. 34, No. 1, June 1986.
26.
"Seaman's Status Takes an Unexpected Tack,” Vol. 1, No. 3, Maritime Law Reporter (October 1987).
20
27.
"Seaman's Status Continues its Voyage Through Unchartered Brown Water Applications Using Barrett v.
Chevron To Set Its Course,” Tulane Maritime Law Review, The Maritime Lawyer, Vol. II, No. 2,
Maritime Lawyer Article (Spring 1989).
28.
"Seaman v. Harbor Worker; What Test Applies to Determine Status"; Louisiana Bar Journal, June 1989,
Vol., 37, No. 1.
29.
"Seaman Status: Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Get Back Into The Water"; Louisiana Bar
Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1 (June 1989).
30.
"Seaman Status: Aid in Navigation Test Rejected,” Louisiana Bar Journal, Vol. 38, No. 6, (April 1991).
31.
"Has the Traditional Mariner Been Forgotten," Trial Magazine, Vol. 28, No. 9 (September, 1992).
32.
"McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander: The Supreme Court Casts Aside the Navigation Function
Requirement,” Maritime Law Reporter, Vol. 3, No. 6.
33.
"Defendants Shop for Favorable Maritime Forums,” Maritime Law Reporter, Vol. 4, No. 3.
34.
"Special Purpose Vessels Under Attack,” Maritime Law Reporter, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1993).
35.
"Mitigating Weaknesses at Trial,” Good Counsel Section, Page 17, Trial Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 2,
February 1994.
36.
"Maritime Gaming & Available Tort Remedies,” Maritime Law Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 2.
37.
"Maritime Personal Injury - Recovery Under the Death on the High Seas Act,” Vol. XIII, No. 6, August
1998 issue, Louisiana Advocates.
38.
"U.M. v. Worker's Compensation; Who Pays," Vol. XIII, No. 7, September 1998 issue, Louisiana
Advocates.
39.
"Demystifying MIST (Minor Impact; Soft Tissue) Claims,” Vol. XIII, No. 8, October 1998 issue,
Louisiana Advocates.
40.
"Hunting Season: Remedies Available to Camp/Club Employees,” Vol. XIII, No. 9, November 1998
issue, Louisiana Advocates.
41.
"Venue; Where Can Jones Act Claims be Brought?” Vol. XIII, No. 10, December 1998 issue, Louisiana
Advocates.
42.
"Brown Water Vessel Status,” Vol. XIV, No. 1, January, 1999 issue, Louisiana Advocates.
43.
"Does Payment of Workers' Compensation Benefits Interrupt Prescriptive Periods for Maritime Claims,”
Vol. XIV, No. 2, February, 1999 issue, Louisiana Advocates.
44.
"Driving While Intoxicated; A Formula for Punitive Damages,” Vol. XIV, No. 3, March, 1999 issue,
Louisiana Advocates.
45.
"Does Daubert Apply to Non-Scientific Experts,” Vol. XIV, No. 4, April, 1999 issue, Louisiana
Advocates.
46.
"Judicial Gatekeeping of Experts; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,” Vol. XIV, No. 5, May, 1999
21
47.
"Maritime Personal Injury Venue,” Vol. XIV, No. 6, June, 1999 issue, Louisiana Advocates.
48.
"Recovery Under the Death on High Seas Act,” Vol. 18, Issue No. 1, Spring 1999, San Francisco Trial
Lawyer.
49.
“The Louisiana Supreme Court Addresses Seaman’s Status - Perils of the Sea Standard,” Vol. XIV, No.
7, July, 1999 issue, Louisiana Advocates.
50.
“Restoring the Injured Party v. Sales Tax Recovery,” Vol. XIV, No. 8, August, 1999 issue, Louisiana
Advocates.
51.
“Vendetto v. Sonat; Louisiana Supreme Court Addresses Jones Act Standards,” Vol. XIV, No. 9,
September, 1999 issue, Louisiana Advocates.
52.
“Who Enjoys the Benefits of the Limitation of Vessel Owner’s Liability Act?” Vol. XIV, No. 10, October
53.
“Floating Casinos Beware; Maritime Rule Governs Dram Shop Liability,” Vol. XIV, No. 11, November
54.
“Removal Under the Jones Act, OCSLA and the GML,” Vol. XV No. 2, February, 2000 issue, Louisiana
Advocates.
55.
“Maritime Forum Non Conveniens; La.C.C.P. art.123 v. 46 U.S.C. App. §688(b),” Vol. XV No. 3, March
56.
“Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability; Inapplicability to Non-Shipowners,” Vol. IX, No. 1, Summer
2000, Currents International Trade Law Journal, South Texas College of Law.
57.
“Class Action Settlement of Future Claims,” Vol. XIX, Number 12, December 2004 issue, Louisiana
Advocates.
58.
“Daubert-Lite, Daubert’s Role, If Any, at Class Certification Hearings, Louisiana Bar Journal, Volume
52, Number 5, February/March 2005.
59.
“Using Conflicts Principles to Obtain Punitive Damages in Louisiana Court,” Vol. XX, No. 5, May 2005
60.
“Gathering Digital Data,” Trial (Journal of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), October 2005
issue (Pg. 20-21).
61.
“Knowledge is Power: A Practical Proposal to Protect Putative Class Members from Improper PreCertification Communication,” 2006 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 2.
62.
“The (Un)Availability of Act of God and Force Majeure Affirmative Defenses After Rita Katrina,”
Louisiana Advocates, June 2006.
63.
“Pre-Certification Discovery: A User’s Guide,” Tulane Law Review, 80 TLNLR 1827.
64.
“Hanks v. Entergy Corp. — The Supreme Court Provides Some Clarity But Leaves A Big Question
Unanswered,” Louisiana Advocates, February, 2007.
65.
“Duty to Find and Prepare a Knowledgeable Corporate Representative” Louisiana Bar Journal, Volume
55, Number 3.
66.
“Settlement Strategies for Complex Global Litigation,” TRIAL, December 2007 issue (pages 40-41).
22
67.
“Mass Torts and Class Action Settlements,” TRIAL, Accepted for Publication.
68.
“Will Daubert Challenge Your Class Certification,” TRIAL, July 2009 issue (pages 38-39).
69.
“The Increasing Central Role of Bellweather Trials and MDL’s,” The Brief, quarterly magazine of the
ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, Fall issue, October 2009, Accepted for Publication.
70.
“Food-Borne Illness Litigation: Critical Questions,” Louisiana Advocates, March 2010, Volume XXV,
Number 3.
71.
“The Role and Function of Corporate Representatives at Trial,” The Trial Lawyer, Fall 2012, Volume II,
Number IV (pages 34-37).
72.
“Mass Tort Roundtable,” Brook Hollow Review, Fall Edition 2013, Volume 02, Issue 03 (pages 21-22).
_____________________________________________
PRESENTATIONS, PAPERS, SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
1.
Speaker - Louisiana Judicial College, Sports Torts and Premises Liability, Summer 1991.
2.
Speaker - American Trial Lawyers Association Convention. Topic: “Past, Present and Future; The
Admiralty Practice,” 1990, San Diego, California.
3.
Speaker - ATLA Annual Convention 1991; Toronto, Canada.
4.
Speaker - ATLA Annual Convention 1992; Washington, D.C.
5.
Speaker - Annual Convention of the American Trial Lawyers Association in Chicago, Illinois, July 1994.
6.
Speaker - Louisiana Trial Lawyer's Association. Topic: "Recent Developments in Admiralty Law,”
December 29, 1993, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
7.
Speaker - Southern Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention. Topic: "Unique Problems Associated
with Maritime Personal Injury Claims,” June, 1990.
8.
Louisiana Annual Bar Convention/Summer School Speaker - "Recent Tort Developments,” June1990.
9.
Crossroads American Inn of Court of Alexandria Pineville Speaker - ”Organization and Time
Management,” September 1990.
10.
Speaker - CLE Seminar on Maritime Law Presented by Lafayette Parish Bar Association, Cypremore
Point, "Recent Developments in Maritime Torts,” October 1990.
11.
Speaker - 3rd Annual Sandestin Summer School Revisited: "Torts: Did I Miss Anything Last Year,”
October 1990.
12.
Louisiana State Paralegal Association Seminar co-sponsored by the Alexandria Bar Association, Topic:
"New Federal Rules Governing Discovery,” September 17, 1993.
13.
Chairman - Louisiana Bar Association's Admiralty Seminar (Litigating Admiralty Claims), Lafayette,
October 27, 1993.
14.
Speaker - LSU Law Center "Litigation Strategies,” 1993.
23
15.
Speaker - Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association 1993 "Yours to Choose Seminar,” Topic: "Update on
Admiralty,” December 29, 1993.
16.
Guest Lecturer - LSU Law Center, Deposition Practice, March 1, 1994.
17.
Speaker -Shreveport Bar Association, Topic: “Marine Gaming and Maritime Personal Injury,” May 13,
1994.
18.
Speaker - Psychological and Hedonic Damages, Louisiana State Bar Association Summer School for
Lawyers, June 6, 1994, Destin, Florida.
19.
Moderator - Panel Presentation on Class Actions and Multi-District Litigation, Annual Louisiana State
Bar Convention, June 10, 1994, Destin, Florida.
20.
Speaker - Deposition Practice, 17th Post Graduate Summer School for Lawyers, LSU Law Center, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, July 11, 1994.
21.
Speaker – Panel Presentation concerning issues and problems associated with maritime cases, 1994
ATLA Annual Convention, Chicago, Illinois, July 25, 1994.
22.
Faculty Member - 1994 Trial Advocacy Program - LSU Law Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August
15-17, 1994.
23.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Admiralty Symposium - Louisiana State Bar Association - Lafayette,
Louisiana, September 16, 1994.
24.
Speaker - Tulane Law School - Maritime Law in the 90's Seminar, New Orleans, Louisiana, September
30, 1994. Topic: Post-Miles Maritime Worker Remedies.
25.
Guest lecturer - LSU Law Center - Admiralty Court - Professor Frank Maraist - Topic: Plaintiffs'
Maritime Practice Overview.
26.
Chairman - 1995 Louisiana State Bar Association Annual Meeting, Section on Insurance, Negligence,
Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Law Program: Billiot; Tort Immunity Inroads, Destin, Florida,
June 9, 1995.
27.
ATLA Admiralty Section Program Coordinator and Moderator - 1995 ATLA Annual Convention - New
York, New York, July 17, 1995.
28.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana Bar Association Admiralty Seminar - New Orleans,
Louisiana, Fall 1995.
29.
Faculty member - Trial Advocacy Program at LSU, August 12-14, 1996, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
30.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's Fourth Annual Admiralty
Symposium, September 6, 1996, New Orleans, Louisiana.
31.
Program Chair - Section on Insurance, Negligence, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Section of the
Louisiana State Bar Association; June 6, 1997; "Paul Revere Tour of Louisiana Personal Injury Law";
participated in Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Richard T.
Haik in Sandestin, Florida.
32.
Faculty - LSU Trial Advocacy Program (Louisiana State University Law Center) August 11-13, 1997.
33.
Panelist - Tulane "6th Fall Maritime Law Seminar - September 26, 1997, New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic
- Ethics, Mediation and the Maritime Lawyer.
24
34.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's Fifth Annual Admiralty
35.
Speaker - 1997 Catch the Falling Leaves CLE Seminar - Asheville, North Carolina - November 1-3, 1997,
Topic - Jurors in Modern Litigation; the Use of Consultants and Questionnaires.
36.
Louisiana State Bar Association; participated in Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Richard T. Haik and Professor Thomas Galligan, Topic: "Torts and Admiralty:
What's Been Happening in the Last Year While You've Been Practicing Law,” June 12, 1998, Destin,
Florida.
37.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's Sixth Annual Admiralty
38.
Faculty - 7th Fall Maritime Law Seminar - September 25, 1998 - New Orleans, Louisiana.
39.
Speech - St. Mary Parish Bar Association - Topic:
Developments" - November 9, 1998.
40.
Louisiana State Bar Association; participated in Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr. and Richard T. Haik and Professor Thomas Galligan, Topic: "Torts and Admiralty:
What's Been Happening in the Last Year While You've Been Practicing Law,” June 11, 1999, Destin,
Florida.
41.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's Seventh Annual Admiralty
42.
Faculty - Mealey’s Judges & Lawyers in Complex Litigation: Class Actions, Mass Torts, MDL and the
Monster Case Conference - November 8-9, 1999, West Palm Beach, Florida.
"Maritime Experts and Recent Admiralty
Moderator - Managing Counsel: Organization, Payments And Ethical Issues
•
Considerations in appointing steering committees
•
The judge’s role regarding attorney fee disputes
•
Fee reductions in awarding attorney fees
•
Ethical issues for judges in statewide MDLs
Speaker - Experts
•
The Court’s role under Daubert and Frye
•
Court-appointed experts
•
Effect of Kumho Tire on use of experts
•
Lawyers’ strategies in selecting experts - number, type, etc.
•
How judges assess the reliability of non-scientific experts
43.
Louisiana State Bar Association; Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, G. Thomas Porteous,
Jr. and Richard T. Haik, Dean Thomas Galligan, and Albert George “Alec” Alexander. Topic: "Torts
and Admiralty: What's Been Happening in the Last Year While You've Been Practicing Law,” June 9,
2000, Destin, Florida.
44.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's Eighth Annual Admiralty
25
45.
Seminar Chairman - Louisiana State Bar Association's Class Action/Mass Tort Symposium, October 27,
2000, New Orleans, Louisiana.
46.
Panelist - Louisiana State Bar Association's Ethics 2000 Conference “New Rules for a New Era,”
December 1, 2000, New Orleans, Louisiana.
47.
Panelist - Mealey's Propulsid Litigation Conference, January 22, 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana; Topic:
Update on the MDL and Class Actions (Discovery).
48.
Panelist - Southern University Law Center - Winning Million Dollar Cases - The Anatomy of a Mass
Tort Case, March 31, 2001, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
49.
Panelist - Mealey’s Propulsid Litigation: Preparing for Trial, June 15, 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Topic: Impressions From the Field: Panel Discussion on Experiences in Propulsid Cases and Latest
Developments in the Litigation.
50.
2001, Destin, Florida.
51.
Speaker - Propulsid Products Liability Litigation - MDL Seminar held August 2, 2001. Presentation on
“State Liaison Committee - Structure and Mission.”
52.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's Ninth Annual Admiralty
53.
Seminar Chairman - Louisiana State Bar Association's Class Action/Mass Torts Symposium, October 26,
2001, New Orleans, Louisiana.
54.
Invited Speaker - Mass Torts Made Perfect, Inc. Seminar - November 1, 2001 Topic: “PPA Litigation MDL Activity,” Las Vegas, Nevada.
55.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana Judicial College 2001 Annual Torts Seminar - December 14, 2001 - New
Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: “Certification of the Class Action; Subclasses, and Management of Class
Actions.”
56.
Invited Speaker - Mealey's Conference on Baycol Litigation- January 14-15, 2002 - San Diego,
California Topic: “Litigation Update - What are the Latest Developments in the Class Action? Who is in
the Class? Who is Out? Status of the MDL and Medical Monitoring Claims.”
57.
Invited Speaker - ATLA Convention - Mid-Winter Meeting - Propulsid Litigation Group - February 11,
2002, Miami, Florida. Topic: “Federal/State Cooperation.”
58.
Co-Chairman - Mealey's Conference on Baycol Litigation, May 2-3, 2002, Pasadena, California.
59.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana Judicial College, June 25, 2002, San Destin, Florida Topic: “Role of the
Judiciary in the Management of Class Actions.”
60.
2002, San Destin, Florida.
26
61.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's 10th Annual Admiralty
62.
Invited Speaker - Mass Torts Made Perfect - Drug Litigation Seminar, September 12-13, 2002 Atlantis Paradise Island, Bahamas Topic: “Trial Preparation - Baycol.”
63.
Seminar Chairman - Louisiana State Bar Association's 3rd Annual Class Action/Mass Tort Symposium,
October 25, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana.
64.
Invited Speaker - Baycol Trial Preparation and Current Settlement Activity Seminar, December 5- 6,
2002 Miami, Florida. Topics: Trial & Testimony Evidence; Bayer & GSK Liability; and Bayer & GSK
Punitive Conduct.
65.
Invited Speaker - Needles Mass Tort Seminar – Bahamas, December 6, 2002. Topic: Baycol Litigation:
Trial Preparation.
66.
Invited Speaker - The Federal Judicial Center's Workshop for Judges of the Fifth Circuit - April 3, 2003
- New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Managing Class Action/Mass Tort Cases.
67.
Invited Speaker - L.A. Baycol Seminar (Trial Preparation Seminar), April 24, 2003, Los Angeles, CA
Topics: Trial & Testimony Evidence, Overall Trial Strategy - Mock Trial/Focus Groups.
68.
Invited Speaker - Mealey's Baycol Litigation Conference, June 2-3, 2003 Amelia Island, Florida Topic:
Update on Discovery.
69.
Program Chair - Section on Insurance, Tort, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Section of the
Louisiana State Bar Association; Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, Richard T. Haik and
Jay C. Zainey, Dean Thomas Galligan, & Joseph Guilbeau. Topic: "Torts and Admiralty: What's Been
Happening in the Last Year While You've Been Practicing Law,” June 13, 2003, San Destin, Florida.
70.
Invited Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's 11th Annual Admiralty
71.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana Bar Association's Environmental Litigation Seminar, Nuts & Bolts of
Environmental Litigation. Topic: “The Class Action in Environmental Litigation,” September 19, 2003,
New Orleans.
72.
Invited Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's 4th Annual Class
Action/Mass Tort Symposium, October 24, 2003, New Orleans, Louisiana.
73.
Invited Speaker - Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar Topic: “Baycol Pharmaceutical Litigation Status
and Strategy,” November 6 & 7, 2003, New Orleans.
74.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana State University's Maritime Personal Injury Seminar, Topic: “Creative
Settlements,” November 13, 2003, Baton Rouge.
75.
Moderator - Mass Torts Made Perfect Symposium - Topics included Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals,
Predatory Lending, San Francisco, March 18 & 19, 2004; Featured Speakers: Eliot Spitzer and Al
Franken.
76.
Moderator - Practice Made Perfect: “Protecting Your Practice in a Changing World,” Atlantis, Paradise
Island, Bahamas, June 10 & 11, 2004.
77.
Organized presentation for the Section on Insurance, Tort, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty
Section of the Louisiana State Bar Association's Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, Richard
T. Haik, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., and Dean Thomas Galligan. Topic: "Torts and Admiralty: What's
27
Been Happening in the Last Year While You've Been Practicing Law,” June 11, 2004, San Destin,
Florida.
78.
Faculty Member - LSU Trial Advocacy Training Program, Aug 9-11, 2004.
79.
80.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association's Insurance Oscars: Award-winning Strategies for
Dealing with Insurance Issues; Seminar Topic: Monster (Coverage Questions) -- Multi-headed, Multicomplex, Multi-year, Multi- policy Litigation Panel; October 1, 2004, New Orleans.
81.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator - Louisiana State Bar Association's 5th Annual Class Action/Mass
Tort Symposium, October 22, 2004, New Orleans, Louisiana.
82.
Invited Speaker - Mealey’s Vioxx Litigation Conference, November 9, 2004, Pasadena, California;
Topic: Alleged Health Effects from the Ingestion of Vioxx
•
Vioxx History
•
Vioxx Withdrawal Dynamics
•
Review of the Clinical Studies
•
Daubert Considerations
83.
Guest Speaker - Legal Broadcast Network Radio Show hosted by Jan Schlichtman (lawyer portrayed by
John Travolta in “A Civil Action”), Topic: Managing Mass Tort Litigation; November 11, 2004, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
84.
Co-Host - Legal Broadcast Network, “Tort Talk.” Topic: FDA Whistleblower Names Five Unsafe
Drugs: Impact for Mass Torts; December 2, 2004.
85.
Guest Speaker - Legal Broadcast Network, “Lawyer Talk.” Topic: Rights at Risk: Can We Win in the
Court of Public Opinion?; December 2, 2004.
86.
Co-Host and guest, Legal Broadcast Network. Topic: Pharmaceutical Litigation and Tort Reform. Also
appearing was former Congressman and MSNBC TV personality, Joe Scarborough; December 8, 2004.
87.
Speaker - Panel presentation regarding Vioxx liability timeline. Co-panelists included Chris Seeger and
Andy Birchfield; December 13, 2004, Washington, D.C.
88.
Co-Host - Legal Broadcast Network, “Tort Talk.” Topic: Vioxx Litigation; December 16, 2004.
89.
Guest Speaker - Legal Broadcast Network, “Ask the Experts.” Topic: Medicare & Mass Tort Litigation
Organization; December 23, 2004.
90.
Co-Host - Legal Broadcast Network, “Tort Talk.” Topic: Pharmaceutical Litigation. Appearing as
guests were Dr. Jerry Avorn, Harvard M.D. (well-known author of Powerful Medicines; the benefits,
risks & costs of prescription drugs); December 23, 2004.
91.
Guest Speaker - Legal Broadcast Network, “Lawyer Talk.” Topic: Tort Reform; December 23, 2004.
92.
Co-Host - Legal Broadcast Network, “Tort Talk.” Topic: Lawyers Representing Vioxx Victims Plan
Their Attack Against Merck, January 21, 2005.
93.
Co-Host - Legal Broadcast Network, “Tort Talk.” Topic: The Pain “Killers”: How Vioxx, Celebrex, and
Bextra Can Relieve You of Life, January 27, 2005.
28
94.
Invited Speaker - Vioxx Litigation Group Symposium; Topic: Vioxx Liability and Science Issues; ATLA
Convention, Palm Springs, CA, January, 2005.
95.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association’s Multi Topic CLE Seminar, Florida, February 7 9,
2005 Topic: Personal Injury Practice; Practical Suggestions.
96.
Moderator - Complex Litigation Seminar in New York, March 17, 2005. Featured speakers included
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jan Schlichtmann, and Eliot Spitzer.
97.
Guest Speaker, Legal Broadcast Network, “Tort Talk.” Topic: Issues surrounding the Vioxx litigation;
March 17, 2005.
98.
Invited Speaker - LSU Law School Environmental Law Roundtable; Topic: Effect of Federal Class
Action Statute on Louisiana Class Action Practice, April 19, 2005. Co-panelists include Honorable
Richard Haik, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana; Edward Sherman,
Professor of Law and Dean-Emeritus, Tulane Law School; David M. Bienvenue, Jr., Taylor Porter Brooks
& Phillips; and William Jarman, Kean Miller Hawthorne Darmond McCowan & Jarman.
99.
Invited to be a guest on the “Special Tribute to America’s Best Lawyers” show on the American Airlines
Business program broadcast exclusively on the “Forbes Radio” channel.
100.
Interviewed by Jan Schlichtmann for the Legal Broadcast Network regarding the Vioxx MDL status
conference, April 28, 2005.
101.
Invited Guest and Speaker - 2005 Judicial Conference of the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, May 2-4, 2005
Topic: Voir Dire/Practices and Policies.
102.
Invited to make presentation regarding scientific literature, American Trial Lawyers’ Association Vioxx
Mock Trial Seminar, May 19, 2005, New Orleans.
103.
Seminar Co-Chair, Mealey’s Bextra/Celebrex Litigation Conference, May 11, 2005, Chicago, Illinois.
104.
Invited Speaker - HarrisMartin’s Bextra Litigation Conference, May 18, 2005, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Topic: Bextra Litigation History and Timeline.
105.
Speaker - Mealey’s Vioxx Litigation Conference, June 22, 2005, New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Vioxx:
A Factual Overview.
106.
Interviewed by Jan Schlichtmann regarding Vioxx litigation, Guidant implanted defibrillators, and
Medtronic recall of heart pacing devices, August 1, 2005.
107.
Speaker - ATLA Heart Device Litigation Group Seminar, September 15, 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Topic: Timeline of Key Events.
108.
Speaker - ATLA Trends and Hot Topics in Pharmaceutical Litigation Seminar, September 16-17, 2005,
Las Vegas, nevada. Topic: Guidant and Medtronic Update.
109.
Interviewed by Jan Schlichtmann on the Legal Broadcast Network. Topic: Recent MDL Developments;
October 11, 2005.
110.
Speaker - Louisiana State University School of Law, ethics panel presentation with Federal District Judge
Frank J. Polozola & District Judge Hadley Ward Fontenot, October 14, 2005.
111.
Invited Speaker - Mealey’s Heart Device Litigation Conference, October 27, 2005, Las Vegas.
112.
Invited Co-Chair - Mealey’s Vioxx - the Ernst Jurors Speak - Teleconference, November 2, 2005.
29
113.
Speaker - HarrisMartin Cox-2 Litigation Conference, Topic: Bextra Liability Overview &Timeline, San
Francisco, November 3, 2005.
114.
Invited Speaker - American Bar Association’s The Future of Class Action Litigation in America Seminar,
Topic: Class Actions and MDLs – Hot Topics in Class Actions, Keynote Speaker, Senator Orrin Hatch,
November 11, 2005, Washington, D.C.
115.
Moderator and Invited Speaker - Mass Torts Made Perfect A Win, Wynn Situation Seminar; topic: “As
a Small Office, Learn How to Make Money in Big Projects without Going Broke,” Las Vegas, Nevada,
November 17-18, 2005.
116.
Invited Speaker - Mealey’s Vioxx Litigation Conference, Topic: Motions in Limine and Daubert Issues
Associated with the Vioxx Litigation, Las Vegas, December 12 & 13, 2005.
117.
Invited Speaker - ATLA Heart Device Litigation Group Meeting; Topic: MDL Status and Associated
Organizational Issues; Minneapolis, MN, December 15, 2005.
118.
Invited Speaker - Class Actions in the Gulf South and Beyond Seminar, February 3-4, 2006, Tulane
University, Tulane Law School, New Orleans, LA.
119.
Invited Speaker - ATLA Cox-2 Seminar, Topic: Bextra Litigation, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 20, 2006.
120.
Speaker - Propulsid II Settlement Seminar, Topic: Administrative Claims, February 23, 2006, Jackson,
MS.
121.
Invited Co-Chair - Mealey’s Vioxx Litigation Conference - Amelia Island, Florida - May 8-9, 2006 and
Moderator of the Judicial Panel Topic: Perspectives from the Bench. Panelists Hon. Wilson, Hon.
Duval & Patrick Juneau.
122.
Invited Speaker - ATLA Heart Device Litigation Group Seminar, Topic: The Guidant Liability Case
Discovery Update for the Guidant Litigation, May 12, 2006, Washington, D.C.
123.
Invited Speaker - ATLA Ortho Evra Litigation Group Seminar, Topic: Liability Issues, May 12, 2006,
Washington, D.C.
124.
Faculty Member - 2006 Trial Advocacy Program, LSU Law Center, August 7-9, 2006.
125.
126.
Invited Speaker - Tulane’s 22nd New Orleans Fall Maritime Law Seminar Topic: Motions: Challenging
the Evidence and Shifting the Forum: Challenging Electronic and Simulator Evidence, Expert Testimony
and Motions to Shift Forums, September 8-9, 2006, New Orleans, LA.
127.
Speaker - Mealey’s Teleconference, “How to Get on an MDL Committee, September 15, 2006.
128.
Moderator and Speaker - Mass Torts Made Perfect Complex Litigation Seminar, October 12 & 13, 2006,
Las Vegas. Featured speakers included former President Bill Clinton.
129.
130.
Speaker - ATLA’s Protecting the Public: Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Seminar, Topic: Bausch &
Lomb State Court Update, November 16, 2006, Las Vegas.
30
131.
Speaker - ATLA’s Protecting the Public: Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Seminar, Topic: Heart
Device Litigation: Guidant and Medtronic, November 17-18, 2006, Las Vegas.
132.
Invited Speaker - 21st Annual Federal Practice & Advocacy Seminar, Topic: Electronic Discovery,
Creative Litigation Exit Strategies, February 8, 2007, New Orleans, Louisiana.
133.
Speaker - ATLA Convention, Heart Device Litigation Group Meeting, Topic: Medtronic Discovery,
February 12, 2007, Miami, Florida.
134.
Speaker - ATLA Convention, Renu Litigation Group Meeting, Topic: State Court Litigation and
Proceedings, February 13, 2007, Miami, Florida.
135.
Invited Speaker - LSU’s 5th Judge Alvin B. Rubin Conference on Maritime Personal Injury Law, Topic:
Should the Rising Tides Wash Away the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ Immunity? (Did the storm surge up
the MRGO expose a potential hole in the Corps’ Protection?), March 2, 2007, LSU Law Center, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
136.
Moderator - Mass Torts Made Perfect, “Changing Times, Changing Politics. Is your Firm Ready?”
Seminar, March 29-30, 2007, Las Vegas, key note speakers to include Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
137.
Invited Speaker - Mealey’s Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference, Topic: Preemption, May 3,
2007, San Diego, California.
138.
Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association’s 2007 Summer School for Lawyers, Topic: Class Action
Fairness Act; It's Application and Practical Implication, June 5, 2007, San Destin, Florida.
139.
Invited Speaker - Harris Martin’s Hot Topics in Pharmaceutical Litigation Conference, June 7-8, 2007,
Miami Beach, Florida.
140.
Louisiana State Bar Association's Panel Presentation with Federal District Judges, June 8, 2007, San
Destin, Florida. Topic: Torts and Admiralty: What's Been Happening in the Last Year While You've
Been Practicing Law.
141.
142.
143.
Speaker - ABA Conference on Class Actions, October 25, 2007, Washington, D.C.
Increasing Central Role of Bellweather Trials and MDL’s.
144.
Invited Moderator – Teleseminar, November 1, 2007. Topic: American Association for Justice Education
More Medtronic Recalls: What’s the Impact on Your Clients?
145.
Speaker - Whatley Drake & Kallas Complex Litigation, Mass Torts & Class Actions CLE Summit,
November 1 - 3, 2007, Birmingham, Alabama. Topic: Mass Torts.
146.
Moderator - Mass Torts Seminar, November 8-9, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada. Key note speaker: Dan
Rather.
147.
Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association’s New York, New York, Multi-Topic Seminar, November 18,
2007, New York, New York. Topic: Navigating Complex Litigation, Class Actions and MDL’s ... An
Overview from Inception to Exit Strategies (And the Chaos in Between).
Topic: The
31
148.
Invited Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association’s Summer School Revisited, Dececember 13, 2007,
New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Class Action Fairness Act - Its Application and Practical Implications.
149.
Speaker - ATLAS 2008 Seminar, February 7, 2008, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Topic: Evaluating
Mass Tort Litigation.
150.
Speaker - Tulane Law Review Symposium on Multidistrict Litigation, February 15-16, 2008, Tulane
Law School, New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Bellwether Trials and Settlement Devices.
151.
Attended the American Conference Institute's Food Borne Illness Litigation Seminar, Feb. 28-29, 2008,
Scottsdale, Arizona.
152.
Destin, Florida. Topic: Torts and Admiralty: What's Been Happening in the Last Year While You've
153.
Invited Speaker - AAJ 2008 Annual Convention, July 12-16, 2008, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Topic:
Does Daubert Apply to Class Certification?
154.
155.
Invited Speaker – AAJ Pharmaceutical Seminar, September 12, 2008, Las Vegas, Nevada. Topic: Hot
Topic Litigation Update.
156.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator – Louisiana State Bar Association's 8th Annual Class Action/Mass
157.
Program Chair – Section on Insurance, Tort, Workers' Compensation and Admiralty Section of the
Destin, Florida. Topic: Torts and Admiralty - What's Been Happening in the Last Year While You've
158.
Invited Speaker – Federal Bar Association seminar, Panel Presentation with U.S. District Court Chief
Judge James M. Rosenbaum of the District of Minnesota, Topic: Preemption, June 24, 2009,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
159.
Faculty Member – 2009 Trial Advocacy Program - LSU Law Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August
10-12, 2009.
160.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator – Louisiana State Bar Association's 16th Annual Admiralty
161.
Seminar Chairman and Moderator – Louisiana State Bar Association's 9th Annual Class Action/Mass
162.
Speaker – AAJ 2010 Annual Convention, July 10-14, 2010; Topic: Iqbal/Twombley at the End of Notice
Pleadings; Vancouver, BC, Canada.
163.
Speaker – Louisiana State Bar Association's 9th Annual Class Action/Mass Tort Symposium, October
16, 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mass Foodborne Illness Torts; How Are Your Individual and
Commercial Clients Impacted by Recalls?
164.
Interviewed by Jennifer Yang for Toronto Star regarding Stork Craft Crib recall lawsuit, November 25,
2009.
32
165.
Speaker – LSBA 21st Annual Summer School Revisited; Topic: Recent Maritime Developments;
December 10-11, 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana.
166.
Seminar Chairman– HarrisMartinToyota Recall Litigation Conference, March 24, 2010, San Diego,
California. The following press was in attendance: Associated Press, San Diego Tribune, Reuters, Wall
Street Journal, Nippon Television (Japan), Local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates, Los Angeles Times,
Automotive News, CBS Radio Los Angeles, KPBS San Diego News, Fox News and NBC-San Diego.
167.
Interviewed by Nippon Television (Japan) at the HarrisMartinToyota Recall Litigation Conference,
March 24, 2010, San Diego, California.
168.
Interviewed by Amanda Bronstad with the National Law Journal, March 15, 2010. Topic: Toyota Recall.
169.
Interview requested by Susan Li with Bloomberg TV, April 6, 2010. Topic: Toyota Recall.
170.
Seminar Chairman – HarrisMartinToyota Recall Litigation Conference Part II, May 12, 2010, Costa
Mesa, California.
171.
Interviewed by Sebastian Walker with Al Jazeera English TV News, May 3, 2010. Topic: Deepwater
Horizon Drilling Rig Explosion.
172.
Interviewed by Bard Aune with BBC Radio, April 30, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig
Explosion.
173.
Interviewed by Russell Trott, BBC World News TV, April 30, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling
Rig Explosion.
174.
Interviewed by Amanda Bronstad with the National Law Journal, May 6, 2010. Topic: Toyota Recall,
HarrisMartinToyota Recall Litigation Conference Part II.
175.
Interviewed by Graham Messick with CBS News, 60 Minutes, May 8, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon
Drilling Rig Explosion.
176.
Interviewed on multiple occasions by National Correspondent Ian Urbina with The New York Times.
Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Explosion.
177.
Interviewed by Wade Goodwyn with National Public Radio on May 10, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon
178.
Interviewed by Ciaran McEvoy with Los Angeles Daily Journal on May 14, 2010. Topic: Toyota Recall,
Appointment to Economic Loss Committee.
179.
Seminar speaker – LSBA Annual Meeting on June 11, 2010, Sandestin, Florida. Topic: Recent Tort and
Maritime Developments Including the Gulf Coast Oil Spill Litigation.
180.
Seminar speaker – AAJ Annual Convention on July 10, 2010, Vancouver, Canada. Topic:
Twombley/Iqhbar: The End of Notice Pleadings.
181.
Seminar speaker – AAJ Annual Convention on July 12, 2010, Vancouver, Canada. Topic: Foodborne
Illness 101.
182.
Chair of educational meeting at AAJ Annual Convention on July 14, 2010, Vancouver, Canada. Topic:
Gulf Coast Oil Spill Litigation Group.
33
183.
Chair of LSBA Annual Meeting Gulf Coast Oil Spill Litigation Meeting on June 11, 2010, Sandestin,
Florida.
184.
Interviewed by Businessweek on May 25, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Explosion.
185.
Interviewed by The Miami Herald on May 25, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Explosion.
186.
Interviewed by The Wall Street Journal on May 24, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig
Explosion.
187.
Interviewed by Kim Taylor-Galway with CBC on May 26, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig
Explosion.
188.
Interviewed by Joe Johns with CNN on June 2, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Explosion.
189.
Interviewed by Gabe Friedman with Los Angeles Daily Journal on June 15, 2010. Topic: Deepwater
190.
Co-Chair of LSBA Annual Meeting on June 10, 2010, Sandestin, Florida. Co-panelists include Chief
Justice Pascal Calogero, Judge Robert Klees, Judge Ward Fontenot, Judge Ronald Cox and Professor
Tom Galligan. Topic: Louisiana's Judiciary and Mass Torts, Class Actions and Complex Litigation.
191.
Interviewed by Stacey Vanek-Smith for NPR Market Watch on June 7, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon
192.
Interviewed by Kimberly Kindy for Washington Post on July 21, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon
193.
Interviewed by Dan Froomkin for Huffington Post on July 14, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling
Rig Explosion.
194.
Interviewed by Thorsten Schroder for New York German Press on July 19, 2010. Topic: Deepwater
195.
Interviewed by Romain Raynaldy for Agence France-Presse (AFP) on July 27, 2010. Topic: Deepwater
196.
Interviewed by Carol Williams for the Los Angeles Times on July 23, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon
197.
Interviewed by Michael Saba with CBC Montreal on July 28, 2010. Topic: Deepwater Horizon Drilling
Rig Explosion.
198.
Interview requested by Pierre Rene with Excelsior Newspaper on August 10, 2010. Topic: Deepwater
199.
Speaker - J&J DePuy Hip Recall Litigation Conference on November 17, 2010 in Durham, North
Carolina. Topic: MDL Status Update; Examining Where Cases are Filed and in What Number,
Comparing Venues, Predicting the JPMDL’s Decision.
200.
Moderator - 2011 AAJ Winter Convention on February 5-9, 2011 in Miami, Florida. Theme: Gulf Coast
Oil Spill and DePuy Hip Implant Recall.
201.
Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association's 10th Annual Class Action/Mass Tort Symposium,
December10, 2010, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mass Foodborne Illness Torts; How Are Your Individual
and Commercial Clients Impacted by Recalls?
34
202.
Chairman, HarrisMartin Darvon and Darvocet Recall Litigation Conference, January 14, 2011, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
203.
Co-Chair - HarrisMartin Darvon/DePuy Symposium, March 29, 2011, San Diego, California.
204.
Interviewed by Melissa Maleske with InsideCounsel magazine on February 25, 2011. Topic: Deepwater
205.
Interviewed by Shelia Kaplan with The Center for Public Integrity on February 23, 2011. Topic:
Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Explosion.
206.
Speaker - Harris Martin DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant Litigation Conference, May 15, 2011, Louisville,
Kentucky. Topic: DePuy Pinnacle MDL Status Update.
207.
Co-Chair - HarrisMartin Zimmer Knee and DePuy Hip Symposium, July 27, 2011 in San Francisco,
California. Topic: Discovery Update – ASR and Pinnacle Litigation.
208.
Speaker - Law Seminars International Litigating Class Actions Seminar, October 24-25, 2011 in Chicago,
Illinois. Topic: Privilege Logs, Litigation Holds, Electronic Discovery.
209.
Invited Speaker – LSU Seminar Litigation & Liability in the Workplace on September 23, 2011 in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. Topic: Illnesses With Long Latency Periods.
210.
Chair – LSBA Annual Meeting, Insurance, Tort, Workers’ Compensation and Admiralty Law Section
Seminar on June 30, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Topic: What’s Been Happening During the Year –
While You’ve Been Practicing Law.
211.
Invited to serve as judge for the 2011-12 Robert Lee Tullis Moot Court Competition, LSU Law Center,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
212.
Speaker – Actos Teleseminar, September 8, 2011. Topic: Status of Current Litigation.
213.
Seminar Chairman and Speaker - Louisiana State Bar Association's 18th Annual Admiralty Symposium,
September 30, 2011, New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Creative Techniques for Managing Documents.
214.
Speaker – 2012 AAJ Winter Convention, July 28-August 1, 2012, Chicago, Illinois. Topic: Aggregate
Settlement Considerations, DePuy MoM Hip Seminar.
215.
Invited Speaker – FJA Workhorse Seminar on March 22, 2012. Topic: What You Need to Know About
the New Procedure of ‘Trying a Case on the Clock’ - Knowing How to Plan and Prepare for This New
System - Avoiding Traps That Can Get You and Your Case in a Very Bad Fix! The Psychology of Trial
and Persuasion Under This New System (A New System Coming to Your Courthouse Soon!)
216.
Invited Speaker - Law Seminars International Litigating Class Actions Seminar, May 14-15, 2012 in
Seattle, Washington. Topic: Privilege Logs, Litigation Holds, Electronic Discovery. Topic: Developing
Trial Strategies and Approaches.
217.
Speaker – 2012 AAJ Winter Convention on February 11-15, 2012 in Phoenix, Arizona. Topic: Actos.
218.
Speaker – 2012 AAJ Annual Convention, DePuy Metal on Metal Hip Implant Litigation Group on July
29, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. Topic: Aggregate Settlement Considerations.
219.
Speaker – First Annual NYSTLA Product Liability & Mass Tort Seminar on April 27, 2012 in New York,
New York.
35
220.
Invited Speaker – Mealey’s Webinar, May 16, 2012. Topic: Manufacturers.
221.
Co-Chair - HarrisMartin MDL and Class Action Litigation Conference, July 25, 2012, Cleveland, Ohio.
222.
Speaker – Summer Law Clerks & Young Lawyer Seminar, FBA Lafayette-Acadiana Chapter, June 21,
2012 in Lafayette, Louisiana.
223.
Chairman – Insurance, Tort, Workers’ Compensation & Admiralty Law Seminar, LSBA Annual Joint
Summer School and Annual Meeting with Judges Haik, Minaldi, Zainey and Professor Tom Galligan,
June 8, 2012 in Destin, Florida.
224.
Co-Chair – HarrisMartin Metal on Metal Hip Seminar, September 19, 2012 in New York, New York.
225.
Speaker – Law Seminars International Litigating Class Actions Seminar, December 6, 2012 in Chicago,
Illinois. Topic: Developing Trial Strategies and Approaches.
226.
Speaker – Webinar, Topic: The Supreme Court’s War on Consumers: Concepcion, Dukes, and the Near
Miss in First American v. Edwards: What the Consumer Practitioner Needs to Know.
227.
Moderator – Actos Teleseminar, July 28, 2012. Topic: A Basic Background on Actos Bladder Cancer
Litigation.
228.
Speaker – LSBA Section CLE Presentation with Val Exnicios, December 18, 2012 in New Orleans,
Louisiana. Topic: Navigating Mass Torts, Class Actions and Consumer Litigation: Avoiding SelfInflicted Wounds.
229.
Speaker – AAJ 2013 Annual Convention, DePuy Metal on Metal Hip Implant Litigation Group on July
20-23, 2013 in San Francisco, California. Topic: Aggregate Settlement Considerations.
230.
Speaker – AAJ 2013 Annual Convention, Actos Bladder Cancer Litigation Group on July 20-23, 2013
in San Francisco, California. Topic: MDL Status.
231.
Chairman and Speaker – LSBA 12th Annual Class Action/Complex Litigation Symposium on November
30, 2012 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Important MDL Trends: What, When and Why to Argue.
232.
Speaker – HarrisMartin’s Mass Tort Litigation Conference with Judge Corodemus on March 11, 2013 in
New York, New York. Topic: Experience with Experts.
233.
Moderator – 2013 Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference on May 5-8, 2013 in San Antonio, Texas. Topic:
MDL/Class Action Current Developments.
234.
Chairman – HarrisMartin’s MDL Conference: Fungal Meningitis, Stryker Hip, Mirena IUD and More,
November 28, 2012, in Dallas, TX.
235.
Invited Speaker – Duke Law School “The Future of MDL” Conference, May 2 -3, 2013 in Washington,
D.C.
236.
Speaker – 2013 Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference, May 5-8, 2013 in Fort Worth, Texas. Topic: Navigating
the Mine Field of MDL by Implementing Creative Strategies. Topic: Discovery Issues Associated with
Electronically Stored Information.
237.
Co-Chair – HarrisMartin’s Complex Litigation Symposium on May 29, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Topic:
Actos MDL Status.
36
238.
Moderator and Panelist – Insurance, Tort, Workers’ Compensation & Admiralty Law Seminar, LSBA
Annual Joint Summer School and Annual Meeting with Judges Brady, Haik, Zainey and Professor Tom
Galligan, June 5, 2013 in Destin, Florida.
239.
Moderator and Panelist – 20th Annual Admiralty Symposium on September 20, 2013 in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
240.
Moderator and Panelist – 13th Annual Class Action / Complex Litigation Symposium on November 22,
2013 in New Orleans, Louisiana
241.
Speaker – 2014 LSU Law Review MDL Symposium in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Topic: Collaboration of
Judges and Attorneys in MDL Case Management. Topic: Integrating Aggregated and Disaggregated
Discovery Issues.
242.
Speaker – LSBA 2014 MDL Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Predictive Coding, ESI and
Associated Preservation Obligations.
243.
Interviewed by Andrew Ward for the Financial Times regarding the Actos Bellwether trial verdict
announced on April 7, 2014.
244.
Speaker – AAJ Plaintiff-Only Hot Topics and Trends in Litigation Seminar in Chicago, Illinois. Topic: 9
Billion dollar Actos MDL Verdict.
245.
Moderator and Panelist – Insurance, Tort, Workers’ Compensation & Admiralty Law Seminar, LSBA
Annual Joint Summer School and Annual Meeting with Judge Zainey, Judge Africk, and Peggy Giglio,
June 4, 2014 in Destin, Florida.
246.
Speaker – HarrisMartin’s CLE Summit on Major Developments in Drug & Medical Device Litigation on
June 20, 2014 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Topic: Actos – Trial Update, Litigation Landscape, and
Settlement News.
247.
Invited Speaker – AAJ 2014 Annual Convention, DePuy Metal on Metal Hip Implant Litigation Group
on July 26, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. Topic: Litigation Update.
248.
Invited Speaker – AAJ 2014 Annual Convention, Actos Bladder Cancer Litigation Group on July 28,
2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. Topic: Trial Strategies, Motions in Limine, and Juror Reactions – Lessons
Learned.
249.
Invited Speaker – Kentucky Justice Association Annual Convention on September 10, 2014 in Cincinnati,
OH. Topic: 9 Bases for a $9 Billion Punitive Damage Award.
250.
Moderator and Panelist – 21st Annual Admiralty Symposium on September 19, 2014 in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
251.
Moderator and Panelist – 14th Annual Class Action / Complex Litigation Symposium on November 21,
2014 in New Orleans, Louisiana.
____________________________________________
MEMBER (PRESENT AND/OR FORMER)
American Bar Association (Admiralty and Maritime Law Committee Port Watch Subcommittee).
Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association.
37
Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association.
Texas Trial Lawyers Association.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute.
ATLA Breast Implant Litigation Group.
Alexandria Bar Association.
American Inns of Court.
Louisiana Bar Association CLE Committee.
Louisiana State Bar Association Federal Court Bench-Bar Liaison Committee.
Tulane Law School Maritime Seminar Planning Committee 1996/1997.
_____________________________________________
MEDIATOR EXPERIENCE
July 29, 2004 served as Mediator in environmental/toxic tort class action, Joe Clark, et al v. Trus Joist MacMillan,
a Limited Partnership, et al, Case No. 70287, Division B, 10th Judicial District Court, Natchitoches Parish,
Louisiana, plaintiffs represented by William P. Crews, Jr., defendants represented by James P. Dore' of Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, L.L.P.
_____________________________________________
MASS TORT/CLASS ACTION/MULTIDISTRICT
LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
1.
Chairman - 1994/1995 - Law Committee - Louisiana Plaintiffs' Steering Committee - Breast Implant
Litigation; Marilyn Spitzfaden, individually, and as representative of a class of those similarly situated v.
Dow Corning Corporation, et al, Civil Suit No. 92-2589, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State
of Louisiana.
2.
Baxter Plaintiff Trial Team Member, Breast Implant Litigation; Marilyn Spitzfaden, individually, and as
representative of a class of those similarly situated v. Dow Corning Corporation, et al, Civil Suit No. 922589, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
3.
Dow Chemical Plaintiff Trial Team Member, Breast Implant Litigation; Marilyn Spitzfaden, individually,
and as representative of a class of those similarly situated v. Dow Corning Corporation, et al, Civil Suit No.
92-2589, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
4.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Plaintiff Trial Team Member, Breast Implant Litigation; Marilyn Spitzfaden,
individually, and as representative of a class of those similarly situated v. Dow Corning Corporation, et al,
Civil Suit No. 92-2589, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
5.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee Member; Frederick Lewis, et al v. Volvo of North America, Inc., et al, Case
No. 96-19724, Division F, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. (Passenger Air
Bag)
38
6.
Represented class member plaintiffs; John R. Duncan, Sr. and Helene Duncan v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Angus
Chemical Company and W.W. Patterson, Civil Suit No. 92-0719, United States District Court, Western
District of Louisiana, Monroe Division and Catherine Roberson and Gene Roberson, individually and on
behalf of their minor children, Ashley and Gerard Roberson v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Angus Chemical
Company and W.W. Patterson, Civil Suit No. 92-0720, United States District Court, Western District of
Louisiana, Monroe Division. (Burlington Explosion)
7.
Represented class member plaintiffs; In Re: Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 1014, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
8.
Represented class member plaintiffs; Bobbie Timberlake, et al v. World Rio Corporation, et al, Civil Action
No. 95-1291, United States District Court, Central District of California. (Class Action Complaint)
9.
Represented class member plaintiffs; Dalkon Shield Litigation; RE: A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated,
Debtor, Chapter 11, Case No. 85-01307-R, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Richmond Division.
10.
Claimants' Steering Committee Member; In the Matter of the Complaint of Ingram Barge Company, as
Owner of the M/V F.R. Bigelow and the IB-960, and Ingram Ohio Barge Co., as Owner Pro Hac Vice of
the ING-371, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Civil Action No. 97-226, United
States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. (Chemical Spill Class Action)
11.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee Member - Dinah Borros and Dianne J. Solsky v. American Home Products
Corporation d/b/a Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Quick Trim Clinic of
Louisiana, Inc., Aspen Clinic, Inc. and St. Charles General Hospital, Civil Docket No. 97-16466, Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana. (Fen-Phen)
12.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee Member - Theresa Marble, Robert Johnson, Lou Daisy Scott and Harry
Stovall v. Chrysler Corporation, Civil Action No. 97-2055, United States District Court, Eastern District of
Louisiana, New Orleans Division, New Orleans, Louisiana. (Passenger Air Bag)
13.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee Member - Damian Castillo, et al, on Behalf of Themselves and all others
Similarly Situated v. Mike Tyson; Don King, et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York (Tyson Class Action)
14.
Baxter Healthcare Corporation Settlement Committee - 1997/98 - Louisiana Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
- Breast Implant Litigation; Marilyn Spitzfaden, individually, and as representative of a class of those
similarly situated v. Dow Corning Corporation, et al, Civil Suit No. 92-2589, Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
15.
McGhan Medical Corporation 3M Settlement Committee - 1997/98 - Louisiana Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee - Breast Implant Litigation; Marilyn Spitzfaden, individually, and as representative of a class
of those similarly situated v. Dow Corning Corporation, et al, Civil Suit No. 92-2589, Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
16.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Feldman to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in
In Re: Air Bags Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1181.
17.
Appointed by the Court to serve as Co-Lead Counsel, Co-Liaison Counsel and Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee Member - Baton Rouge DSI Sulfur Spill - Jimmie Badon, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of his
Minor Son, Jimmie Badon, III and Lashawndra Rollins versus DSI Transports, Inc. and Dwight Stewart,
Civil Suit No. 450,957 "M,” 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.
18.
Co-Liaison Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member - Lead Consolidated Case - Carl Bell, et
al v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., Civil Action No. 99-2078, U.S. Dist. Ct. (East. Dist. of La.).
39
Appointed by the Court to serve as Special Liaison Counsel to receive and disseminate all communications
from the Court.
19.
Associated as Counsel of Record by Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee - Kendrick Milligan and all other
similarly situated persons v. Borden Chemicals and Plastics A/K/A and/or D/B/A BCP Management, Inc.,
18th JDC, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, Civil Action No. 29,282-B consolidated with 29,286-B.
20.
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member - Hilda N. Garrison, Marva Joseph, Todd Powers Powell, Joan B.
Wilson, individually and as Representatives of the Class v. St. Charles General Hospital, Board of
Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, and Touro Infirmary,
Individually, and as Representatives of Defendant Class, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Civil Suit
No. 99-9855, Division E, Section 9.
21.
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member - Steven M. Davis, Dawn Davis and Brain Chandler v. First USA
Bank, N.A., 19th JDC, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, Civil Suit No. 464,834, Division A.
22.
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member - Peter Hahn, et al v. Hydrochem Industrial Services, Inc., et al,
24th JDC, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, Civil Suit No. 544-377, Division F.
23.
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member and Court Appointed Class Counsel - Craig West, et al v. G & H
Seed Co., et al, 27th JDC, St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, Civil Suit No. 99-C-4984, Division A. (ICON)
24.
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member - Clair Falgoust, et al v. Microsoft Corporation, 23rd JDC, St.
James Parish, Louisiana, Civil Suit No. 26,433.
25.
Class Counsel - Tangy Washington, et al v. Donald E. Carlton, et al, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 98-341, Section A, Magistrate (2).
26.
Appointed as Co-Plaintiff Liaison Counsel, Arthur Gregorie, III, et al v. The Burlington Northern and Santa
Fe Railway Company, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division,
#CV00-1188-LO, Judge Rebecca F. Doherty, Magistrate Judge Methvin. (New Iberia Train Derailment)
27.
Counsel of Record, Vivian Folse, et al v. C.F. Industries, Inc., 23rd Judicial District Court, St. James Parish,
Louisiana, #26728. (CF Industries Plant Explosion - Donaldsonville, LA)
28.
Counsel of Record, Ronnie Francois, et al v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al, Civil District Court,
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, #2000-7347, Division E, Sec. 9. (New Orleans Tank Car)
29.
Plaintiffs' Interim Steering Committee Member and Court Appointed Co-Lead Counsel, Ebony Willis, et
al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al, #00-C-2335, Section C, 27th JDC, St. Landry Parish,
Louisiana. (Eunice Train Derailment)
30.
Court Appointed Member of the Interim Plaintiffs' Liaison Committee, Eric Vizena, et al v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, 00-1267 (and all related cases) Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., Magistrate Judge Tynes,
U.S. District Court, Western District, Lafayette-Opelousas Division. (Eunice Train Derailment)
31.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee Member, Roger and Dianne Crowe v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., et al, #9914413 “G,” 22nd Judicial District Court, St. Tammy Parish, LA. (Pearl River)
32.
Counsel in MDL 1363-In Re: Industrial Accident at Donaldsonville, Louisiana, on May 24, 2000.
33.
Counsel in In Re: 1993 Exxon Coker Fire Litigation, Master Docket No. 93-MS-2-A-M2, United States
District Court, Middle District of Louisiana.
34.
Counsel in In Re: 1994 Exxon Chemical Plant Fire Litigation, Master Docket No. 94-MS-3-M1, United
States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana.
40
35.
Plaintiffs' Interim Steering Committee Member - Geraldine Taylor, et al v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc.
and Rudy Lambert, Civil Action No. 00CV635, Sec. “D-3,” United States District Court, Middle District
of Louisiana.
36.
Discovery Committee Member of the Microsoft Anti-Trust Litigation in MDL #1332. (Microsoft)
37.
Co-Chair of the Interim General Motions, Pleadings and Law Committee in MDL #1355. (Propulsid)
38.
Plaintiffs' Interim Steering Committee Member - Hoyt Calvey, et al v. Dupre Transport, Inc., #31089 “C,”
18th JDC, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. (Dupre Transport)
39.
Appointed as member of the Settlement/Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and Discovery
Committee - In Re: Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness Tires Products Liability
Litigation, Master File No. IPOO-9373-C-B/S, MDL No. 1373, United States District Court, Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (centralized before Hon. Sarah Evans Barker, Chief Judge).
(Firestone)
40.
Appointed as member of the Discovery Committee, In Re: Propulsid Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1355, Section “L” Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Magistrate Judge Africk, United States District Court, Eastern
District of Louisiana. (Propulsid)
41.
Appointed Co-Chair of the Drafting and Generic Research Committee, In Re: Propulsid Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1355, Section “L” Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Magistrate Judge Africk, United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. (Propulsid)
42.
Appointed as Plaintiffs' State Liaison Counsel by Judge Eldon E. Fallon, In Re: Propulsid Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1355, Section “L” Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Magistrate Judge Africk, United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. (Propulsid)
43.
Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee by Judge Holdridge, Dale Dennis, et
al v. CF Industries, Inc., No. 67,243, Division C, 23rd Judicial District Court, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(CF Industries)
44.
Appointed as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee by Judge Lemmon in Aline Ricks and Ernest
Ricks v. American Home Products Corporation, et al, Civil Action No. 01-0488, Sec. S, Mag. 2 United
States District Court., Eastern District of Louisiana. (PPA)
45.
Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee by Judge Tureau in Barbara
Chapman, et al v. Vulcan Chemicals, a Business Group of Vulcan Materials Company, et al, Civil Docket
No. 69,433, 23rd Judicial District Court, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. (Vulcan)
46.
Appointed as Co-Lead and Co-Liaison Counsel for the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in Mazie Ayo, et al
v. The State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Health and Hospitals, Civil Suit Number 483,299,
Division H, 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. (DHH/Georgia Gulf)
47.
Appointed by Judge Mire on June 20, 2001 as Class Counsel and as an Executive Committee Member, In
Re: Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser, Master Docket No. 25975, Division D, 23rd Judicial District
Court, St. James Parish, Louisiana. (Kaiser)
48.
Appointed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on July 23, 2001 as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in
Alicia Tanguis, et al v. M/V Westchester, et al, Civil Action No. 01-0449 c/w 01-1558, Section N, United
States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
41
49.
Appointed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, In Re:
Vulcan Chemicals Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-MD-1-A-M2, United States District Court, Middle
District of Louisiana. (Vulcan)
50.
Appointed as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and member of the Litigation Deposition
Committee, Trial Committee, Class Certification Committee, Settlement Committee, Punitive Damages
Development Committee and Chairman of the Pleadings Committee in Noretta Thomas, et al v. A. Wilbert
& Sons, L.L.C., et al, Civil Suit No. 55,127, Division B, 18th Judicial District Court, Iberville Parish,
Louisiana, And All Related Cases. (Myrtle Grove Trailer Park)
51.
Appointed to the Federal/State Coordination Committee In Re: Phenylpropanolamine Product Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1407, United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle. (PPA)
52.
Appointed as member of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Discovery & Liability Development
Committee, Legal Research/Pleadings/Class Certification/Punitive Damages Committee, Trial Committee,
Insurance Committee, and Settlement Committee in Jerry Oldham, et al v. State of Louisiana, Through the
Department of Health and Hospitals (consolidated cases), Docket No. 55,160-A, 18th Judicial District
Court, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. (DHH/Georgia Gulf)
53.
Appointed on January 17, 2002 as member of the State/Federal Coordination Committee by United States
District Judge, Barbara Jacobs Rothstein in In Re: Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability
Litigation, United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, MDL No. 1407. (PPA)
54.
Appointed as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in Alice Davis, et al v. Potash Corporation of
Saskatchewan Sales, Ltd. A/K/A PCS Nitrogen, No. 51,834 c/w 52,096, c/w 52,097, c/w 52,813, c/w
53,271, c/w 53,283, c/w 53,289, c/w 54,388, 18th Judicial District Court, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. (PCS
Nitrogen)
55.
Appointed as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee by United States District Judge James S. Gwin
in In Re: Meridia Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1481, United States District Court, Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division. (Meridia)
56.
Appointed as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in In Re: Serzone Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 1477. (Serzone)
57.
Appointed as Co-Chairman of the Plaintiffs' Discovery Committee by United States Magistrate Judge Mary
E. Stanley In Re: Serzone Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 1477, United States District Court,
Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division. (Serzone)
58.
Appointed by Federal Judge Rebecca F. Doherty as Class Counsel, Arthur Gregorie, III, et al v. The
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette-Opelousas Division, #CV00-1188-LO. (New Iberia Train Derailment)
59.
Appointed by United States District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin as member of the Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee In Re: Serzone Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1477, United States District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division. (Serzone)
60.
Appointed by Federal Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr. to Special Committee for Mediation, Eric Vizena, et al v.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, 00-1267 (and all related cases) Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., Magistrate
Judge Tynes, U.S. District Court, Western District, Lafayette-Opelousas Division. (Eunice Train
Derailment)
61.
Appointed by United States District Judge Lemelle to serve as Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee member and
Expert Committee Co-Chair, Herbert Barnes, et al v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, et al, Civil Action No. 041793 J (2), Judge Lemelle, Magistrate Judge Roby, United States District Court, Eastern District of
Louisiana. (Shell)
42
62.
Appointed by United States District Judge Sarah S. Vance to serve as Liaison Counsel in the Educational
Testing Service Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 7-12 Litigation, MDL No. 1643. (ETS
PRAXIS)
63.
Appointed by United States District Judge Lemelle to serve as Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee member,
MDL-1632 – In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation. (Shell)
64.
Appointed to Chair Federal/State Court Liaison Sub-Committee In Re: Neurontin Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1629. (Neurontin)
65.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
In Re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657. (Vioxx)
66.
Appointed member of the Administrative Committee In Re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1657. (Vioxx)
67.
Appointed Vice Chair of the Discovery Committee In Re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1657. (Vioxx)
68.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon to serve as Interim Class Counsel In Re: Vioxx Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657. (Vioxx)
69.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon to serve as Interim Class Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee member and Executive Committee member In Re: Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. Case
Number 05-4206, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. (Murphy Oil)
70.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Vance to serve as Liaison Counsel, In Re: OCA, Inc. Securities and
Deriviative Litigation, Master File No. 05-2165, Section R(3), Judge Vance, United States District Court,
Eastern District of Louisiana. (OCA)
71.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer to serve as a member of the Plaintiff’s Steering
Committee In Re: Bextra and Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation, Case
No. M:05-CV-01699-CRB, MDL No. 1699, United States District Court, Northern District of California.
(Bextra/Celebrex)
72.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel
Committee In re: Guidant Corp. Implantable Defribrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 051708, United States District Court, District of Minnesota. (Guidant)
73.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge James M. Rosenbaum to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee In Re: Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillators Litigation, MDL No. 05-1726, United States
District Court, District of Minnesota. (Medtronic)
74.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve as Plaintiffs
Legal Committee member and Expert Committee Co-Chair in the High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products
Liability Litigation. (Shell)
75.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve as Liaison Counsel
in the Educational Testing Service PRAXIS litigation. (ETS PRAXIS)
76.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs'
Discovery Committee in the Ortho Evra Products Liability Litigation. (Ortho Evra)
43
77.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee In Re LLRICE 601 Contamination Litigation, Case Number 4:06 MD 1811-CDP, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. (Rice Contamination)
78.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier to serve as Class Counsel in Lincoln, et al v. Shell Pipeline
Company, L.P., et al , Civil Action No. 05-CV-4197 c/w 05-CV-4199 and 06-CV-5154, United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. (Shell)
79.
Appointed by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan to serve on the Claims Review Committee
In Re: Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05-1726
(JMR/AJB) United States District Court District of Minnesota. (Medtronic)
80.
Appointed by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan to serve on the Common Benefit Attorneys’
Fees Committee In Re: Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
05-1726 (JMR/AJB) United States District Court, District of Minnesota. (Medtronic)
81.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Richard H. Kyle and United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron to
serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, In Re: Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Product Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 08-1905. (RHK/JSM), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. (Medtronic
Sprint Fidelis)
82.
Appointed by U.S Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan to serve on the Claims Review Committee, In re:
Guidant Corp. Implantable Defribrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05-1708, United States
District Court, District of Minnesota. (Guidant)
83.
Appointed by AAJ to serve as Committee Co-Chair of Foodborne Illness Litigation Group, March 2010.
84.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Martone, District of Arizona, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability MDL
Litigation. (Zicam)
85.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, Central District of California, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions in the Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2151. (Toyota)
86.
Appointed by AAJ to serve as Co-Chair of AAJ Gulf Coast Litigation Group as well as Liaison to the main
organization. (Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill)
87.
Appointed by AAJ to serve as Co-Chair of AAJ Food Borne Illness Litigation Group. (Food Borne Illness)
88.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Court, Eastern District of
Missouri, to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the NuvaRing Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 1964. (NuvaRing)
89.
Appointed by Judge Leon L. Emanuel, First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, to serve as
interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Civil Suit Number 545,245-C, Joey Canterbury, et al v. Willis Knighton
Medical Center a/k/a Willis Knighton Health Systems, d/b/a Willis Knighton Pierremont Medical Center.
(Willis Knighton)
90.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Discovery Committee in the DePuy Hip Litigation, MDL No. 2197. (DePuy)
91.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Donald C. Nugent, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Co-Lead Counsel Committee in the Kaba Locks Litigation, MDL No. 2220. (Kaba)
44
92.
Appointed by the AAJ to serve as Chair and Moderator of the National AAJ Actos Bladder Cancer
Litigation Group. (Actos)
93.
Appointed to Plaintiff Steering Committee in the Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2272, Northern District of Illinois. (Zimmer Nexgen Knee)
94.
Appointed to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Litigation, MDL
2263, District of New Hampshire. (Dial)
95.
Appointed as Interim Lead Counsel in the Imprelis Herbicide Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL 2284, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Imprelis)
96.
Appointed to Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant
Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2244, Northern District of Texas. (DePuy Pinnacle)
97.
Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in Actos Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2299, Western District of
Louisiana. (Actos)
98.
Appointed to Executive Steering Committee in Colgate-Palmolive Softsoap Antibacterial Hand Soap
Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, MDL 2320, District of New Hampshire. (Colgate Softsoap)
99.
Appointed to Homeowner Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in MI Windows and Doors Liability Litigation,
MDL 2333, District Court of South Carolina. (MI Windows)
100.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, Southern District of West Virginia to serve on
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the C.R. Bard Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigations,
MDL No. 2187, MDL No. 2325, MDL No. 2326 and MDL No. 2327. (Pelvic Repair)
101.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328. (Pool
Products)
102.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Kathleen B. Burke, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee in the Gentek Building Products, Inc. and Associated Materials, LLC Litigation.
(Gentek)
103.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, Northern District of Ohio, to serve on the Plaintiffs’
Discovery Committee in the DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Litigation, MDL No.
2197. (DePuy ASR)
104.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., Northern District of Indiana, to serve on the
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Biomet M2a Magnum Hip
Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2391. (Biomet)
105.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to serve
on the Settlement Class Counsel in the Gentek Building Products Inc., and Associated Materials, LLC.
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:10-CV-2093. (Gentek)
106.
Appointed by U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, to
serve on the Executive Committee in the Emerson Electric Co. Wet/Dry Vac Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 4:12MD2382 HEA. (Emerson Wet Dry Vac)
107.
Appointed to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Long Island Power Authority Hurricane Sandy
Litigation, Index No. 601434/2013, Supreme Court State of New York. (LIPA)
45
108.
Appointed to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series
Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2514. (Pella)
46
EXHIBIT B
L EVIN , F ISHBEIN , S EDRAN & B ERMAN
F IRM B IOGRAPHY
The law firm of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman (formerly known as Levin & Fishbein)
was established on August 17, 1981. Earlier, the founding partners of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, Messrs. Arnold Levin and Michael D. Fishbein, were with the law firm of Adler, Barish,
Levin & Creskoff, a Philadelphia firm specializing in litigation. Arnold Levin was a senior partner
in that firm and Michael D. Fishbein was an associate. Laurence S. Berman was also an associate
in that firm.
The curricula vitae of the attorneys are as follows:
(a)
A RNOLD L EVIN, a member of the firm, graduated from Temple University, B.S.,
in 1961, with Honors and Temple Law School, LLB, in 1964. He was Articles Editor of the Temple
Law Quarterly. He served as a Captain in the United States Army (MPC). He is a member of the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, American and International Bar Associations. He is a member of the
Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and the Association
of Trial Lawyers of America. He is admitted to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuit Courts
of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. He has appeared pro hac vice in various federal
and state courts throughout the United States. He has lectured on class actions, environmental,
antitrust and tort litigation for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers
Association, the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, The Association of Trial Lawyers of
America, The Belli Seminars, the Philadelphia Bar Association, American Bar Association, the New
York Law Journal Press, and the ABA-ALI London Presentations.
Mr. Levin is a past Chairman of the Commercial Litigation Section of the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America, and is co-chairman of the Antitrust Section of the Pennsylvania Trial
Lawyers Association. He is a member of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Consultation Committee,
Class Action Section, a fellow of the Roscoe Pound Foundation and past Vice-Chairman of the
Maritime Insurance Law Committee of the American Bar Association. He is also a fellow of the
International Society of Barristers, and chosen by his peers to be listed in Best Lawyers of America.
He has been recognized as one of 500 leading lawyers in America by Lawdragon and The Legal 500
USA. U.S. News and World Report has designated Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman as one of the
top 22 national plaintiffs’ firms in mass torts and complex litigation In addition, he has been further
recognized as one of the top 100 trial lawyers by The National Trial Lawyers Association. He was
also named to the National Law Journal’s Inaugural List of America’s Elite Trial Lawyers. He also
has an “av” rating in Martindale-Hubbell and is listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Register of
Preeminent Lawyers.
Mr. Levin was on the Executive Committee as well as various other committees and lead trial
counsel in the case of In re Asbestos School Litigation, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Master File No. 83-0268, which was certified as a nationwide class action on behalf of all school
districts. Mr. Levin was also on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re Copley Pharmaceutical,
Inc., “Albuterol” Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 94-140-1013 (Dist. Wyoming);
In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1038 (E.D. Tex.); and In re
Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., Accufix Atrial "J" Lead Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1057 (S.D. Ohio).
Mr. Levin was appointed by the Honorable Sam J. Pointer as a member of the Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation, Master File
No. CV-92-P-10000-S. The Honorable Louis L. Bechtle appointed Mr. Levin as Co-Lead Counsel
of the Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee and Liaison Counsel in the MDL proceeding of In re Orthopedic
Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1014 (E.D. Pa.). Mr. Levin also serves as CoChairman of Plaintiffs’ Management Committee, Liaison Counsel, and Class Counsel in In re Diet
Drug Litigation, MDL 1203. He was also a member of a four lawyer Executive Committee in In re
Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1348 (S.D.N.Y.) and is a member of a seven person
Steering Committee in In re Propulsid Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1355 (E.D. La.). He
was Chair of the State Liaison Committee in In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability
-2Case 4:13-cv-00086-ODS Document 86-9 Filed 04/08/15 Page 71 of 100
Litigation, MDL 1407 (W.D.WA); and is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and
Plaintiffs’ Negotiating Committee in In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657
(E.D.La.) and Court approved Medical Monitoring Committee in In re Human Tissue Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1763 (District of N.J.). He is currently lead counsel and plaintiffs’
class counsel in In Re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047
(E.D.La.). He was Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel in In re CertainTeed Corp. Roofing Shingles Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817 (E.D. Pa.). He is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in In re National Football League Players’ Concussion Litigation, MDL No. 2323; In
re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2328); In Re Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545 (N.D. Ill.); In re Zoloft
(Sertraline Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2342 (E.D. Pa.); and In re
Yasmin and Yaz Marketing, Sales Practices and Relevant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2100 (S.D. Ill.). He is a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In Re: Fresenius
Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2428 (D. Mass).
Mr. Levin was also a member of the Trial and Discovery Committees in the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Litigation, No. 89-095 (D. Alaska) In addition, Mr. Levin is lead counsel in the prosecution
of individual fishing permit holders, native corporations, native villages, native claims and business
claims.
(b)
M ICHAEL D. F ISHBEIN, a member of the firm, is a graduate of Brown University
(B.A., 1974). He graduated from Villanova University Law School with Honors, receiving a degree
of Juris Doctor in 1977. Mr. Fishbein was a member of the Villanova Law Review and is a member
of the Villanova University Law School Chapter of the Order of Coif. He is admitted to practice
before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Fishbein has been extensively involved
in the prosecution of a variety of commercial class actions. He is Class Counsel in In re Diet Drug
Litigation, MDL 1203, and the principal architect of the seminal National Diet Drug Settlement
Agreement.
He is also a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re
-3-
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1407 (W.D.WA).
(c)
H OWARD J. S EDRAN, a member of the firm, graduated cum laude from the
University of Miami School of Law in 1976. He was a law clerk to United States District Court
Judge, C. Clyde Atkins, of the Southern District of Florida from 1976-1977. He is a member of the
Florida, District of Columbia and Pennsylvania bars and is admitted to practice in various federal
district and appellate courts. From 1977 to 1981, he was an associate at the Washington, D.C. firm
of Howrey & Simon which specializes in antitrust and complex litigation. During that period he
worked on the following antitrust class actions: In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation; In re Fine Paper
Antitrust Litigation; Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corporation; FTC v. Exxon, et al.; and In re Petroleum
Products Antitrust Litigation.
In 1982, Mr. Sedran joined the firm of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman and has continued
to practice in the areas of environmental, securities, antitrust and other complex litigation. Mr.
Sedran also has extensive trial experience. In the area of environmental law, Mr. Sedran was
responsible for the first certified “Superfund” class action.
As a result of his work in an environmental case in Missouri, Mr. Sedran was nominated to
receive the Missouri Bar Foundation’s outstanding young trial lawyer’s award, the Lon Hocker
Award.
Mr. Sedran has also actively participated in the following actions: In re Dun & Bradstreet
Credit Services Customer Litigation, Civil Action Nos. C-1-89-026, C-1-89-051, 89-2245, 89-3994,
89-408 (S.D. Ohio); Raymond F. Wehner, et al. v. Syntex Corporation and Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc., No.
C-85-20383(SW) (N.D. Cal.); Harold A. Andre, et al. v. Syntex Agribusiness, Inc., et al., Cause No.
832-05432 (Cir. Ct. of St. Louis, Mo.); In re Petro-Lewis Securities Litigation, No. 84-C-326 (D.
Colo.); In re North Atlantic Air Travel Antitrust Litigation, No. 84-1013 (D. D.C.); Jaroslawicz v.
Engelhard Corp., No. 84-3641 (D. N.J.); Gentry v. C & D Oil Co., 102 F.R.D. 490 (W.D. Ark.
1984); In re EPIC Limited Partnership Securities Litigation, Nos. 85-5036, 85-5059 (E.D. Pa.);
Rowther v. Merrill Lynch, et al., No. 85-Civ-3146 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Hops Antitrust Litigation, No.
84-4112 (E.D. Pa.); In re Rope Antitrust Litigation, No. 85-0218 (M.D. Pa.); In re Asbestos School
Litigation, No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.); In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 928 (Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee); In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 940 (N.D. Miss.)
(Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee); In re Alcolac, Inc. Litigation, No. CV490-261 (Marshall, Mo.);
In re Clozapine Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 874 (N.D. Ill.) (Co-lead counsel); In re Infant
Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.); Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. BrowningFerris Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 87-3713 (E.D. Pa.); In re Airlines Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 861 (N.D. Ga.); Lazy Oil, Inc. et al. v. Witco Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 94-110E (W.D. Pa.)
(Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel); In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1023
(S.D.N.Y.) (Co-Chair Discovery); and In re Travel Agency Commission Antitrust Litigation, Master
File No. 4-95-107 (D. Minn.) (Co-Chair Discovery); Erie Forge and Steel, Inc. v. Cyprus Minerals
Co., C.A. No. 94-0404 (W.D. Pa.) (Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee); In re Commercial Explosives
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1093 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel); In re Brand Name Prescription
Drug Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 997; In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1087; In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1075; In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust
Litigation, C.A. No 97-CV-4182 (E.D. Pa.) (Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel); In re Flat Glass Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1200 (Discovery Co-Chair); In re Commercial Tissue Products Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1189; In re Thermal Fax Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 96-C-0959 (E.D.
Wisc.); In re Lysine Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, (D. Minn.); In re Citric Acid Indirect
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 96-CV-009729 (Cir. Ct. Wisc.).
Recently, in Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., et. al., supra, the District Court made the following
comments concerning the work of Co-Lead Counsel:
[t]he Court notes that the class was represented by very competent
attorneys of national repute as specialists in the area of complex
litigation. As such Class Counsel brought considerable resources to
the Plaintiffs’ cause. The Court has had the opportunity to observe
Class counsel first-hand during the course of this litigation and finds
that these attorneys provided excellent representation to the Class.
The Court specifically notes that, at every phase of this litigation,
Class Counsel demonstrated professionalism, preparedness and
diligence in pursuing their cause.
(d)
L AURENCE S. B ERMAN, a member of the firm, was born in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania on January 17, 1953. He was admitted to the bar in 1977. He is admitted to practice
before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth and Seventh Circuits; the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and the Bar of Pennsylvania. He is a graduate of Temple
University (B.B.A., magna cum laude, 1974, J.D. 1977). He is a member of the Betta Gamma Sigma
Honor Society. Mr. Berman was the law clerk to the Honorable Charles R. Weiner, U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 1978-1980. Member: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
American Bar Associations.
Mr. Berman has participated in, inter alia, the following actions: Donald A. Stibitz, et al. v.
General Public Utilities Corp., et al., No. 654 S 1985, (C.P. Dauphin County, Pa.); Raymond F.
Wehner, et al. v. Syntex Corporation and Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc., No. C-85-20383(SW) (N.D. Cal.);
Harold A. Andre, et al. v. Syntex Agribusiness, Inc., et al., Cause No. 832-05432 (Cir. Ct. of St.
Louis, Mo.); In re Petro-Lewis Securities Litigation, No. 84-C-326 (D. Colo.); In re Rope Antitrust
Litigation, No. 85-0218 (M.D. Pa.); In re Asbestos School Litigation, No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.); In re
Electric Weld Steel Tubing Antitrust Litigation - II, Master File No. 83-0163, U.S.D.C., Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; Township of Susquehanna, et al. v. GPU, et al., U.S.D.C., Middle District
of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 81-0437; In re Fiddler’s Woods Bondholders Litigation, Civil
Action No. 83-2340 U.S.D.C, E.D. Pa., (Newcomer, J.); and Ursula Stiglich Wagner, et al. v. Anzon,
Inc., et al., No. 4420, June Term, 1987 (C.C.P. Phila. Cty.)
(e)
F REDERICK S. L ONGER, specializes in representing individuals who have been
harmed by dangerous drugs, medical devices, other defective products and antitrust violations.
Mr. Longer has extensive experience in prosecuting individual, complex and class action
litigations in both state and federal courts across the country. Mr. Longer has been involved in the
resolution of several of the largest settlements involving personal injuries including the $6.75 billion
settlement involving Diet Drugs and the $4.85 billion settlement involving Vioxx. Mr. Longer was
a member of the negotiating counsel responsible for the settlements in the Chinese Drywall litigation
involving various suppliers and manufacturers of Chinese Drywall valued in excess of $1 billion.
Mr. Longer has a wealth of experience in mass torts and has frequently been the chairman or member
of the Law and Briefing Committee in numerous multi-district litigations in In re Propulsid Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1355 (E.D. La.); In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1348 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D.La.); In re
Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1014 (E.D. Pa.); and In re Diet
Drug Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.). He is currently a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee in In re Mirena Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434 (S.D.N.Y.)
Mr. Longer has substantial trial experience and is one of the few counsel in the country to
have a client’s claim involving Baycol tried to verdict in Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas.
Mr. Longer, originally from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, completed his undergraduate work
at Carnegie Mellon University. He then attended the University Pittsburgh School of Law and was
a Notes and Comments Editor for the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Mr. Longer practiced
for 3 years in Allegheny County with the law firm of Berger, Kapatan, Malakoff & Myers on
complex litigation and civil rights matters, including Kelly v. County of Allegheny, No. 6D 84-17962
(C.P. Allegheny County, PA). Thereafter, Mr. Longer joined the law firm of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran
& Berman and is now a member in the firm.
Mr. Longer is a frequent lecturer and has presented numerous seminars on various legal
topics for professional groups. Some of Mr. Longer’s speaking engagements include: Plaintiff Only
Consumer Warranty Class Action Litigation Seminar, American Association for Justice Education
and the National Association of Consumer Advocate (June 3-4, 2014);
"No Injury" and
"Overbroad"
Implications
Class
Actions
After
Comcast,
Glazer
and
Butler:
for
Certification-Navigating Complex Issues of Overbreadth and Damages in Consumer Product Cases,
Strafford Webinar (April 1, 2014); Service of Process in China, ABA Annual Conference (April
18-20, 2012); Chinese Drywall Litigation Conference, Harris Martin (October 20-21, 2011); Current
Issues in Multi-district Litigation Practice, Harris Martin (September 26, 2011); FDA Preemption:
Is this the end?, Mass Torts Made Perfect (May 2008). He has authored several articles including,
The Federal Judiciary’s Super Magnet, TRIAL (July 2009). He also contributed to Herbert J. Stern
& Stephen A. Saltzburg, TRYING CASES TO WIN: ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (Aspen 1999).
Mr. Longer is a member of the American Bar Association, American Association for Justice,
Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Association for Justice, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the
Philadelphia Bar Association. He is an active member of the Historical Society for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. He is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and
the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court; the United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, and the United States
District Courts for the Western and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania, United States District Court
Northern District of New York; United States District Court for the Western District of New York;
United States District Court of New Jersey; United States District Court for District of Arizona; and
the United States District Court District of Nebraska.
Mr. Longer has received Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating (AV) as a pre-eminent lawyer
for his legal ability and ethical standards. He has also been recognized by his peers as a Super
Lawyer since 2008.
(f)
D ANIEL C. L EVIN, a member of the firm, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Pittsburgh (B.A. 1994) and his law
degree from Oklahoma City University (J.D. 1997). He is a member of Phi Delta Phi. He serves
on the Board of Directors for the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association. He is also member of the
Pennsylvania Bar Association; Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, and the Association of Trial
Attorneys of America. He is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; the
United States District Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Levin has been part of the litigation team in In re Orthopedic
Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1014 (E.D. Pa.); In re Diet Drug Litigation,
MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.); Galanti v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Civil Action No: 03-209;
Muscara v. Nationwide, October Term 2000, Civil Action No.: 001557, Philadelphia County; and
Wong v. First Union, May Term 2003, Civil Action No. 001173, Philadelphia County, Harry
Delandro, et al v. County of Allegheny, et al, Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-927; Nakisha Boone, et al
v. City of Philadelphia, et al, Civil Action No. 05-CV-1851; Helmer, et al v. the Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., D.Co. Civil Action No. 1:12-00685-RBJ; Cobb v. BSH Home Appliance Corporation,
et al, C.D.Ca. Case No. SACV10-711 DOC (ANx) and In Re Human Tissue Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1763 (E.D.NJ.).
Mr. Levin was lead counsel in Joseph Meneghin v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al, Superior
Court of New Jersey, Docket No. OCN-L-002696-07; Johnson, et al v. Walsh, et al, PCCP April
Term, 2008, No. 2012; Kowa, et al v. The Auto Club Group, N.D.Il. Case No. 1:11-cv-07476. Mr.
Levin is currently lead counsel in Ortiz v. Complete Healthcare Resources, Inc., et al, Montgomery
CCP No. 12-12609; Gordon v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., E.D.Pa. Civil Action No.
2:13-cv-07175 and Shafir v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc.
Daniel Levin is recognized by his peers as a Super Lawyer.
(g)
C HARLES E. S CHAFFER, a member of the firm, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
is a graduate of Villanova University, (B.S., Magna Cum Laude, 1989) and Widener University
School of Law (J.D. 1995) and Temple University School of Law (LL.M. in Trial Advocacy, 1998).
He is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of New
Jersey, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He
is also a member of the American Bar Association, Association of Trial Attorneys of America,
Pennsylvania Association for Justice, Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, and the National Trial
Lawyers Association.
Mr. Schaffer has participated in, inter alia, the following actions: Davis v. SOH Distribution
Company, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-237 (M.D. Pa.) (Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel); In re CertainTeed
Corporation Roofing Shingles Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817 (E.D. Pa.) (Plaintiffs’
Discovery and Settlement Committees); Gwaizdowski v. County of Chester, Civil Action No. 08CV-4463 (E.D. Pa. 2012); Meneghin, v. The Exxon Mobile Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
OCN-002697-07 (Superior Court, Ocean County, NJ 2012) (Plaintiffs’ Co-lead Counsel);
Gulbankian et. al. v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-10392-RWZ (D.C. Mass.)
(Plaintiffs’ Discovery and Settlement Committees); Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-2093 (N.D. Ohio) (Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee); Smith, et al. v.
Volkswagon Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00370-SMY-PMF (S.D. Ill.) (Plaintiffs’
Discovery and Settlement Committees); Melillo, et al. v. Building Products of Canada Corp., Civil
Action No. 1:12-CV-00016-JGM (D. Vt. Dec. 2012); Vought, et al., v. Bank of America, et al., Civil
Action No. 10-CV-2052 (C.D. Ill. 2013) (Plaintiffs’ Discovery and Settlement Committees); In re
Navistar Diesel Engine Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2223 (N.D. Ill.) (Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee); United Desert Charities, et. el. v. Sloan Valve, et. el., Case No. 12-cv-06878 (C.D. Ca.)
(Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee); Kowa, et. el. v. The Auto Club Group AKA AAA Chicago, Case
No. 1:11-cv-07476 (N.D. Ill.); In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.); In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.); In
re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1014 (E.D. Pa.); In re Diet Drug
Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.); In re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No.
2270 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (Plaintiffs’ Discovery and Settlement Committees) and In re JP Mortgage
Modification Litigation, MDL No. 2290 (D.C. Mass.) (Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel).
Currently, Mr. Schaffer is serving as lead counsel in In re IKO Roofing Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2104 (C.D. Ill.), a member of Plaintiffs Steering Committee in In re Pella
Corporation Architect And Designer Series Windows Marketing Sales Practices and Product
Liablility Litigation, MDL No. 2514 (D.C. SC.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee
in In re Azek Decking Sales Practices Litigation, Civil Action No. 12-6627 (KM)(MCA)(D. NJ.),
a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Citimortgage, Inc. Home Affordable
Modification (“HAMP”), MDL No. 2274 (C.D. Ca.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee in In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL 2330 (N.D. Ca.); a member of
the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee In re Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation;
MDL No. 2263 (D. NH.); a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Emerson Electric
Co. Wet/Dry Vac Marketing and Sales Litigation, MDL No. 2382 (E.D. Miss.); a member of the
Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee In re Colgate–Palmolive Soft Soap Antibacterial Hand Soap
Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, (D. NH.); a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee
In re HardiePlank Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 2359 (D.C. Minn.) and is actively
participating in a number of other class actions and mass tort actions across the United States in
leadership positions.
In recognition of his accomplishments, Mr. Schaffer has achieved and maintained an AV
Martindale-Hubbell rating. Mr. Schaffer speaks nationally on a multitude of topics relating to class
actions and complex litigation.
(h)
A USTIN B. C OHEN, a member of the firm, is a graduate of the University of
Pennsylvania (B.A., 1990) and a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., cum
laude, 1996) where he served on the Journal of Law and Commerce as an assistant and executive
editor. He has authored an article titled “Why Subsequent Remedial Modifications Should Be
Inadmissible in Pennsylvania Products Liability Actions,” which was published in the Pennsylvania
Bar Association Quarterly. He is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey bars, and is a
member of the Pennsylvania and American Bar Associations.
(i)
MICHAEL M. WEINKOWITZ, a member of the firm, born Wilmington,
Delaware, June 11, 1969; admitted to bar 1995, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, U.S. District Courts,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of New Jersey; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Education: West Virginia University (B.A., magna cum laude, 1991); Temple University (J.D., cum
laude, 1995); Member, Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 1994-95; American
Jurisprudence Award for Legal Writing.
(j)
MATTHEW C. GAUGHAN , born in Boston, Massachusetts, is a graduate of the
-11-
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, (B.B.A., 2000) and Villanova University School
of Law (J.D., Cum Laude, 2003). He is admitted to practice in the States of New Jersey, New York
and Pennsylvania. He is also admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Mr. Gaughan has extensive involvement in products liability and commercial litigation cases.
(k)
KEITH J. VERRIER , is a graduate of Temple University School of Law (J.D.,
magna cum laude, 2000), where he was a member of the Law Review, and the University of Rhode
Island (B.S., 1992).
After law school, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Herbert J. Hutton in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Verrier has experience
litigating a wide range of commercial disputes with an emphasis on litigating and counseling clients
on antitrust matters. He currently spends the majority of his time litigating antitrust class actions,
predominantly those seeking overcharge damages on behalf of direct purchasers of products under
both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey as well as in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He is a member of the American Bar
Association.
(l)
BRIAN F. FOX, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is a graduate of La Salle
University (B.S., 2004) and Widener University School of Law (J.D., 2010). He is admitted
to practice in the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar
Association.
(m)
LUKE T. PEPPER, is a graduate of King's College (B.A. 1997) and the
Temple University School of Law (J.D. 2000). While in law school, Mr. Pepper served as an intern
for United States Magistrate Judge Peter Scuderi. He is admitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, and United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He is a member of the
Pennsylvania and American Association of Justice. He served as claimant and attorney liaison for
Class Counsel MDL No. 1203 In re Diet Drugs, (E.D. Pa.). His responsibilities included assisting
claimants with the adjudication of their claims and resolution of settlement issues. In addition, Mr.
Pepper is part of the litigation teams In Re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2385 (S.D. Ill.), MDL No. 2100 In re: Yasmin and YAZ (Drospirenone)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, (S.D. Ill.); MDL 1950 Municipal
Derivatives (SD NY); MDL 2436 Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (E.D. Pa); MDL 2328 Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation
(E.D. LA).
SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED CLASS CASES
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman’s extensive class action practice includes many
areas of law, including: Securities, ERISA, Antitrust, Environmental and Consumer Protection. The
firm also maintains a practice in personal injury, products liability, and admiralty cases.
The firm has successfully litigated the following class action cases: James J. and Linda
J. Holmes, et al. v. Penn Security Bank and Trust Co., et al., U.S.D.C., Middle District of
Pennsylvania Civil Action No. 80-0747; In re Glassine & Greaseproof Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
475, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In re First Pennsylvania Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 80-1643, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In re Caesars World
Shareholder Litigation, Master File No. MDL 496 (J.P. MDL); In re Standard Screws Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. MDL 443, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In re Electric Weld
Steel Tubing Antitrust Litigation - II, Master File No. 83-0163, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; Leroy G. Meshel, et al. v. Nutri-Systems, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 83-1440; In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, U.S.D.C.,
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, MDL 310; In re Three Mile Island Litigation,
U.S.D.C., Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 79-0432; Township of Susquehanna, et
al. v. GPU, et al., U.S.D.C., Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 81-0437 (a Three Mile
Island case); Donald A. Stibitz, et al. v. General Public Utilities Corporation, et al., No. 654 S 1985
(C.P. Dauphin County, Pa.) (a Three Mile Island case); Raymond F. Wehner, et al. v. Syntex
Corporation and Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc., No. C-85-20383(SW) (N.D. Cal.) (first Superfund Class Action
ever certified); In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litigation, U.S.D.C., Southern
District of Ohio, Civil Action Nos. C-1-89-026, 89-051, 89-2245, 89-3994, 89-408; Malcolm Weiss
v. York Hospital, et al., U.S.D.C., Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 80-0134; In re
Ramada Inns Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., District of Delaware, Master File No. 81-456; In re
Playboy Securities Litigation, Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, New Castle County, Civil
Action No. 6806 and 6872; In re Oak Industries Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., Southern District
of California, Master File No. 83-0537-G(M); Dixie Brewing Co., Inc., et al. v. John Barth, et al.,
U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 84-4112; In re Warner Communications
Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 82-CV-8288; In re
Baldwin United Corporation Litigation, U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, MDL No. 581;
Zucker Associates, Inc., et al. v. William C. Tallman, et al. and Public Service Company of New
Hampshire, U.S.D.C., District of New Hampshire, Civil Action No. C86-52-D; In re Shopping Carts
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 451, Southern District of New York; Charal v. Andes, et al., C.A. No.
77-1725; Hubner v. Andes, et al., C.A. No. 78-1610 U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In
re Petro-Lewis Securities Litigation, 84-C-326, U.S.D.C., District of Colorado; Gentry v. C & D Oil
Co., 102 F.R.D. 490 (W.D. Ark. 1984); In re Hops Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 84-4112, U.S.D.C.,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In re North Atlantic Air Travel Antitrust Litigation, No. 84-1013,
U.S.D.C., District of Columbia; Continental/Midlantic Securities Litigation, No. 86-6872, U.S.D.C.,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In re Fiddler’s Woods Bondholders Litigation, Civil Action No. 832340 (E.D. Pa.) (Newcomer, J.); Fisher Brothers v. Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc , et al., Civil
Action No. 82-4941, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Silver Diversified Ventures Limited
Money Purchase Pension Plan v. Barrow, et al., C.A. No. B-86-1520-CA (E.D. Tex.) (Gulf States
Utilities Securities Litigation); In re First Jersey Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 85-6059 (E.D. Pa.);
In re Crocker Shareholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 7405, Court of Chancery, State of Delaware,
New Castle County; Mario Zacharjasz, et al. v. The Lomas and Nettleton Co., Civil Action No. 874303, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania; In re People Express Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 86-2497, U.S.D.C., District of New Jersey; In re Duquesne Light Shareholder Litigation,
Master File No. 86-1046 U.S.D.C., Western District of Pennsylvania (Ziegler, J.); In re Western
Union Securities Litigation, Master File No. 84-5092 (JFG), U.S.D.C., District of New Jersey; In re
TSO Financial Litigation, Civil Action No. 87-7903, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
Kallus v. General Host, Civil Action No. B-87-160, U.S.D.C., District of Connecticut; Staub, et al.
v. Outdoor World Corp., C.P. Lancaster County, No. 2872-1984; Jaroslawicz, et al. v. Englehard
Corp., U.S.D.C., District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 84-3641F; In re Boardwalk Marketplace
Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., District of Connecticut, MDL No. 712 (WWE); In re Goldome
Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 88-Civ-4765; In re
Ashland Oil Spill Litigation, U.S.D.C., Western District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. M-14670;
Rosenfeld, et al. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action
No. 87-2529; Gross, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Master File, No. 88-661; In re Collision Near Chase, Maryland on January 4, 1987 Litigation,
U.S.D.C., District of Maryland, MDL Docket No. 728; In re Texas International Securities Litigation,
U.S.D.C., Western District of Oklahoma, MDL No. 604, 84 Civ. 366-R; In re Chain Link Fence
Antitrust Litigation, U.S.D.C., District of Maryland, Master File No. CLF-1; In re Winchell’s Donut
House, L.P. Securities Litigation, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County,
Consolidated Civil Action No. 9478; Bruce D. Desfor, et al. v. National Housing Ministries, et al.,
U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 84-1562; Cumberland Farms, Inc., et
al. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File
No. 87-3717; In re SmithKline Beckman Corp. Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Master File No. 88-7474; In re SmithKline Beecham Shareholders Litigation, Court
of Common Pleas, Phila. County, Master File No. 2303; In re First Fidelity Bancorporation
Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 88-5297 (HLS); In re Qintex
Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Master File No. CV-89-6182; In re
Sunrise Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 655; David Stein,
et al. v. James C. Marshall, et al., U.S.D.C., District of Arizona, No. Civ. 89-66 (PHX-CAM);
Residential Resources Securities Litigation, Case No. 89-0066 (D. Ariz.); In re Home Shopping
Network Securities Litigation -- Action I (Consolidated Actions), Case No. 87-428-CIV-T-13A (M.D.
Fla.); In re Kay Jewelers Securities Litigation, Civ. Action Nos. 90-1663-A through 90-1667-A (E.D.
Va.); In re Rohm & Haas Litigation, Master File Civil Action No. 89-2724 (Coordinated) (E.D. Pa.);
In re O’Brien Energy Securities Litigation, Master File No. 89-8089 (E.D. Pa.); In re Richard J.
Dennis & Co. Litigation, Master File No. 88-Civ-8928 (MP) (S.D. N.Y.); In re Mack Trucks
Securities Litigation, Consolidated Master File No. 90-4467 (E.D. Pa.); In re Digital Sound Corp.,
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 90-3533-MRP (BX) (C.D. Cal.); In re Philips N.V. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 90-Civ.-3044 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y.); In re Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 86-Civ.-2698 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.); In re Genentech, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-88-4038-DLJ (N.D. Cal.); Richard Friedman, et al. v. Northville
Industries Corp., Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, No. 88-2085; Benjamin Fishbein,
et al. v. Resorts International, Inc., et al., No. 89 Civ.6043(MGC) (S.D.N.Y.); In re Avon Products,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 89, Civ. 6216 (MEL), (S.D.N.Y.); In re Chase Manhattan Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 90 Civ. 6092 (LJF) (S.D.N.Y.); In re FPL Group Consolidated Litigation;
Case No. 90-8461 Civ. Nesbitt (S.D. Fla.); Daniel Hwang, et al v. Smith Corona Corp., et al,
Consolidated No. B89-450 (TFGD) (D. Ct.); In re Lomas Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. CA-3-89-1962-G (N.D. Tex.); In re Tonka Corp. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action
No. 4-90-2 (D. Minnesota); In re Unisys Securities Litigation, Master File No. 89-1179 (E.D. Pa.);
In re Alcolac Inc. Litigation, Master File No. CV490-261 (Cir. Ct. Saline Cty. Marshall, Missouri);
In re Clozapine Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL874 (N.D. Ill.); In re Jiffy Lube Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. JHY-89-1939 (D. Md.); In re Beverly Enterprises Securities Litigation, Master
File No. CV-88-01189 RSWL (Tx.) [Central District CA]; In re Kenbee Limited Partnerships
Litigation, CV-91-2174 (GEB) (District of NJ); Greentree v. Procter & Gamble Co., C.A. No. 6309,
April Term 1991 (C.C.P. Phila. Cty.); Moise Katz, et al v. Donald A. Pels, et al and Lin Broadcasting
Corp., No. 90 Civ. 7787 (KTD) (S.D.N.Y.); In re Airlines Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 861 (N.D.
GA.); Fulton, Mehring & Hauser Co., Inc., et al. v. The Stanley Works, et al., No. 90-0987-C(5) (E.D.
Mo.); In re Mortgage Realty Trust Securities Litigation, Master File No. 90-1848 (E.D. Pa.);
Benjamin and Colby, et al. v. Bankeast Corp., et al., C.A. No. C-90-38-D (D.N.H.); In re Royce
Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File Case No. 92-0923-Civ-Moore (S.D. Fla.); In re
United Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 90-2251-0 (D. Kan.); In re U.S.
Bioscience Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 92-678 (E.D. Pa.); In re Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.
Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 89 Civ. 17 (E.D. N.Y.); In re PNC Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 90592 (W.D. Pa.); Raymond Snyder, et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 88-C-1500-E (N.D. Okla.);
In re Public Service Company of New Mexico, Case No. 91-0536M (S.D. Cal.); In re First
Republicbank Securities Litigation, C.A. No. CA3-88-0641-H (N.D. Tex, Dallas Division); and In
re First Executive Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-89-7135 DT (C.D. Calif.).
*
*
*
Several courts have favorably commented on the quality of work performed of Arnold
Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, and Mr. Levin’s former firm, Adler, Barish, Levin &
Creskoff.
Judge Rambo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania has favorably acknowledged the quality of work of the law firm in her opinion in In re
Three Mile Island Litigation, 557 F. Supp. 96 (M.D. Pa. 1982). In that case, the firm was a member
of the Executive Committee charged with overall responsibility for the management of the litigation.
Notably, the relief obtained included the establishment of a medical monitoring fund for the class.
See also, Township of Susquehanna, et al. v. GPU, et al., U.S.D.C., Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Civil Action No. 81-0437.
In certifying the class in Weiss v. York Hospital, Judge Muir found that “plaintiff’s
counsel are experienced in the conduct of complex litigation, class actions, and the prosecution of
antitrust matters.” Weiss v. York Hospital, No. 80-0134, Opinion and Order of May 28, 1981 at 4
(M.D. Pa. Mar. 1981). See also, Weiss v. York Hospital, 628 F. Supp. 1392 (M.D. Pa. 1986). Judge
Muir, in certifying a class for settlement purposes, found plaintiff’s attorneys to be adequate
representatives in In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 76-1500, 77-699, 77-1049 and
found in the decision that “the quality of the work performed by Mr. Levin and by the attorneys from
Adler-Barish [a predecessor to Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman] who assisted him -- as exhibited
both in the courtroom and in the papers filed -- has been at a high level.” In re Anthracite Coal
Antitrust Litigation, (M.D. Pa., Jan. 1979). Judge Muir also approved of class counsel in the
certification decision of Holmes, et al. v. Penn Security and Trust Co., et al., No. 80-0747. Chief
Judge Nealon found plaintiffs’ counsel to satisfy the requirement of adequate representation in
certifying a class in Beck v. The Athens Building & Loan Assn., No. 73-605 at 2 (D. Pa. Mar. 22,
1979). Judge Nealon’s opinion relied exclusively on the Court’s Opinion in Sommers v. Abraham
Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn., 66 F.R.D. 581, 589 (E.D. Pa. 1975) which found that “there is no
question that plaintiffs’ counsel is experienced in the conduct of a class action....”
Judge Bechtle in the Consumer Bags Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 77-1516
(E.D. Pa.), wherein Arnold Levin was lead counsel for the consumer class, stated with respect to
petitioner:
Each of the firms and the individual lawyers in this
case have extensive experience in large, complex
antitrust and securities litigation.
Furthermore, the Court notes that the quality of the
legal services rendered was of the highest caliber.
In Gentry v. C&D Oil Company, 102 F.R.D. 490 (W.D. Ark. 1984), the Court
described counsel as “experienced and clearly able to conduct the litigation.”
In Jaroslawicz v. Engelhard Corp., No. 84-3641 (D.N.J.), in which this firm played
a major role, the Court praised plaintiffs’ counsel for their excellent work and the result achieved.
In In Re: Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 2000 WL 1622741,
*7 (E.D.Pa. 2000), the Court lauded Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman counsel as follows: “The
court also finds that the standing and expertise of counsel for [plaintiffs] is noteworthy. First, class
counsel is of high caliber and most PLC members have extensive national experience in similar class
action litigation.”
In In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, the Court commented on Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman’s
efforts regarding the creation of the largest nationwide personal injury settlement to date as a
“remarkable contribution”. PTO No. 2622 (E.D.Pa. October 3, 2002).
The firm has played a major role in most pharmaceutical litigation in the last 20 years.
The firm is listed by Martindale-Hubbell in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers.
EXHIBIT C
W. MARK LANIER
The Lanier Law Firm, P.C.
6810 FM 1960 West, Houston, TX 77069
(T) 713-659-5200
EXPERIENCE
The Lanier Law Firm
Founder/Leading Trial Attorney, June, 1990 – Present
Houston, TX; New York NY;
and Los Angeles, CA
• Legal representation in the United States and Great Britain in matters concerning toxic
exposure; pharmaceutical liability; personal injury; products liability; intellectual
property; commercial disputes; oil and gas disputes; medical malpractice; maritime law;
and international arbitration.
• Clients include individuals, businesses of all sizes, and governmental entities.
• Verdicts exceed over one billion dollars in plaintiffs’ representation. Significant verdicts
also in defense representation.
• Member of Plaintiff Steering Committees in In re Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Product
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2272 (N.D. IL.); In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2244, N.D.TX; In re: DePuy
Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2197,
N.D.OH; In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2092 (N.D.
Alabama); In Re: Digitek Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1968, S.D.W.V.; and In Re:
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, No. 8:10ml2151, C.D. Calif., Southern Div.
• Noteworthy verdicts:
- $417 million in a business fraud matter against one of the nation's largest oil
providers (Rubicon v. Amoc, 1993);
- Reversal of $1.6 billion default judgment (Owens-Illinois v. T&N, Ltd. and Federal
Mogul, 2000);
- $118 million in an asbestos-related matter (Aaron v. Carborundum, 1998);
- $253 million in the first Vioxx® verdict in the U.S. (Ernst v. Merck, 2005);
- $9 billion dollar Actos verdict against Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Eli Lilly
& Co.
Ernest Cannon & Associates, Houston, TX
Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP Houston, TX
• Trial and Appellate Associate.
Associate, September, 1989 – May, 1990
Associate, June, 1984 – August 1989
RECOGNITION/HONORS
• Named the 2015 Trial Lawyer of the Year by The National Trial Lawyers and The Trial
Lawyer magazine
• The National Law Journal has twice named him one of the nation’s Top 10 Trial
Attorneys;
• Recognized by the 2012 Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business list
with special recognition as one of their “Leaders in Their Field” based on work in product
liability and mass tort cases;
• In October of 2012, was awarded the coveted Clarence Darrow Award;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recognized in the Verdict Search/Texas Lawyer Top 50 Verdicts of 2012;
Named by “Texas Super Lawyers”, as one of the Top 10 Attorneys in Texas for several
years and most recently in 2014;
Recognized as a Litigation Star in Benchmark Litigation 2013, 2014 and 2015;
Acknowledged in the 2002, 2007 and 2012 special editions of Texas Lawyer’s “Go To”
Attorneys, which is published every five years, as one of the Top 5 “Go To” Personal
Injury Plaintiff Attorneys in Texas. In the 2007 and 2012 editions, was named The Top
“Go To” Personal Injury Attorney;
Named one of America’s 100 Most Influential Trial Lawyers of 2011 by The Trial Lawyers
Magazine;
2011 National Forensic League Alumni Lifetime Achievement Award recipient;
In 2010, The National Law Journal honored Mark Lanier as one of the Most Influential
Attorneys of the Decade;
Named one of “The Best Lawyers in America” by U.S. News and World Report’s Best
Lawyers in 2006 through 2014 editions;
Recognized as the “2013 Top Class Action Attorney in America” by U.S. News and World
Report’s Best Lawyers;
Named “Texas Super Lawyer” in 2003 through 2014;
Named by Texas Lawyer newspaper as one of the Top 25 Attorneys of the Past Quarter
Century;
Named one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America by the National Law Journal;
2005, Texas Tech University School of Law Distinguished Alumnus;
2005, named by Texas Lawyer’s “Impact Player of the Year;”
2003, named by The American Lawyer magazine as one of the top 45 attorneys in the nation
under the age of 45 and
1995, named by The National Law Journal as one the country's 40 top attorneys under the
age of 40.
Bestowed the distinguished Ambassador of Peace award by the Guatemalan government.
EDUCATION
Texas Tech University School of Law, Lubbock TX
Juris Doctor, May 1984.
David Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN
Major: Biblical Languages, B.A; Minor: Economics; May 1981.
Granny White Bible Award (G.P.A. award).
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (1978-1980)
BAR ADMISSIONS
• States of Texas and New York;
• Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western U.S. District Courts of Texas; and
• United States Supreme Court.
CERTIFICATIONS
• Personal Injury Trial Specialist by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
MEMBERSHIPS
• Christian Trial Lawyers Association
• Texas Trial Lawyers Association
• American Association for Justice
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
• Founder of the Lanier Theological Library (www.LanierTheologicalLibrary.org), one of
the nation’s largest private theological collections. Open to the public daily.
• Teaches a weekly, 750 plus member class focusing on Biblical Literacy at Champion
Forest Baptist Church. www.Biblical-Literacy.com.
• Serves on the Board of American Schools of Oriental Research (“ASOR”)
• Serves on the Board of the Albright Institute
• Serves on Texas Tech University School of Law Foundation Board.
• Founder of the Christian Trial Lawyers Association, a nonprofit organization whose goal
is to create a network of principled attorneys to minister to others through civic-minded
endeavors.
EXHIBIT D
Curriculum Vitae
ERIC D. HOLLAND
Eric D. Holland, managing and founding partner of the St. Louis-based Holland Law
Firm, LLC, leads a nationally recognized trial practice at his firm. Mr. Holland has extensively
litigated in federal and state courts across the country, serving as lead counsel, co-lead counsel,
or in other leadership capacities in a variety of product liability, banking, consumer, and mass
tort matters. For the past decade, Mr. Holland has been consistently recognized by his peers as
one of the country’s leading trial attorneys.
Mr. Holland’s experience in the courtroom began 24 years ago. Starting his practice at
one of St. Louis’ largest law firms, Eric immediately began handling serious injury-related
litigation. During the beginning of his career, he handled a large number of individual cases,
many of which resulted in record-setting jury verdicts and settlements. He has dozens and
dozens of multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlements in single event cases. These results
came primarily in railroad, trucking and product liability matters and include the largest railroad
jury verdicts in the State of Missouri for 1999, 2001 and 2005. Mr. Holland still holds the record
for the largest F.E.L.A jury verdict in Missouri history, obtained in the 22nd Judicial Circuit,
State of Missouri on August 29, 2005.
He also has developed an extensive practice in aggregate litigation. He has been
nominated and selected to a variety of leadership positions by both his peers and courts across
the county. Mr. Holland’s most recent appointed leadership positions in aggregate litigation
include a number of high profile product liability, banking, pharmaceutical and complex
litigation matters, including the following cases:
Vought, et al., v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 2:10 CV 2052
(C.D. Ill.)(co-lead counsel)
Parisot v. U.S. Title Co., 8:22 CC 9381 (Circuit Court, City of St.
Louis)(co-lead counsel)
In re: Michigan Oil Spill Litigation/Volstromer v. Enbridge, 1:10
CV 752 (W.D. Mich.)(executive committee)
In re: Yasmin and Yaz Sales, Marketing Practices and Product
Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:09-md-02100 (MDL 2100) (S.D.
Ill.)(PSC’s science committee)
In re IKO Roofing Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:09md-02104 (MDL 2104) (C.D. Ill.)(executive committee)
In re Dial Complete Sales and Marketing Litigation, Case No.
1:11-md-02263 (MDL 2263) (D.N.H.)(executive committee)
In re JPMorgan Chase Bank Mortgage Loan Modification
Litigation, Case No.
1:11-md-2290 (MDL 2290) (D.
Mass.)(executive committee, discovery chairman and settlement
team)
In re CitiBank HAMP Loan Modification Litigation, Case No.
2:11-ml-02274 (MDL 2274)(C.D. CA)(executive committee)
In re KV Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv01816 (E.D. MO)(liaison counsel)
In re HardiePlank Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, Case No. 12md-2359 (MDL 2359)(D. MN)(trial team)
In re Eliason, et al. v Gentek Building Products, Inc. Case No.
1:10-cv-2093 (ND OH) (executive committee)
In re Espinoza, et al v Whiting, et al. Case No. 4:12-cv-01711
(E.D. MO) (liaison counsel)
In re Emerson Electric Wet/Dry Vac Sales and Marketing
Litigation, MDL 2382 (E.D. MO)(co-lead counsel)
In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2434 (S.D.
N.Y.)(plaintiffs’ steering committee)
In re H&R Block IRS Form 8863 Litigation, MDL 2474 (W.D.
MO)(executive committee)
In re Carrier IQ Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL 2330 (N.D.
CA)(executive committee)
Smith, et al. v. Volkswagon Group of America, et al., 13-cv-00370SMY (S.D. IL)(co-lead counsel)
Hayes v. Integrity Title Company, 11SL-cc-1529 (21st Judicial Circuit,
State of Missouri)(class counsel)
Mr. Holland’s results in aggregate litigation follow the results of his personal injury
practice. For example, he served as co-lead counsel in a national products liability class action
involving allegedly defective wire harnesses, leading the case through successful settlement and
resolution that provided a complete fix of the allegedly defective part at no cost to class
members. Mr. Holland also served in the leadership and was on the settlement team in a banking
class action that resulted in a settlement valued at over $500 million by a former Department of
Treasury official. Recently, his acumen in complex litigation was cited by the judge presiding
over an insurance class action: “The Court further finds, based on the appearance of Class
Counsel at hearings and filing of pleadings in the case, that Class Counsel's prosecution and
handling of this complex class action case has been exemplary. Attorney Holland, who
personally appeared at all substantive hearings, demonstrated a command of complex litigation
that resulted in the rare opportunity for complete relief for class members. The Court commends
Holland and his firm…for their prosecution of this action.” Hayes v. Integrity Title Company,
11SL-cc-1529 (21st Judicial Circuit-Honorable Tom J. DePriest, Jr., presiding).
Mr. Holland is a frequent lecturer regarding complex litigation topics. He has been
featured on a variety of complex federal litigation topics including electronically stored
evidence, the nuances of class action litigation, and federal civil procedure. Mr. Holland has also
been a featured speaker on complex litigation at a number of nationally acclaimed symposia
across the country regarding complex federal litigation. Recently, he again spoke at the 13th
Annual Class Action and Complex Litigation Symposium in New Orleans, Louisiana, serving on
a panel chaired by Professor Arthur Miller and including Mark Geragos, Ken Starr and Professor
Francis McGovern on the topic of federal class action litigation.
Mr.
Holland
has
been
featured in programs from coast to coast and regularly accepts invitations to educate other
lawyers about federal litigation.
Mr. Holland has been consulted or retained as counsel by judges, national and local labor
unions, Fortune 500 companies, elected officials, public entities, and, most importantly, a variety
of catastrophically injured victims and their families. His background in the labor movement has
led to Eric’s keen interest in the rights of those injured, maimed and killed due to the negligent
conduct of others. As part of his practice, he serves as designated legal counsel to a national
labor union and has served the last three years as liaison counsel for an international labor
union’s regional convention.
Mr. Holland is a 1988 graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a
1991 graduate of the St. Louis University School of Law, where he was elected to the Law
Review. He is admitted to practice in the state courts of Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan, as well
as federal courts across the country. Particularly, he has been generally or pro hac vice admitted
in federal districts in Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New
Hampshire, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, California, Oregon, and
Washington.
Mr. Holland has been recognized for his professional accomplishments for many years
including holding an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is a peer-reviewed
analysis of attorneys primarily focused on skills and ethics. He has also been designated a “Top
Rated Lawyer “(Product Liability, Mass Tort, and Class Action), a “Super Lawyer”, and noted
by the National Trial Lawyers as a “Top 100 Trial Lawyer”. He is a past member of the Board
of Governors for the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, has served on the steering
committee for the Midwest Innocence Project, and presently does work on behalf of Legal
Services of Eastern Missouri.
EDUCATION:
St. Louis University, J.D., 1991. The St. Louis University Law Journal, 19911992.
University of Illinois, B.A., 1988.
fraternity.
Dean’s List.
Lambda Chi Alpha social
ADMISSIONS:
1991, Illinois; 1992, Missouri and U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Missouri; 1993, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois; 2005, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Illinois; 1998, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Texas and U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; 2004,
Michigan.
HONORS, AWARDS, PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Author, “Mitigation of Damages: The Plaintiff’s Duty but the Railroad’s Burden,”
Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly, October 1997;
Speaker: “Federal Employer’s Liability Act,” National Business Institute’s
Workplace Injury Seminar, St. Louis, Missouri, 2003;
“Presentation of Psychiatric Evidence in Work Injury Cases,” ABA Labor and
Employment Law Section Mid-Year Meeting, February, 2005;
Chairman, ABA Labor and Employment Law Section subcommittee on
FELA/Jones Act Litigation, 2005;
Panel Member, “Electronically Stored Information—Plaintiff, Defense and
Judicial Perspectives”, Missouri Best Practices Seminar, 2010; Speaker,
“Electronically Stored Information—What you Don’t Know Will Hurt You”,
Women’s Lawyer’s Association, 2010;
Speaker, Class Action Litigation Developments, Harris Martin MDL symposium,
Savannah, Georgia, November, 2011;
Speaker, Consumer Class Actions in the Mass Tort Context, Harris Martin MDL
symposium, Miami, Florida, January, 2012;
Panel Chair, Carrier IQ Privacy Litigation, Harris Martin MDL Conference, San
Diego, California, March, 2012;
Speaker, Complex Litigation and RICO, 12th Annual Class Action and Complex
Litigation Symposium, November, 2012;
Panelist, Louisiana Bar Association’s Annual Maritime Seminar, September,
2014;
Panelist, Led by Professor Arthur Miller regarding Professor Miller’s 2013 article
in N.Y.U. Law Review, 13th Annual Class Action and Complex Litigation
Symposium, November 2013;
Panelist, Led by Dean Thomas Galligan, Recent Developments in Complex
Litigation, 14th Annual Class Action and Complex Litigation Symposium,
November 2014;
Top 100 Trial Lawyer Award, National Trial Lawyers, 2011 to present;
Missouri and Kansas “Super Lawyers”, 2006 to present;
Martindale “AV Preeminent” Attorney, 2003 to present;
Detroit Business Magazine “Top Lawyers”;
“Top Rated Lawyers”, American Lawyer 2012 (Product Liability, Mass Tort, and
Class Actions).
MEMBERSHIPS:
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis;
Illinois State Bar Association;
The Missouri Bar;
American Bar Association
American Association for Justice;
Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys (Member, Board of Governors, 2004-07);
National Institute of Trial Advocacy;
National Trial Lawyers.
HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
Attorneys at Law
www.ehollandlaw.com
Office:
St. Louis, Missouri
300 North Tucker Blvd, Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-8111
Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
Toll Free: (877) 255-3352
FIRM BACKGROUND
Holland Law Firm, LLC is a civil litigation firm offering a wide range of services to its
clients. The firm handles litigation in state and federal courts across the country on behalf of
individuals, corporations, and government entities. The firm’s attorneys are experienced trial
lawyers handling litigation involving class and mass actions, railroad, maritime, and trucking
accidents, catastrophic personal injuries, wrongful death, traumatic brain injuries, and complex
commercial litigation. From the firm headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, the firm provides
clients with powerful resources coupled with nationally recognized trial attorneys in their fight
for justice.
The firm has extensive experience in federal court litigation including product liability,
consumer, securities, antitrust, banking, railroad, maritime, and diversity matters. The firm’s
attorneys litigate cases in state and federal courts across the country.
EXHIBIT 5
John W. Perry, Jr.
|
perry@pabmb.com
|
(225) 767-7730
John Perry attended Nicholls State University, where he was the starting point
guard and captain of the basketball team. Balancing athletics with academics, he
graduated magna cum laude from the College of Business Administration in
1976. He then attended LSU Law School, where he was elected to the Moot
Court Board. He graduated in 1978 and was later inducted into the Hall of Fame.
John has served in almost every capacity possible in the field of civil practice. He has practiced
both as a civil defense attorney and as a plaintiff's attorney, earning the unusual distinction of
serving on both the Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel Board of Directors and the
Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association Board of Governors. He is a member of many professional
organizations, including the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers. John previously
taught as an Adjunct Professor of Law at LSU. He has served as a Special Master and CourtAppointed Mediator in federal and in state court. The federal court in the Deepwater Horizon
case chose him to recommend a plan to allocate a settlement totaling $2.3 billion. Moreover, the
Louisiana Supreme Court appointed him to serve as a Judge Pro Tempore.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Experience
Although John continues to try select cases, his principal focus today is as a mediator. In
addition to being a partner in the law firm of Perry, Atkinson, Balhoff, Mengis and Burns, he is a
founding principal of the mediation firm of Perry Dampf Dispute Solutions, where he is
responsible for the selection and training of the mediator panel.
John has served as mediator, arbitrator, and/or Special Master in over 4,000 cases since 1995.
Over the last ten years, John has devoted an increasing amount of his time to complex cases.
These include:

In re: Aredia and Zometa Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1760 (M.D. Tenn.
J.P.M.L) (mediator)

In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La. J.P.M.L.) (Court-Designated Neutral)

In re: Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, MDL No. 1811 (E.D. Mo. J.P.M.L)
(mediator)

In re: FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1873 (E.D.
La. J.P.M.L.) (mediator)

In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047
(E.D. La. J.P.M.L.) (mediator and Special Master)

Patrick Joseph Turner, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (Murphy Oil Spill), 05-4206 (E.D.
La.) (mediator)
EXHIBIT A

Terral Evans, et al. v. TIN, et al. (Bogalusa Fish Kill), 2:11-0267 (E.D. La.) (mediator)

In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2385
(S.D. Ill. J.P.M.L.) (mediator)

B.P, a minor, by Dawn Fragnoli, et.al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (Depakote), 13-324
(S.D. Ill.) (mediator)

Ian Pollard, et al. v. Remington Arms Co., et al., 4:13-00086 (W.D. Mo.) (mediator)

In re: Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2100 (S.D. Ill. J.P.M.L.) (mediator)

Medtronic Infuse Litigation (multiple jurisdictions) (mediator)

In re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation (Vaginal
Mesh), MDL No. 2387 (S.D. W.Va. J.P.M.L.) (mediator)

In re: Vulcan Litigation – April 2001 Incidents, 69,388 (La. 23rd J.D.C.) (Special Master)

Avandia Deceptive Marketing Litigation (multiple jurisdictions) (mediator)

Jane Doe No. 1, et al. v. The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, d/b/a The Johns
Hopkins Hospital, et al., 24-C-13-00141 (Md. Baltimore City Cir. Ct.) (mediator)
In addition to the above non-exclusive list, John has also mediated other mass/class cases which
he cannot disclose due to requests for confidentiality.
Memberships, Honors, Professional Associations
Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel, Board of Directors • Louisiana Trial Lawyers
Association, previously served on Board of Governors • Defense Research Institute • Dean
Henry George McMahon Inn of Court, Master • American College of Civil Trial Mediators •
American College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow • American Board of Trial Advocates, Associate •
Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Nicholls State University Undergraduate • Phi Kappa Phi
Honor Society • Wall Street Journal Award for Outstanding Senior in College of Business
Administration • Nicholls State University Hall of Fame • All Gulf South Conference Academic
Team and Basketball Team Captain • Moot Court Board • LSU Law School Hall of Fame • AV
rating from Martindale-Hubbell for legal ability and adherence to professional standards of ethics
• Academy of Court Appointed Masters • LSU Law School Adjunct Professor • LADC Annual
Trial Academy, Faculty • LSU Law Center Trial Academy, Faculty • Lectured at LSU, Louisiana
Association of Defense Counsel, State Bar Association, and Local Bar Association Seminars
EXHIBIT 6
WESTERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Defendants.
Case No. 4:13-CV-00086-0DS
)
)
)
DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT, ESQ., ON ADEQUACY NOTICE PLAN
I, Steven Weisbrot, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I submit this declaration for the purpose of providing the Court with information
regarding the design, future implementation and adequacy of the notice program proposed in this
case to reach unknown class members.
2.
I am the Executive Vice President and Associate General Counsel at the class
action notice and claims administration firm, Angeion Group, LLC ("Angeion"). I have been
responsible in whole or in part for the design and implementation of more than one hundred class
action administration plans and have taught accredited Continuing Legal Education courses on
the Ethics of Legal Notification in Class Action Settlements, using Digital Media in Class Action
Notice Programs as well as Class Action Claims Administration generally. Additionally, I am the
author of numerous articles on Class Action Notice, Class Action Claims Administration and
Notice Design, in publications such as Bloomberg, BNA Class Action Litigation Report, Law360
and professional law firm blogs. Prior to joining Angeion's executive team, I was employed as
Director of Class Action Services at Kurtzman Carson Consultants, a nationally-recognized class
action notice and settlement administrator. Previous to my claims administration experience, I
948528
was employed in private law practice and I am currently an attorney in good standing in the State
of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. My C.V. is attached as Exhibit "A."
3.
By way of background, Angeion Group is a class action notice and claims
administration company formed by a team of executives with more than 60 combined years of
experience implementing claims administration and notice solutions for class action settlements
and judgments. With executives that have had tenures at five other nationally recognized claims
administration companies, collectively, the management team at Angeion has overseen more
than 2,000 class action settlements, processed over 250 million claims, and distributed over $10
billion to class members.
4.
This declaration will describe the notice program that my staff and I propose for
this case, including the considerations that informed the development of the plan and why we
believe it will be effective.
5.
SUMMARY OF NOTICE PLAN
The reach of the notice program is specifically designed to meet due process requirements and is
consistent with other effective court-approved notice programs. Specifically, the notice program
will deliver a 73.0% reach with an average frequency of 2.91 times each, via publication in wellknown consumer magazines and use of internet banner ads as more fully described within. The
73.0% reach figure does not include notice delivered consequent to the Facebook ads, press
release, direct mail campaign and/or informational website, which will also be used in this
matter, because those items are not capable of precise reach calculations. The aforementioned
items will nonetheless aid in informing the class of their rights and options relative to the
settlement above and beyond the use of consumer magazines and internet banner ads.
948528
2 86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 11
Case 4:13-cv-00086-ODS Document
6.
CLASS DEFINITION AND TARGET
This matter contemplates two nationwide settlement classes, encompassing economic-loss claims
involving: (1) all Model 700, 721, 722, 725, Seven, Sportsman 78, 600, 660, 673, XP-100, 710,
715, and 770 firearms manufactured by Remington or SGPI that contain trigger mechanisms that
utilize a trigger connector; and (2) Model 700 and Seven bolt-action rifles containing X-Mark
Pro trigger mechanisms that are subject to the April 2014 voluntary recall;
7.
In developing the notice program, I was advised by counsel that that there were
approximately 6,650,000 firearms sold under the models referenced in Class A, although not all
of them may still be in circulation. Likewise, I was advised that there are approximately 1.2
million Class B rifles.
Moreover, I was advised that there are less than 10,000 US Postal
Address or e-mail addresses available via the defendant's records.
8.
Demographic and media usage data are not readily available for owners of the
particular Remington Models at issue in this litigation.
Consequently, to verify the notice
program's effectiveness, our media team analyzed syndicated research data using the GfK MRI
2013 Doublebase survey 1. We used "rifle owners," as the best representation for the class. We
chose this definition because this comprehensive, over inclusive target group, best represents the
Class.
9.
Understanding the socio-economic characteristics, interests and practices of a
target group aids in the proper selection of media to reach that target. Here, the data indicates a
heavy male skew, with men accounting for 73.1% of the total audience.
The majority are
1
GfK MRI is a leading supplier of publication readership and product usage data for the
communications industry. GfK MRI offers complete demographic, lifestyle, product usage and
exposure to all forms of advertising media. As the leading U.S. source of multimedia audience
research, GfK MRI provides information to magazines, television and radio networks and
stations, internet sites, other media, leading national advertisers, and over 450 advertising
agencies- including 90 of the top 100 in the U.S. MRI's national syndicated data is widely used
by companies as the basis for the majority of the media and marketing plans that are written for
advertised brands in the U.S.
948528
3 86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 4 of 11
married (67%) and between the ages of 35 and 64, with an average age of 48. The average
household income is $86,550 (compared to the national average of $74,900). Eighty percent
own a horne, with an average horne value of $221,996.
10.
In order to identify the best print vehicles to deliver messaging to the target
audience, over 200 measured titles were analyzed in GfK MRI (2013 Doublebase).
While
coverage, or reach, was the most critical factor in title selection, other considerations were taken
into account, including audience composition, pricing efficiencies and editorial relevancy.
11.
PUBLICATION NOTICE
Based on the GFK MRI data analysis, the parties will place a half page notice, substantially in
the form attached as Ex. C to the Parties' Settlement Agreement, in each of the following titles:
USA Weekend
18,391,341
Athlon Sports
9,263,338
Field & Stream
1,254,256
Guns & Ammo
414,670
North American Hunter
558,481
American Rifleman
American Hunter
12.
I
2,238,735
899,253
INTERNET BANNER AND SOCIAL MEDIA NOTICE
In addition to the consumer magazine publications noted above, we recommend utilizing digital
and social media as supplementary media to aid in delivering notice to the class members. In
forming this recommendation, we utilized the online research tool, cornScore.
While this
syndicated tool is able to profile online users across a variety of demographic, psychographic and
behavioral data points, it does not currently profile rifle ownership. As such, a demographic
948528
4 86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 5 of 11
definition was established based on "rifle owners" as reported in GfK MRI. This definition was
determined as M35-64 with a HHI $75K+. This demographic profile was used to establish the
top online networks for this initiative and will also aid in the design and implementation of a
Facebook Advertising Campaign designed to supplement to the consumer magazine and digital
banner ad campaign.
13.
INTERNET BANNER NOTICE
Advertising networks are recommended because they provide the largest reach of any publisher
category, allow for multiple targeting layers to ensure message exposure among the most
appropriate users, and help maintain efficiencies. While many publishers were considered, the
recommended partners were ultimately selected based on ability to provide the most aggressive
pricing with multiple targeting layers in order to ensure vast coverage of the target audience.
14.
The recommended networks include Xaxis, Yahoo! and Google Content Network.
A 4-week campaign across all publishers utilizing standard lAB sizes (160x600, 300x250,
728x90) will be targeted contextually, behaviorally and by keyword and will deliver in excess of
37,000,000 impressions.
15.
INDIVIDUAL NOTICE
The individual notice effort in this matter will consist of mailing Direct Notices, substantially in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, by U.S. Mail, proper postage prepaid, to each member of
the Settlement Class identified by the Parties through reasonable efforts, including all Settlement
Class Members who paid Remington to replace the Walker trigger mechanism in their Model
700 or Model Seven rifles with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism, as identified by Remington's
records.
948528
5 86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 6 of 11
16.
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
The parties will issue an informational press release to approximately 6,000 press outlets
throughout the U.S. There is no guarantee of the number of press outlets that will report the story
but a press release often provides a valuable role in class member notification, especially when
the settlement concerns a well-known consumer product.
17.
RESPONSE MECHANISMS
We will establish a toll-free telephone line to provide settlement-related information to
Settlement Class Members. The toll-free telephone number will be included in the published
notice, long form notice and direct notice and will be capable of receiving requests for Claim
Forms and/or the Long Form Notice as well as providing general information concerning
deadlines for opting out of the Settlement or objecting to it, and the dates of the relevant Court
proceedings, including the Final Approval Hearing.
The toll-free telephone facility and the
Settlement Phone Number shall be maintained for twenty (20) months after the Effective Date of
the settlement.
18.
Likewise, we will establish an informational case website, with an easy to
remember domain name, where class members can view relevant court documents, notice
documents, the claim form, operative dates and a frequently asked questions page ("the
Settlement Website"). The website will be prominently displayed on all notice materials.
19.
REACHANDFREQUENCY
The notice program will deliver 73.0% reach with an average frequency of 2.91 times each. The
Facebook ads, press release, direct mail campaign and Settlement Website are not capable of
precise reach calculations but will nonetheless aid in informing the class of their rights and
options relative to the settlement.
948528
6
86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 7 of 11
20.
The reach of the target audience and the number of exposure opportunities
complies with due process and exceeds the Federal Judicial Center's threshold as to
reasonableness in notification programs designed to reach unidentified class members.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the Notice Program is fully compliant with Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
21.
In addition, although not included in the reach percentage above, the social media
campaign, informational press release and case website provide information about the Settlement
to Settlement Class Members and makes available to Settlement Class Members a copy of the
Long Form Notice.
22.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, the notice program meets the expressed requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and will provide members of the Settlement Class the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who could be
identified through reasonable effort. The notice program provides reach and frequency evidence
which courts systematically rely upon in reviewing class action notice programs for adequacy
and meets or exceeds the guidelines as set forth in the Federal Judicial Center's Judges' Class
Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, which considers 7095% reach among class members as reasonable.
23.
At the conclusion of the Notice Program, we will provide a final report verifying
the notice program's adequacy and implementation.
~· /v#H2<
STENWEiSBROT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this
_day
of December, 2014.
5th
948528
86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 8 of 11
7
••.• • •J>r
~.,~" .. ,.
..,.
..,,-,-~
-....
' ...... ,__ ,..... ......,.....
~·
·'<j..
-.. /
-s_ '::.\
.....
MIYYI1PJJ~::_
;1..
My
fj;~sj;~~iJs:
1I
948528
7
..
-
~~
~
.c--'-
,...
::--
,_
-~- ._:~r
-
~
r
"";- :~-- -_..
XI OMARA FERNANDEz--·· .....
NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY
J.D. # 2427387
My Commission Expires 11/28/2017
8 86-11 Filed 04/08/15 Page 9 of 11
.:-_-: :=
-= ..
il
-
-
---
~
Steven Weisbrot, Esquire
1251 Sunnyfield Lane, Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076
(856) 236-7627
Steve@AngeionGroup.com
Summary
Education
Nationally recognized authority on class action notice and settlement administration, with strong
expertise in the design and implementation of claims processes, claim form design, legal
notification campaigns and the use of digital and social media in class action notice campaigns.
Duke University
Continuing Studies, Durham, NC
Expected
Completion
January
2015
Certificate program in Digital Media and Marketing
Rutgers University School of Law
Juris Doctor, Camden, NJ
2004
Rowan University
2001
Bachelors of Arts-Professional Writing/Journalism, Glassboro, NJ
Career History & Accomplishments
Angeion Group,
Executive Vice President, Sales & Strategy
•
•
•
10/13- Present
Collaborate on the design and implementation of various class action notice campaigns utilizing direct mail, print
publication, digital banner advertisements and social media.
Create and present accredited Continuing Legal Education classes to attorneys on class action notice and
ascertainability.
Contribute industry expertise to client engagements by acting as a consultant in class action settlement matters
including, offering specific expertise on legal notification, claims rates, claims administration, ascertainability and
settlement funds escrow.
Kurtzman Carson Consultants
Director, Class Action Services
•
•
•
•
April 2011- 9/13
Served as a thought leader on trends and developments within the class action community with special emphasis on
consumer, securities and employment class action litigation.
Frequent media contributor, author, commentator and guest-blogger with industry-wide recognition.
Collaborated with marketing department to design written and online materials apropos of a high-end, soft-sell,
business development campaign.
Lead high-stakes, multimedia pitches to potential clients.
Attorney in Private Practice
September 2004- April 2011
Lane M. Ferdinand P.A., Jaroslawicz & Jaros, LLC, Nagel Rice, LLP, Luber & Cataldi, LLC, Law Offices of Joseph Marrone
Exhibit A
•
Advised and advocated for clients in all aspects of commercial, class action and general liability cases
from inception up to and including trial, including drafting pleadings and discovery, taking and
defending lay and expert witness depositions, preparing witnesses and witness disclosures, arguing
dispositive and non-dispositive motions and appeals arising from such motions.
Speaking Engagements and Accredited CLE Programs
12/2012 Morgan Lewis & Bockius- Ethics of Legal Notification in Class Action Settlements
08/2013 DLA Piper- The Fundamentals of Settlement Administration
10/2013 New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education-- Nuts and Bolts of Filing a Class Action
5/2014 Angeion Group LLC and Xaxis, Class Action Digital and Social Media Symposium, Use of Digital and Social Media in
Class Action Settlements
9/2014 Duane Morris LLP, - Ascertainability and Damages Issues In Food and Cosmetic Mislabeling Class Actions
9/2014 Perrin Conferences- Ascertainability and Damages Issues In Food and Cosmetic Mislabeling Class Actions
10/2014 Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC, and Keller Rohrback LLP- Cutting Edge Class Action Notice
Programs
10/2014 American Bar Association -2014 Class Actions National Institute- Big Shoulders and High Standards. Can Plaintiff
Scale the Third Circuit’s New Ascertainability Wall?”
Articles Authored or Co-Authored
A New Approach for Class Action Media Notice Programs
Portfolio Media (Law360)
2014
4 Steps For Smooth Class Action Settlement Administration
Portfolio Media (Law360)
2013
BNA publications
2012
classactionlawsuitdefense.com
2012
Steven Weisbrot When selecting a class action settlement administrator:
Do not Settle for Less!
How to Design Your Notice to Minimize Professional Objectors
Memberships & Affiliations
•
•
•
•
Member in good standing of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bar
UJA Federation of NY (Leadership Board, Young Lawyers Division, Emerging Leaders and Philanthropists)
American Bar Association
UJA of Greater Metrowest, Community Relations Council, Holocaust Memorial Committee
EXHIBIT 7
WESTERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4: 13-CV-00086-0DS
Defendants.
____________________________
)
DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT, ESQ., ON ADEQUACY NOTICE PLAN
I, Steven Weisbrot, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I submit this declaration for the purpose of updating the Court with information
regarding the design, future implementation and adequacy of the notice program proposed in this
case to reach unknown class members.
2.
I previously submitted a declaration in this case (Doc. 80-11, February 9, 2015)
outlining the notice program that my staff and I proposed for this case, including the
considerations that informed the development of the plan and why we believe it will be effective.
3.
Specifically, the notice program I previously submitted was designed to deliver a
73.0% reach with an average frequency of 2.91 times each, via publication in well-known
consumer magazines and use of internet banner ads as more fully described in the Declaration.
The 73.0% reach figure did not include notice delivered consequent to the Facebook ads, press
release, direct mail campaign and/or informational website, which will also be used in the
revised plan, because those items are not capable of precise reach calculations.
The
aforementioned items will nonetheless aid in informing the class of their rights and options
relative to the settlement above and beyond the use of consumer magazines and internet banner
ads.
4.
REVISED NOTICE PLAN
In the course of confirming the dates by which the parties would need to submit
their final notice documents to the publications in order to secure publication space, we
uncovered that there have been two changes to the publication schedule that affect the instant
notice plan, albeit not substantially.
5.
The first change is that USA Weekend has ceased publication all together. Their
last issue was published 12/24/14. The second change pertinent to the plan under this Court's
consideration is that North American Hunter will be moving to a 1x publishing schedule,
meaning they will only publish once a year. Therefore, North American Hunter's next on sale
date would be 9/25/2015.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties' preliminary
approval motion sought a deadline for submission of objections and opt-outs as 60 days after the
last publication notice.
Under those circumstances, it is my expert opinion that using
publications that would afford the same or better reach percentage and frequency would be
advisable.
6.
Therefore, in order to effectuate a reach percentage in excess of the original plan
and in order to keep within the timeline contemplated under the settlement agreement, we will
omit publication in both USA Weekend and North American Hunter and instead utilize Parade
Magazine. All other details ofthe original notice plan will remain identical.
7.
The revised media plan will garner a 73.7% reach and 2.96 average frequency,
which is an increase over the original media plan which offered a 73.0% reach with an average
frequency of2.91 times each.
2
;;.,,
8.
REACH AND FREQUENCY
The revised notice program will deliver 73.7% reach with an average frequency of 2.96 times
each. As with the initial notice plan, the Facebook ads, press release, direct mail campaign and
Settlement Website are not capable of precise reach calculations but will nonetheless aid in
informing the class of their rights and options relative to the settlement.
9.
The revised reach of the target audience and the number of exposure opportunities
complies with due process and exceeds the Federal Judicial Center's threshold as to
reasonableness in notification programs designed to reach unidentified class members.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the Notice Program is fully compliant with Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
10.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, the revised notice program meets the expressed requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will provide members of the Settlement Class the best
notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who could
be identified through reasonable effort.
The revised notice program provides reach and
frequency evidence which courts systematically rely upon in reviewing class action notice
programs for adequacy and meets or exceeds the guidelines as set forth in the Federal Judicial
Center's Judges' Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide,
which considers 70-95% reach among class members as reasonable.
11.
At the conclusion of the Notice Program, we will provide a final report verifying
the notice program's adequacy and implementation.
&JeRe.
me CijfttUut~ Stever1
Cn 0~~ Joe,
/2o1s .
--wr
~~rr:-
H. \Je,(~h'ot .,STEVEN WEISBROT
....-..__..-..._..-.._ ....-...-.._..-._..-.__..-..._..-._
3
.
...-
RUTE GANDARI!Z
Notaf'y PQbflc
State, of N.ew Jersey
~lt•s Jut
h2915
·:.,,"""Coministlon
:
~
..-_
\
..._..-__.
Case 4:13-cv-00086-ODS Document 86-12 Filed 04/08/15 Page
4 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this
6th day ofMarch, 2015.
4

Settlement Agreement - Remington Arms Class Action Settlement

Transcription

Similar documents

Elizabeth M. Tannon | Of Counsel

Editorial - The Chamber of Tax Consultants

Geography Inquiry #1 - Where Would You Live?

Here For Pdf Version

Join the UK’s largest full-service law firm

Press Release

EX_People_and_Culture_2_files/PEOPLE AND - GEO

the PDF

Winchester Ultra Shadow Marlin 1895 Ruger M77

Piikani Nation Waters