Opinion
8:24CV2308:24CV2318:24CV2338:24CV2348:24CV2358:24CV252
07-10-2024
In Re Signature Performance Data Security Incident Litigation
Mason A Barney SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Bryan L. Bleichner Philip J. Krzeski CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA M. Anderson Berry (SBN 262879) Gregory Haroutunian CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Jeff Ostrow KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel Terence R. Coates MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC Jason M. Wucetich WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP Jean S. Martin MORGAN & MORGAN Gary Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Daniel Srourian SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class *Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming
Mason A Barney
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
Bryan L. Bleichner
Philip J. Krzeski
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
M. Anderson Berry (SBN 262879)
Gregory Haroutunian
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Jeff Ostrow
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel
Terence R. Coates
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
Jason M. Wucetich
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
Jean S. Martin
MORGAN & MORGAN
Gary Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
Daniel Srourian
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class *Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming
ORDER
Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge
The plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases, excluding Court v. Signature Performance, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, have filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 6 in Case No. 8:24CV230). Because the Court action was filed four days after the motion was filed, the Court is uncertain whether Court and his counsel have received notice of the motion, and whether Court has position a position on the motion. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, the Court will provide counsel with an opportunity to respond to the motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: Any response to the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 6 in Case No. 8:24CV230) must be filed on or before July 24, 2024.
The motion and accompanying supporting documents were filed only in McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230 (June 17, 2024), which the moving parties anticipate will be designated as the Lead Case. The Court has attached a copy of the motion, brief, and attachments to this Order.
PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a) and 23(g)(3), Plaintiffs in the five above-captioned Related Actions, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Honorable Court for the consolidation of the Related Actions and appointment of Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP (“Barney”), Bryan L. MABleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA (“Bleichner”), M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation (“Berry”), and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. (“Ostrow”) as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel to collectively lead this litigation and help assure the orderly prosecution of the eventual consolidated action.
This Motion also seeks to stay all case deadlines in the Related Actions during the pendency of this Motion, including deadlines for Defendants to respond to the respective complaints. Plaintiffs request that Defendants' response to the respective complaints be set as follows: if the Court grants this Motion, then forty-five (45) days from the filing of a Consolidated Complaint; or, if the Court denies this Motion, then forty-five (45) days from the date of the Court's order of denial. In addition, in the event Defendants' response is a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs request the following briefing schedule: 30 days to file their opposition brief, and 21 days for Defendants to file a reply brief. Further, Plaintiffs request Defendants be granted leave of court pursuant to Local Rule 7 to file a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss.
As discussed in detail in the accompanying Memorandum, (a) the Related Actions involve common parties and similar issues of law and fact; (b) the putative class representatives in each of the Related Actions seek to represent similar classes of persons (collectively referred to as the “Class”) whose personal information was provided to and maintained by Defendants and compromised in the data security incident that is the subject of the Related Actions (the “Data Breach”); (c) Plaintiffs and the proposed Class were similarly impacted by the Data Breach; (d) the Related Actions arise out of similar circumstances, making consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) appropriate; and (e) the appointment of Barney, Bleichner, Berry, and Ostrow as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is in the best interests of the putative class in that it will provide efficiencies to the parties and the Court and will avoid uncertainty and confusion as to who may speak for the putative Class.
This Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum and exhibits attached thereto. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs' request and consolidate the Related Actions, establish the requested briefing schedule, and appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel.
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and accompanying Memorandum in Support submitted by Plaintiffs Curtis Mclean, Brandi Canady, Rachael Reese, Lea Jacobs, and Monica Enriquez (the “Motion”), as well as the accompanying exhibits, and has determined that consolidation and appointment of interim co-lead class counsel in this proposed class action will promote judicial efficiency and orderly case management while avoiding unnecessary cost and delay.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED as set forth below:
1. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a), the Court hereby consolidates McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00230 (filed June 17, 2024), Canady v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00231 (filed June 18, 2024), Reese v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00233 (filed June 18, 2024), Jacobs v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., No. 8:24-cv-00234 (filed June 18, 2024), and Enriquez v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00235 (filed June 18, 2024) under the new title “In re Signature Performance Data Security Incident Litigation” (each a “Related Action” and together the “Consolidated Action”).
2. No further filings shall be made in Canady v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00231, Reese v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00233, Jacobs v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., No. 8:24-cv-00234, or Enriquez v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00235, which shall all be administratively closed. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint shall be filed within the next 45 days, as further set forth below. This Order shall apply to any subsequently filed putative class action alleging the same or substantially similar allegations.
3. All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action.
4. Defendant, Signature Performance, shall file a Notice of Related Case whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this District. If any party objects to such consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief, they shall do so within ten (10) calendar days. If the Court determines that the case is related, the clerk shall:
a. Place a copy of this Order in the separate docket for such action;
b. Serve on plaintiff's counsel in the new case a copy of this Order;
c. Direct this Order to be served upon any additional defendant(s) in the new case; and d. Make the appropriate entry on the Master Docket.
5. The Court shall enter a scheduling order for further pretrial proceedings as soon as is reasonably practicable.
6. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an operative Consolidated Complaint within 45 days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall have 45 days from the date on which Plaintiffs file the Consolidated Complaint to file a response thereto. In the event that Defendants' response is a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to file their opposition brief, and Defendants shall have 21 days to file a reply brief.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, having given due consideration to the relevant factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1) and (4), including, without limitation, Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), and finding that the proposed counsel meet the adequacy requirements thereunder, the following are appointed and shall serve as overall Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3):
1. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP
2. Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA
3. M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation
4. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.
Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. Specifically, Interim Co-Lead Counsel shall have the following responsibilities, duties and sole authority to:
a. Draft and file the master consolidated complaint, and have final authority regarding what claims and parties are to be included;
b. Determine and present in pleadings, briefs, motions, oral argument, or such other fashion as may be appropriate, personally or by a designee, to the Court and opposing parties the position of Plaintiffs and the putative class on matters arising during the pretrial proceedings;
c. Coordinate and conduct discovery on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska;
d. Consult with and employ consultants and/or expert witnesses;
e. Draft and file a motion for class certification on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class;
f. Conduct all pre-trial proceedings on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class;
g. Enter into stipulations and agreements with Defendant;
h. Sign all papers filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class;
i. Convene meetings of all Plaintiffs' counsel, as necessary;
j. Form task-specific subcommittees of Plaintiffs' counsel, as appropriate;
k. Conduct settlement negotiations with Defendant;
l. Maintain an up-to-date service list of all Plaintiffs' counsel for all consolidated cases, and promptly advise the Court and Defendant's counsel of changes thereto;
m. Receive and distribute to Plaintiffs' counsel, as appropriate, discovery, pleadings correspondence, and other documents from Defendant's counsel or the Court that are not electronically filed;
n. Appear at Court-noticed status conferences and hearings;
o. Be the contact persons for all plaintiffs' counsel and as the attorneys of record with whom the Court will be dealing throughout the course of the litigation;
p. Delegate specific tasks to other plaintiffs' counsel in a manner to avoid duplicative efforts and ensure that pretrial preparation for Plaintiffs and the putative class is conducted effectively, efficiently, and economically;
q. Otherwise coordinate the work of all plaintiffs' counsel, and perform such other duties as the Interim Co-Lead Counsel deem necessary to advance the litigation or as authorized by further Order of the Court;
r. Maintain and collect time and expense records for work performed, time billed, costs incurred and other disbursements made by Plaintiffs' counsel whose work Interim Co-Lead Counsel has specifically authorized, and submit at the Court's request, in writing, ex parte and in camera reports to the Court regarding time billed in the prosecution of this action. At such time as may be appropriate, Co-Lead Counsel will also recommend appointment and allocation of fees and expenses subject to court approval;
s. Fund the necessary and appropriate costs of discovery and other common benefit efforts;
and
t. Perform such other functions as necessary to effectuate these responsibilities or as may be expressly authorized by further Order of the Court.
It is the Court's intent that, as to all matters common to these coordinated cases, and to the fullest extent consistent with the independent fiduciary obligations owed by any and all Plaintiffs' counsel to their clients and any putative class, pretrial proceedings shall be conducted by and through Co-Lead Interim Counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other plaintiffs' counsel who are or may become involved in the Consolidated Action are prohibited from taking any action on behalf of the putative class in this Consolidated Action without advance authorization from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, except for an application to modify or be relieved from this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mere communication of otherwise privileged information among and between Plaintiffs' counsel shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product immunity, as the Court recognizes that cooperation by and among counsel is essential for the orderly and expeditious resolution of this litigation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for all parties are directed to cooperate with one another, wherever possible, to promote the expeditious handling of pre-trial proceedings in the Consolidated Action, and to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
It is hereby ORDERED that this Order shall apply to any action filed in, transferred to, or removed to this Court which relates to the subject matter at issue in this case.
SO ORDERED.MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL
Plaintiffs submit the following memorandum in support of their Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-lead Class Counsel.
I. INTRODUCTION
The above-listed related class action lawsuits have common questions of facts and law against the same defendant, Signature Performance, Inc. (“SPI” or “Defendant”) (collectively with Southeastern Regional Medical Center d/b/a UNC Health Southeastern, Adventist Health System/West, and Adventist Health Tulare, “Defendants”), and are currently pending in this District (collectively, the “Related Actions”). The Related Actions each arise from the same operative facts surrounding a cyberattack on Defendant's computer network beginning on or between January 17 and January 18, 2024 (“the Data Breach”). The types of information impacted in the Data Breach-names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs (collectively, the “Private Information”)-are the same in each Related Action. Furthermore, Plaintiffs in the Related Actions allege their Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs also commonly raise legal questions that Defendant breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties that allowed the Data Breach to occur. Finally, each Related Action seeks the same type of remedies and compensation for those injured and affected by the Data Breach. As such, the Related Actions present common factual and legal questions, which will involve the same and/or similar discovery efforts. Accordingly, consolidation of this litigation under Rule 42(a) will promote efficiency in the discovery process, consistency in judicial rulings, and will reduce duplication, costs, and delay.
Moreover, Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP (“Barney”), Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA (“Bleichner”), M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation (“Berry”), and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. (“Ostrow”) (collectively, “Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel”) are the right team to guide this litigation for the putative Class members. Barney, Bleichner, Berry, and Ostrow are nationally recognized as leaders in data breach litigation and have litigated dozens of data breach and privacy class actions. Moreover, their four firms have the resources necessary to prosecute and take a complex data breach class action like the one before this Court to trial. Thus, their appointment will best serve the Class.
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel were the first to file complaints arising out of the Data Breach and, since then, have been intimately involved in investigating, prosecuting, and coordinating this litigation, including the preparation and filing of this Motion. Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel at this early juncture will facilitate coordinated prosecution of the Related Actions and the possibility of early potential resolution, thereby conserving judicial resources.
McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00230 (filed June 17, 2024), Canady v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00231 (filed June 18, 2024), Reese v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00233 (filed June 18, 2024), Jacobs v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., No. 8:24-cv-00234 (filed June 18, 2024), and Enriquez v. Signature Performance, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00235 (filed June 18, 2024).
For these reasons, Plaintiffs propose that the Related Actions be consolidated and Interim Co-Lead Counsel, who represent counsel for all Related and putatively consolidated Actions, have responsibility for strategic decisions associated with the prosecution and possible early resolution of these consolidated cases (and any subsequently filed consolidated case). As described herein, Plaintiffs' proposed leadership structure will permit them to prosecute these Related Actions efficiently and in the best interests of the putative Class. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel are experienced in handling class action litigation, particularly data breach and privacy cases, and have performed substantial work investigating, originating, coordinating, and litigating Plaintiffs' claims. Further, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have the experience, knowledge, and resources to continue to prosecute an eventual consolidated action in the putative class members' best interest. Additionally, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have a history of working together and, in the event they are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, will continue to work cooperatively and effectively in accordance with the interests of the putative Class members.
II. BACKGROUND
These Related Actions arise out of the Data Breach involving Defendant, SPI. Defendant is a healthcare administration provider headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska that provides direct services to healthcare providers. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that between January 17 and January 18, 2024, a third-party cybercriminal gained unauthorized access to Defendant's computer systems and network and exfiltrated data containing the sensitive information of hundreds of thousands of individuals (the “Data Breach”). Defendant and its customers began notifying state Attorneys General and Class members about the Data Breach on or around June 10, 2024.
In or around early June of 2024, Plaintiffs each received notice from Defendants (or another of SPI's customers) that they were victims of the Data Breach and decided to file their respective class actions within a week of receiving such notice. Plaintiffs allege virtually identical facts and similar legal claims in the Related Actions, including but not limited to, Defendants' failure to properly safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) (collectively, “Private Information”). Through the Related Actions, Plaintiffs allege a number of causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Following the filing of the Related Actions, counsel for Plaintiffs recognized the importance of quickly and efficiently organizing and prosecuting Plaintiffs' claims and discussed potential consolidation and coordination of their respective actions, prompting Plaintiffs to file this Motion.
Reese v. Signature Performance, Inc. Case No. 8:24-cv-00233 also alleges California statutory violations on behalf of a proposed California Subclass.
III.CONSOLIDATION OF THE RELATED ACTIONS
A. The Related Actions should be consolidated.
Plaintiffs respectfully request and jointly agree that the Related Actions be consolidated. The power to consolidate related actions falls within the broad inherent authority of every court “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Consolidation of actions in federal court is governed by Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.Rule 42(a); see also UNeMed Corp. v. ProMera Health, LLC, No. 8:15CV135, 2016 WL 1259387, at *2 (D. Neb. Mar. 30, 2016) (“Consolidation of separate actions presenting a common issue of law or fact is permitted under Rule 42 as a matter of convenience and economy in judicial administration.”) (citing 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2383 (2d ed. 1994)).
Here, consolidation of the Related Actions is warranted, as the Related Actions raise the same questions of law and arise from the same set of facts surrounding the Data Breach. Specifically, each of the Related Actions focuses on whether Defendant(s) is liable to Plaintiffs and putative Class for its failure to protect their Private Information with which it was entrusted. The Related Actions present the same factual and legal questions with respect to the formation of a duty and breach of that duty; involve the same Defendant, SPI; involve the same Data Breach; and involve the same types of Private Information. Undersigned Plaintiffs' counsel in each Related Action anticipate that the Related Actions would involve substantially the same discovery and that consolidation would add efficiency and consistency in judicial rulings, and reduce delay and cost. See Schultz v. Ameritrade, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183980 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2023) (“Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and court rulings.”). Indeed, if not consolidated, the separate Related Actions would result in virtually identical discovery requests, duplicative motions practice, and would cause an unnecessary drain on judicial resources. This is true despite minor variations in class definitions and state-specific causes of action in the Related Actions. As explained in Schultz, where the court granted a motion to consolidate various class complaints in a similar data breach case:
Because the plaintiffs' claims each arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals, all of the above-captioned actions will involve common questions of law and fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (permitting a court to consolidate actions “involve[ing] a common question of law or fact.”). Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and court rulings. Moreover, the plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated amended complaint in the first-filed action, Schultz v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et. al., Case No. 8:23CV375; thereafter, the plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the Shultz action only. Under the circumstances, the Court finds Plaintiff Schultz's motion should be granted and the above-captioned cases should be consolidated for all purposes.Id.
In addition, to ensure continued judicial efficiency, Plaintiffs also respectfully submit that the Court should order that any future actions that are filed or transferred to this Court based on the same or similar facts and circumstances be consolidated with this case. See, e.g., In re Life Partners Holdings, Inc., No. DR-11-CV-43-AM, 2012 WL 12875942, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 9, 2012) (“future cases ‘arising out of the same or substantially the same transactions or events as the above captioned cases' shall be united into the consolidated case.”); see also Troy Stacy Enterprises Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 337 F.R.D. 405, 411 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (“All related actions that are subsequently filed in, or transferred to, this District shall be consolidated into this action.”).
Defendants will suffer no prejudice by litigating one consolidated action rather than five- or many more-separate suits. Indeed, they would be well-served by the efficiencies gained by consolidation. Therefore, consolidation of the Related Actions would inure to the benefit of all Parties.
B. Proposed Scheduling Order
For efficiency, Plaintiffs propose the following schedule for upcoming briefing:
1. If the Court grants this Motion, Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint within 45 days of the Court's order granting this Motion;
2. Defendants shall have 45 days from the filing of the consolidated complaint to file a responsive pleading; and
3. In the event Defendants' response is a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall have 30 days thereafter to file any opposition, and Defendants shall have 21 days thereafter to file a reply in support.
IV. APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) permits the appointment of interim lead counsel “to act on behalf of putative class members before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(3) (cited by this Court in Pulliam et al. v. West Technology Group, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-03072-BCB-MDN (Doc. #14) (granting plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim co-lead counsel) and Scott v. Union Bank & Trust Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127732, *3 (D. Neb. July 25, 2023) (same)). Early appointment of interim class counsel is warranted when there are competing “copycat” filings or the risk of such filings. Multiple identical or similar actions prevent efficient prosecution of claims, disjointed legal strategy, and prejudice to both defendants, plaintiffs, and putative class members. See Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co., 381 F.Supp.3d 853, 867 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (“Designation of interim counsel is particularly appropriate when a number of lawyers have filed related ‘copycat' actions.”); Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC, No. C14-0244-JCC, 2014 WL 12028588, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2014) (“designation of interim counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any necessary discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.”) (quoting Manual of Complex Litigation § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004)).
Rule 23(g) contemplates early appointment of class counsel, even where there are no competing applications, if there is a likelihood that copycat cases will follow. See, e.g., Schultz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183980, *7-8 (D. Neb. 2023) (“Given the relatively recent notification of thousands of affected individuals, it is reasonable to assume more lawsuits with similar or identical claims arising out of the same data breach could be forthcoming”); see also Scott, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127732, *5 (same). Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23(g)(2)(A) explain that the rule “authorizes [a] court to designate interim counsel during the pre-certification period if necessary to protect the interests of the putative class.”
Here, there is a substantial risk that copycat cases will be filed, and early appointment of counsel to lead the prosecution of this class case is necessary to avoid wasting resources. The full impact of the Data Breach has yet to be determined but may likely number into the hundreds of thousands of individuals affected. Designating lead counsel now ensures the protection of the interests of the Class in making and responding to motions, conducting discovery, and negotiating possible settlements. See Scott, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127732 at *5 (D. Neb. July 25, 2023) (finding that “appointment of interim counsel at this juncture makes sense”); Syzmczak v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., Nos. 10 CV 7493(VB), 12 CV 2149(VB), 2012 WL 1877306, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012) (citing Manual for Complex Litig. § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004)).
Determining the appointment of lead class counsel requires the court to consider counsel's: “(1) work in identifying and investigating potential claims; (2) experience in handling class action and complex litigation and the types of claims asserted in the action; (3) knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) available resources.” Adedipe, 2020 WL 835174, at *2 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1)(A)). The court may also consider “any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1)(B). The purpose of this Court's review is to ensure that counsel appointed to leading roles are “qualified and responsible, that they will fairly and adequately represent all parties on their side, and that their charges will be reasonable.” Manual for Complex Litig. § 10.22 (4th ed. 2004) . The ultimate goal is “achieving efficiency and economy without jeopardizing fairness to parties.” Id. § 10.221; see also Cappello v. Franciscan All., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-290-TLS-MGG, 2017 WL 781609, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 28, 2017). Ultimately, no single factor is determinative; instead, a court should appoint counsel after evaluating all relevant considerations and comparing the relative strengths of counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)-(B); 7B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice. & Procedure § 1802.3 (3d ed. 2005).
B. The Court Should Appoint Barney, Bleichner, Berry, and Ostrow as Interim Co-Lead Counsel Under Rule 23(g).
As Plaintiffs demonstrate below, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel satisfy all requirements for appointment by the Court.
i. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have Performed Substantial Work Investigating and Litigating the Claims.
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have been diligent in investigating and advancing this litigation. See Pulliam, Case No. 4:23-cv-03072-BCB-MDN (Doc. #14 at 2) (granting plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim co-lead counsel, observing that “[p]roposed interim co-lead counsel were the first to file a case arising out of the data breach at issue in these cases, and have been involved in investigating, prosecuting, and coordinating this litigation, including the preparation and filing of the motion for consolidation.”). Counsels' investigations prior to filing the Related Actions included, without limitation, analyzing the circumstances surrounding the Data Breach, interviewing individuals injured by the Data Breach, researching potential legal claims, drafting initial pleadings and statutory notices, and organizing Plaintiffs and counsel to self-consolidate the actions and move the litigation forward. Indeed, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel worked to quickly organize and avoid any delay that could be caused by a leadership dispute to address the merits of the case as expeditiously as possible. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel's efforts at self-organization were successful, as evidenced by this Motion.
Going forward, and if appointed, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel will establish a standardized protocol for managing and reporting time and expenses incurred. Accordingly, the substantial work and investigation to date weigh in favor of appointing Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(3).
ii. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel Have Significant Relevant Experience.
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel are well-qualified to lead this case. Each member has a track record of successfully litigating and resolving consumer class actions, particularly data breach class actions. See Scott, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127732 (D. Neb. 2023) (“As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate these cases”). Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have ample experience handling class actions-including class actions involving data breaches-complex litigation, and consumer claims. The qualifications and experience of Proposed Interim Co-Lead counsel are set forth below.
Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad
Mr. Barney is a partner at Siri & Glimstad with over seventeen (17) years of experience in complex litigation. Mr. Barney was recently involved in a class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) which resulted in a settlement of $25,000,000 (plus free satellite radio service) to a potential class of over 14 million customers (Buchanan v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00728 (N.D. Tex.)). Mr. Barney was also trial co-counsel for plaintiffs in an ERISA matter filed as a class action involving breaches of fiduciary duty related to the management and termination of an ESOP, which settled after the beginning of trial for $1,080,000 for the class (Kindle v. Dejana, No. 14-cv-06784 (E.D.N.Y.).
Mr. Barney has also served in leadership positions and as class counsel in numerous data breach and privacy matters, including having been recently appointed class counsel in Carter, et al. v. Vivendi Ticketing U.S. LLC d/b/a See Tickets, No. 8:22-cv-01981 (C.D. Cal.), which received final approval for a settlement involving 437,310 class members and a $3,000,000 non-reversionary settlement fund; Gilleo et al. v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., No. 8:2021-cv-01928-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), which settled with over $2,000,000 of relief going to the class members; Armstrong et al. v. Gas South, LLC, Civil Action No. 22106661 (Sup. Ct. Cobb Cty., Ga.) which received final approval for a settlement involving 38,671 class members and valued at over $9 million; Medina v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00480 (D. Del.), which received final approval for a settlement involving 33,000 class members and a $750,000 non-reversionary settlement fund; and In re Sovos Compliance Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-12100-AK (D. Mass.), which received preliminary approval for a settlement involving roughly half a million class members and a $3,534,128.50 non-reversionary settlement fund).
Additionally, Mr. Barney is currently serving as interim class counsel in a number of other data breach actions, including but not limited to, In re: Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00146 (D. Me.), Perez v. Carvin Wilson Software LLC, Case No. cv-23-00792 (D. Ariz.), Nulf v. Alvaria, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10999 (D. Mass.), Rasmussen et al. v. Uintah Basin Healthcare, Case No. 2:23-cv-00322 (D. Ut.), Skurauskis, et al. v. NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 0:23-cv-60830 (S.D. Fl.), In re Family Vision Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2023CP0401671 (S.C., County of Anderson), In re Data Security Litigation Against Brightline, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02132, In re: Vivendi Ticketing U.S. LLC, d/b/a See Tickets Data Security Incident, Case No. 2:23-cv-07498 (C.D. Cal.), In re DISH Network Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01168 (D. Colo.), In re Sovos Compliance Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-12100 (D. Mass.), Boudreaux v. Systems East, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01498 (N.D.N.Y.), Pulliam et al. v. West Technology Group, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-03072-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.), and Scott et al v. Union Bank and Trust Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-03126-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.).
Mr. Barney holds an undergraduate degree in Computer Science and, after college, served as a database programmer for three years, giving him additional insight and knowledge into the highly complex issues that arise in data breach litigation. He has also published articles concerning data privacy and cyber security issues in leading publications such as Inc. Magazine, Bloomberg BNA, and Inside Counsel Magazine. Further details about Mr. Barney, as well as Siri & Glimstad's class action group, are included in the firm resume submitted herewith as Exhibit 1.
Bryan Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne, P.A.
Bryan L. Bleichner is a shareholder at Chestnut Cambronne PA, an officer of the Antitrust Section of the National Federal Bar Association, a featured speaker at the National American Bar Association, and a current member of the Sedona Conference Working Group Series. Mr. Bleichner has extensive experience serving as leadership or class counsel in numerous class action data breach cases including:
In re: Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00146 (D. Me.); In re Loancare Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508 (M.D. Fla.); Jones v. ESO Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01557 (W.D. Tex.); In re Orthoalaska Data Breach Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-00242 (D. Ala.); In re DISH Network Data Breach Security Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01168 (D.Col.); In re Whitworth Data Breach Security Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00179-SAB (E.D. Wash.); In re R&B Corporation of Virginia d/b/a Credit Control Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00066-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.); In Re: Group Health Plan Litig., Case No. 23-cv-267-JWB/DJF (D. Minn.): Rasmussen, et al., v. Uintah Basin Healthcare, Case No. 23-cv-00322-HCN-CMR (D. Ut.); Johnson v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, No. 2:22-cv-01061 (D. Ariz.); In re Netgain Technology, LLC, Consumer Data Breach Litigation, No. 21-cv-1210, (D. Minn.); In re 20/20 Eye Care Network Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 21-cv-61275-RAR (S.D. Fla.); Baker v. ParkMobile, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02182 (N.D.Ga.); In re Herff Jones Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-01329-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind.); In re EyeMed Vision Care, LLC Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio); In re Luxottica of America, Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-00908-MRB (S.D. Ohio); Greenstate Credit Union v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. 20-621-DSD-DTS (D. Minn.); Village Bank v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., No. 0:19-cv-01640 (D. Minn.); In re WaWa, Inc. Data Security Litigation, No. 19-cv-6019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.); In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 17-md-2800-TWT (N.D.Ga.); Midwest American Federal Credit Union v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 17-cv-00514-AT (N.D.Ga.); Bellwether Cmty. Credit Union v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-cv-1102 (D. Colo);
First Choice Fed. Credit Union v. The Wendy's Company, No. 2:16-cv-00506 (W.D. Pa.); Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00356 (W.D. Wash.); In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02583 (TWT) (N.D.Ga.); and In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 0:14-md-02522-PAM-JJK (D. Minn.); Lutz v. Electromed, Inc., No. 70-CV-21-11814 (D. Minn.); Thomas v. Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, No. 0:21-cv-02554 (D. Minn.); Seabrian v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc., No. STCV21-01652 (State Court of Chatham County, Georgia).
Mr. Bleichner also has experience serving as leadership or class counsel in non-data-breach class actions, including: Walker v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 20-cv-3414-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio); Maura Howard v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., No. 27-cv-20-10513 (Minn. 2020); Barclay v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 19-cv-02970-ECT-DTS (D. Minn.); In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-02863-WMW-KMM (D. Minn.); In re Pork Antitrust Litigation., No. 18-cv-1776-JRT-HB (D. Minn.); In re DPP Beef Litigation, No. 20-cv-1319-JRT/HB (D. Minn.); James Bruner v. Polaris Industries Inc., No. 18-cv-00939-WMW-DTS (D. Minn.); In re FedLoan Student Loan Servicing Litigation, No. 2:18-md-02833-CDJ (E.D. Pa.); Marie Travis v. Navient Corp., No. 17-cv-04885-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y.); Delamarter v. Supercuts, Inc., No. 19-3158-DSD-TNL (D. Minn.); and Christian v. National Hockey League, No. 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM (D. Minn.). Additional information regarding Mr. Bleichner and Chestnut Cambronne PA is detailed in the firm resume attached as Exhibit 2.
M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation
Mr. Berry is the head of the Complex Litigation Department at Clayeo C. Arnold, APC (“The Arnold Law Firm”), with an extensive background in privacy and consumer/government fraud litigation. Before joining The Arnold Law Firm in 2017, Mr. Berry worked as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California. As part of the Affirmative Civil Enforcement unit, Mr. Berry handled a wide variety of complex cases, recovering millions of dollars for the United States. Before working for the Department of Justice, Mr. Berry practiced at one of the world's largest law firms, Jones Day, where he represented clients in international arbitration and complex commercial litigation, including defending class action allegations. Mr. Berry is admitted to practice in numerous District Courts across the country, including having been admitted to practice in the District of Nebraska since 2022.
Mr. Berry has handled more than seventy class action cases across the country involving data breaches and other privacy matters. Mr. Berry has also been appointed to leadership in data breach and other privacy matters by courts throughout the United States in matters such as: In Re: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Data Breach Litig., No. 23-2-24266-a SEA (Washington Superior Court) (co-lead counsel); In Re: Overby-Seawell Company Customer Data Security Breach, No. 1:23-md-03056-SDG (N.D.Ga.) (co-lead counsel); In Re: Entertainment Partners Data Breach Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-06546-CAS (C.D. Cal.) (co-lead counsel); In Re: Snap Finance Data Breach Litigation, No. 2:22-cv-00761-TS (D. Utah) (co-lead counsel); Ware v. San Gorgonio Memorial Hosp., CVRI2301216 (Super. Ct. of Cal., Riverside) (co-lead counsel); In Re: Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill.) (co-lead counsel); In re: Cerebral, Inc. Privacy Practices, No. 2:23-cv-01803-FMO (C.D. Cal.) (liaison counsel); In re: Mednax Servs., Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 21-md-02994 (S.D. Fla.) (executive committee); Garcia v. Washington State Department of Licensing, Case No. 22-2-05635-5 (King County Superior Court) (co-lead resulting in $3.6 million settlement); In re: Proliance Surgeons Data Breach Litig., Case No. 23-2-23579-7 SEA (Washington Superior Court) (plaintiffs' executive committee); and McAuley v. Pierce College District, Case No. 23-2-11064-7 (Washington Superior Court) (plaintiffs' executive committee). and Desue v. 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-61275 (S.D. Fla.) (executive committee).
The Arnold Law Firm's resume is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.
Jeff Ostrow is the Managing Partner of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. and has been practicing law for 27 years. Mr. Ostrow established the South Florida-based firm immediately following his graduation from Nova Southeastern University in 1997 and has since grown it to 25 attorneys.
Beyond managing the firm, Mr. Ostrow heads the class action department and maintains a full caseload of nationwide class actions. Although Mr. Ostrow currently only represents class plaintiffs, he has prior experience defending large companies in class actions, including banks, commercial lenders, and tech companies, which affords him a valuable perspective and advantage in litigation and settlement.
Mr. Ostrow is counsel of record in numerous pending data breach cases. Several notable cases in which he is part of the leadership structure include: Crowe v. Managed Care of N. Am., Inc., No. 23-cv-61065 (S.D. Fla.), affecting eight million individuals, where he is Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs; Fortra File Transfer Software Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 24-md-3090 (S.D. Fla.), an MDL involving six million individuals, where he is MDL Co-Lead Counsel; In re HCA Healthcare Data Security Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-00684 (M.D. Tenn.), affecting eleven million people, where he is on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee; and Harrell v. WebTPA Employer Servs., LLC, No. 3:24-cv-1158-L (N.D. Tex.), affecting 2.5 million individuals, where he is Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.
For about 13 years, Mr. Ostrow's firm served as Coordinating Counsel, Settlement Class Counsel, and Lead Class Counsel in In re Checking Acct. Overdraft Litigation, No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK (S.D. Fla.), a large MDL that resulted in the recovery of $1.2 billion from the nation's largest banks, and is Liaison Counsel in In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:15-md-2626-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.), an antitrust class action with $85 million recovered to date. Moreover, Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. is co-counsel for Broward County and the City of Fort Lauderdale in In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, No. 1:17-md-2804 (N.D. Ohio), and for the Broward and Miami-Dade County School Boards in In re Juul Labs, No. 19-md-2913 (N.D. Cal.), helping clients recover $100 million and $26 million, respectively.
Federal judges have recognized Mr. Ostrow's commitment to excellence. In Farrell v. Bank of America, N.A., 327 F.R.D. 422, 432 (S.D. Cal. 2018), in which Mr. Ostrow served as lead counsel on behalf of millions of people, United States District Judge James Lorenz made the following observation when granting final approval of a settlement that included a $68 million recovery and $1.2 billion in injunctive relief requiring the defendant bank to stop an enormously lucrative practice:
Class Counsel achieved this result through tenacity and great skill. In all of their written submissions and in their presentation at the Final Approval Hearing, Class Counsel's arguments were laudably clear and precise, no small feat given the complexity of the legal questions at issue here. It is clear that substantial preparation went into all of Class Counsel's work on this case.
Similarly, when approving a $13 million settlement in which Mr. Ostrow was one of the lead counsel, United States District Judge James Lawrence King commented that “Class Counsel's efforts in pursing and settling these consumer claims were, quite simply, outstanding.” In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 1:09-md-02036-JLK, 2013 WL 11319244, *16 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2013). In another recent case in which Mr. Ostrow was lead counsel, United States District Judge Jose Martinez noted, “Here, Class Counsel worked extensively and with a high level of skill to advance Plaintiff's claims . . . The case involved difficult factual and legal issues from a global pandemic. . . . Despite the strong defenses presented by Barry [University], Class Counsel obtained an excellent result for the Settlement Class Members.” Rosado v. Barry Univ., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-21813-JEM (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 84 at 14.
Mr. Ostrow has worked constructively with Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel in other cases. He is confident that this proposed leadership structure will result in an excellent recovery for all clients and Class members. Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.'s resume is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
iii. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have Committed, and will Continue to Commit, the Resources Necessary to Represent the Class.
A court appointing interim lead counsel should consider, in part, the resources that counsel will commit to representing the putative classes. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1)(C). Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel can, as needed, draw upon the skills and talents of experienced attorneys and staff members located across the country. Each firm understands the time, energy, and skill necessary to lead this litigation and all have committed the resources required to ensure the effective and efficient representation of the Class members. In fact, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have already demonstrated their commitment to this litigation by devoting substantial resources to prosecuting this action. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have already engaged in discussions with experts and have expended significant resources in investigating the data breach, communicating with affected consumers, researching, and drafting complaints. To ensure that adequate funds are available to prosecute this litigation on behalf of the putative Class, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel will also establish a system to pay assessments proportional to the needs of the case. And, as their firm resumes and counsels' experience indicate, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have the resources and willingness to see this litigation through to its conclusion, including trial.
iv. Other Factors Support Designating Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Notably, the proposed leadership structure has the support of all the Related Actions. See In re Aluminum Phosphide Antitrust Litig., No. 93-2452, 1994 WL 481847, at **5, 7 (D. Kan. May 17, 1994) (“In designating lead counsel, the court will also give due consideration to the preferences expressed by the parties themselves, through their counsel. Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the court assumes that nominations and votes for lead counsel are made in good faith for reasons that benefit the client.”); see also In re Wendy's Co. S'holder Derivative Litig., No. 1:16-cv-1153, 2018 WL 6605394 at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 17, 2018) (quoting Kubiak v. Barbas, No. 3:11-cv-141, 2011 WL 2443715, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 14, 2011) (“[C]ounsel's ability to make inclusive efforts on behalf of all plaintiffs is an ‘essential attribute' for lead counsel.”)); Manual for Complex Litig. §§ 10.22 (noting desirability of “the attorneys coordinat[ing] their activities without the court's assistance”), 10.272 (describing “private ordering” approach). Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel's success in self-organizing and securing each other's support demonstrates their suitability for leadership roles.
Another important consideration in selecting leadership is the ability to work well as a team, with opposing counsel, and with the Court. The role of leadership in complex litigation places a premium on professionalism, cooperation, courtesy, and acceptance of the obligations owed as officers of the court, all of which are critical to successful management of the litigation. See Manual for Complex Litig. § 10.21. One of the demanding aspects of complex litigation is “the difficult[y] of having to communicate and establish effective working relationships with numerous attorneys (many of whom may be strangers to each other).” Id.
Unlike defense counsel, the plaintiffs' side of consolidated litigation must quickly and effectively merge together to form an alliance against often well-financed opponents. Here, counsel in the Related Actions have coordinated organizational efforts. Because the consolidation process has the potential to breed disorganization, in-fighting, and inefficiencies, it is useful to consider whether counsel applying for leadership “have worked together in other cases, their ability to collaborate in the past, divide work, avoid duplication, and manage costs.” See Bolch Judicial Institute, Duke Law School, Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs at 38, 45-46 (2d ed. 2018), available at https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/MDL-2nd-Edition-2018-For-Posting.pdf (“Duke Guidelines”), at 43. Selecting lawyers who have previously worked together, as is the case here with Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel, has many benefits. They have developed working relationships, know of complimentary talents, and have “developed certain systems for handling workflow and comparative advantages that will help expedite the case relative to a leadership committee working together for the first time.” Id. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have strong working relationships with each other that will benefit the Class and, recognizing this, moved quickly and effectively to organize the Related Actions to put forward the leadership structure proposed herein.
Importantly, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have not made any agreements with each other with respect to funding, cost-sharing, pooling clients, fees, or any other matter. Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel understand that they will be required to make contributions to fund the litigation, and they will not accept any third-party funding to do so. While Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel intend to litigate the case zealously, they are fully aware of the Court's expectation that they prosecute the case efficiently and without duplication. To this end, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have already discussed how best to organize to effectively use their diverse skills and unique experiences for the efficient prosecution and management of this litigation, while avoiding unnecessary and duplicative billing.
C. The First-to-File Rule Further Supports the Appointment of Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
As mentioned above, Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel filed the first four actions arising out of the Data Breach. When considering Rule 23(g) motions, federal courts across the country give deference to counsel in the first-filed case when they are qualified to handle the action. See In re Mun. Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 252 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (appointing as interim lead counsel the firms that filed the first complaints and holding that where a firm has “filed the first complaint[] in [the] case, and the subsequent complaints filed . . . are substantially similar to those initial filings,” it provides evidence of the firm's “substantial history of investigating the potential claims in this action.”); see also In re Insulin Pricing Litig., 2017 WL 4122437, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2017) (appointing class counsel in part because they “filed the first complaint in this litigation”); Steele v. United States, 2015 WL 4121607, at *4 (D.D.C. June 30, 2015) (“[S]ince both groups are more than qualified to handle this action, it would be imminently reasonable to select the Motley Rice Group on the basis that their complaint was filed first.”); Michelle v. Arctic Zero, Inc., 2013 WL 791145, at *2 n.3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2013) (“[F]irst-to file can be a relevant factor when the factors for class counsel do not tilt heavily in either direction and there is a need for an objective tie-breaker.”); Richey v. Ells, 2013 WL 179234, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 17, 2013) (“Ultimately, Plaintiff Richey was the first to file his case and, therefore, the Court appoints his counsel as Lead Counsel for the consolidated action.”); Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 2009 WL 1518058, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2009) (where multiple counsel filing two identical class action lawsuits seek appointment of interim class counsel, appointment of the first-filed counsel is appropriate where “a simple comparison of the original complaint . . . with the [second-filed complaint] reveals that they are almost identical”); Moradi v. Adelson, 2011 WL 5025155, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 2011) (“Moreover, as the Moradi Plaintiffs were the first to file suit, it would be appropriate to assign [their attorneys] as lead counsel.”); Biondi v. Scrushy, 820 A.2d 1148, 1159 (Del. Ch. 2003) (noting that courts will consider which action was filed first for lead counsel purposes where “there is a need for an objective tie-breaker”).
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel respectfully submit this Court should follow the majority of courts across the country.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court consolidate the Related Actions, establish the requested briefing schedule, and appoint Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP, Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA, M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation, and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
DATED: June 21, 2024
EXHIBIT 1
Aaron Siri
Managing Partner
Aaron Siri is the Managing Partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP and has extensive experience in a wide range of complex civil litigation matters, with a focus on civil rights, class actions, and commercial litigation.
Mr. Siri has successfully litigated numerous civil rights cases, prosecuted class actions against large corporations resulting in payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, and has acted as counsel to clients in multiple commercial disputes exceeding one billion dollars, including regarding Oracle Team's challenge for the America's Cup and the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Prior to founding Siri & Glimstad, Mr. Siri was a litigation attorney at Latham & Watkins for over five years. Before Latham, Mr. Siri clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel from 2004-2005 where he advised the Chief Justice of relevant American, English (including Commonwealth Countries), and International Law precedents for cases of first impression.
Mr. Siri has also been involved in various pro-bono matters, including representation of asylum applicants, housing discrimination victims, and non-profit organizations in tenant-landlord disputes, as well as being chosen as a Frank C. Newman delegate to present a paper he authored before the United Nations Human Rights Sub-Commission.
Mr. Siri earned his law degree at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law where he received four Prosser Prizes and ten High Honors. He was also the Editor-in-Chief and founder of the Berkeley Business Law Journal, which he developed into a nationally recognized publication, and was ranked as the leading commercial law journal in the country.
Prior to law school, Mr. Siri was an auditor at Arthur Andersen LLP, where he examined internal controls and audited corporate documents for private and public micro-cap technology companies. Mr. Siri is a Certified Public Accountant and an attorney admitted in federal and state courts across the country.
Mr. Siri is regularly interviewed on national television for his expertise regarding certain legal issues. He has also been published in the Washington Post, Stat News, and Bloomberg.
Mason A. Barney
Partner
Mason A. Barney is an experienced trial attorney who for nineteen years has represented both individuals and corporations in complex litigations. Mr. Barney received his J.D., summa cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, in 2005, where he graduated second in his class of nearly 500 students, and received numerous academic honors, in addition to being an editor on the Brooklyn Law Review. He then served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judge David G. Trager in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. After clerking, he joined the litigation department at Latham & Watkins LLP, and later joined Olshan Frome
Wolosky LLP a large established New York City law firm. Before law school, Mr. Barney earned his B.A. from Bowdoin College, where he double majored in Computer Science and Studio Art, and after college he served as a lead database developer for three years at a successful Internet start-up in Washington D.C.
Mr. Barney focuses his practice on class actions and representing individuals in complex litigations. In this practice he has won tens of millions of dollars for his clients. Among other matters, Mr. Barney has fought to stop companies from illegally spamming consumers with unwanted phone calls, has worked to stop companies from illegally obtaining their customers' biometric information (e.g., facial scans and fingerprints), and obtained recovery for numerous victims of data breaches.
Mr. Barney is recognized by the New York Legal Aid Society for his outstanding pro bono work representing indigent individuals in matters concerning prisoners' rights, immigration, and special education.
Mr. Barney has published a number of articles concerning a variety of legal issues. These include authoring or co-authoring: The FBI vs. Apple: What Does the Law Actually Say?, Inc. Magazine (February 2016); Can Lawyers Be Compelled to Produce Data They Compile? An Emerging Front in the Trenches of e-Discovery Battles, Bloomberg BNA (May 2015); Legal Landscape for Cybersecurity Risk is Changing as Federal Government and SEC Take Action, Inside Counsel Magazine (May 2015); Tellabs v. Makor, One Year Later, Securities Law 360 (July 2008); Not as Bad as We Thought: The Legacy of Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.in Product Liability Actions, 70 Brooklyn L. Rev. 949 (Spring 2005). Mr. Barney serves as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn College in New York, teaching Education Law in its graduate studies program, and separately has presented continuing legal education instruction regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Elizabeth Brehm
Partner
Elizabeth Brehm graduated from Boston University with a Bachelor of Science and earned her master's degree from Long Island University at C.W. Post. She attended Hofstra Law School and obtained a Juris Doctorate, graduating magna cum laude, in 2008.
After law school, Ms. Brehm spent a year at Winston & Strawn LLP where she focused on products liability litigation. For nine years prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Ms. Brehm worked for a New York law firm where she focused on antitrust class action lawsuits, health care fraud, and qui tam and whistleblower litigations.
Ms. Brehm has been an attorney at Siri & Glimstad for over two years and has handled numerous complex litigation matters, including class action matters.
Walker Moller
Partner
Before law school, Walker Moller worked and volunteered for three years in 15 countries throughout Southeast Asia, Oceania, and Africa. While at Mississippi College School of Law, Walker clerked at the Mississippi Supreme Court and was on the Law Review. He graduated summa cum laude in 2014 and earned the highest grade in eight courses. After graduation, Walker clerked for a federal judge at the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, where he gained exposure to a large volume of employment discrimination matters, products liability cases, and constitutional litigation.
Walker then worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 2015 to 2021, where his practice focused on federal contracts and civil litigation in various administrative courts. Immediately before joining Siri & Glimstad, Walker achieved full dismissal of a lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers that implicated $68M worth of federal contracts.
Lisa Considine
Partner
Lisa R. Considine is counsel at Siri & Glimstad LLP and has broad litigation experience, having successfully litigated various class action cases involving violations of State and Federal consumer protection laws, including representing consumers against many of the world's largest companies.
Ms. Considine graduated from Rutgers College with a Bachelor of Arts and attended Seton Hall University School of Law and obtained her J.D., with Honors, in 2004.
Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Ms. Considine was a founding member of her own practice that focused exclusively on consumer class actions and individual matters against major auto rental companies, banks, mortgage lenders, auto finance companies, payday lenders and other consumer finance companies in litigation involving the Consumer Fraud Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, predatory lending, loan origination and servicing, banking operations and consumer fraud claims.
Ms. Considine serves on the Board of Directors of the Consumer League of New Jersey and is also Co-Chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Class Actions Special Committee. Ms. Considine also serves at the pleasure of the New Jersey Supreme Court on the District IIB Ethics Committee and is President of the Worrall F. Mountain Inn of Court. Ms. Considine is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the Complex Litigation e-Discovery Form (CLEF), and the New Jersey State Bar Association's Consumer Protection Committee.
David DiSabato
Partner
David J. DiSabato is counsel at Siri & Glimstad LLP and focuses his practice on complex class actions and consumer protection law. With over two decades of class action experience, Mr. DiSabato has led successful class actions against many of the country's largest financial institutions, retailers, service providers and employers. In addition, Mr. DiSabato has extensive experience handling patients' rights class actions and civil rights claims.
Mr. DiSabato graduated from Tufts University and received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law. Named to the New Jersey Super Lawyers List in 2022 and 2023, Mr. DiSabato is the New Jersey Chair of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and sits on NACA's Judicial Nominations Committee. He also is a member of both the American Association for Justice and the New Jersey Association for Justice (Civil Rights Committee), and sits on the Board of Directors of the Consumer League of New Jersey, where he serves as the Director of Litigation. Mr. DiSabato is also a member of the Class Actions Special Committee and the Consumer Protection Law Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association, as well as the Complex Litigation e-Discovery Forum (CLEF). He also serves as the Vice Chair of the Land Use Board of the Borough of Peapack and Gladstone.
In addition, Mr. DiSabato regularly lobbies in both Washington D.C. and Trenton, New Jersey on consumer issues such as predatory lending, manufactured housing and forced arbitration, and is a frequent speaker on Constitutional issues, class action practice and consumer rights.
Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Mr. DiSabato was a founding member of his own practice where he represented consumers, workers, tenants, patients and other individuals in complex class actions.
Tyler J. Bean
Attorney
Tyler J. Bean graduated from the University of Oklahoma's Michael F. Price College of Business in 2015 and obtained a Juris Doctorate from the University of Oklahoma in 2019, where he served as editor for the Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Law Review Journal. Mr. Bean also received numerous academic honors as a law student, including being named to the Faculty Honor Roll and Dean's List.
After graduating law school and serving as in-house counsel for a large, multi-billion-dollar retail organization, Mr. Bean turned his focus to complex civil litigation and consumer class actions, with a particular emphasis on data breach and privacy matters. He has years of experience as a data breach and privacy lawyer, having played a significant role as class counsel in successfully litigating numerous data breach and privacy class actions from inception through discovery and court approved settlements, recovering millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of consumers, patients, students, and employees across the country who have been victims of negligent data security and privacy practices.
Kyle McLean
Attorney
Kyle McLean obtained his J.D. in 2019 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, with an emphasis in Civil Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution. He was selected to participate in the Hastings Appellate Program, where he was one of only two students chosen to represent a pro bono client before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and deliver oral and written argument before the Court. He received his B.A. in History and Economics from California Polytechnic University, Pomona in 2015. Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Mr. McLean defended a wide variety of complex civil matters.
Mr. McLean presently represents individuals in complex class action privacy litigations, including claims for illegally spamming consumers with unwanted telephone advertisements, unlawful requests for employees' genetic information (e.g., family medical history), and numerous victims of data breaches.
Oren Faircloth
Attorney
Oren Faircloth graduated from McGill University in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. Before attending law school, he served in the armed forces from 2010 to 2011. Mr. Faircloth graduated from Quinnipiac University School of Law, magna cum laude, in 2016.
Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Mr. Faircloth worked for a boutique law firm where he spearheaded ERISA class action lawsuits against Fortune 500 companies, including: Huntington Ingalls, Rockwell Automation, Raytheon, UPS, U.S. Bancorp, Delta Air Lines, and Sprint. Mr. Faircloth was involved in the prosecution of numerous successful class actions in which over $100 million dollars have been recovered for tens of thousands of employees around the country. In 2022, Mr. Faircloth was recognized by Super Lawyers magazine as a Rising Star in the field of class action.
Mr. Faircloth focuses his practice on class actions and representing individuals in complex litigations. He presently represents individuals who have been denied reimbursement for work-related expenses from their employers, denied sufficient lactation accommodations in the workplace, and denied actuarially equivalent pension benefits. Mr. Faircloth has also represented several individuals on a pro bono basis, negotiating favorable settlements for violations of their constitutional rights.
Wendy Cox
Attorney
Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Ms. Cox served for 21 years in the United States Army as an Army Nurse Corps officer and as an Army Judge Advocate. As a nurse corps officer, Ms. Cox worked in several clinical settings to include a pediatric unit, a specialty surgical unit, and an orthopedic surgical unit. During her last year as an Army Nurse Corps officer, she taught Army medics in basic life saving skills before being selected by the Army to attend law school. After graduating law school in 2005, Ms. Cox prosecuted soldiers, advised on operational law issues, taught Constitutional Law at West Point, and advised senior leaders on a variety of legal issues. Following her retirement from the United States Army in 2018, she went on to continue serving soldiers as an attorney for the Office of Soldiers' Counsel.
Wendy Cox graduated cum laude from the State University at Buffalo Law School in New York and summa cum laude from Norwich University with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. She went on to get her Master of Laws (L.L.M.) degree in Military Law in 2008.
Catherine Cline
Attorney
Catherine Cline has extensive experience in a wide range of civil law, including constitutional, administrative, employment, and election law. Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Ms. Cline served as a judicial law clerk for judges in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Ms. Cline attended law school on a full tuition scholarship, during which time she served as the Editor-in-Chief of the law review and as intern for a U.S. District Court Judge in the Middle District of Florida. Before attending law school, Ms. Cline received her Bachelor of Arts in Economics with a Minor in Business and the Liberal Arts from Penn State University and worked in the Tax Credit Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development.
Dana Smith
Attorney
Dana Smith is a seasoned litigator. Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Ms. Smith focused most of her legal career on personal injury litigation, including representing individuals harmed due to corporate negligence. Ms. Smith is also experienced in various domestic areas of practice, including divorce, high-conflict custody disputes, and child welfare law.
Ms. Smith graduated cum laude from the North Carolina Central University School of Law. Additionally, she received her Bachelor of Arts in Romance Languages from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Sonal Jain
Attorney
Sonal Jain has experience in complex commercial litigations as well as class actions. Ms. Jain graduated from the New York University School of Law with an LLM in International Business Regulation, Litigation and Arbitration in 2020 where she gained experience with international dispute resolution. She received her first degree in law (B.A. LL.B.) from ILS Law College, Pune, a prime legal education institution in India. Prior to joining Siri & Glimstad, Ms. Jain held various internships with top-tier law firms in India where she specialized in complex dispute resolution ranging from consumer and corporate litigation to domestic arbitrations.
Jack Spitz
Attorney
Jack R. Spitz is a graduate of Rutgers School of Law where he was a member of the Rutgers Law Record Journal and interned with the Essex County Public Defender's Office. Following law school, he served as Law Clerk for two judges at the Middlesex County Superior Court in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Subsequently, Mr. Spitz defended a wide variety of personal injury and property damage matters, as well as represented Plaintiffs in employment litigation matters. Prior to law school, Mr. Spitz graduated from Clemson University in South Carolina.
Gabrielle Williams
Attorney
Ms. Williams obtained her J.D. from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. During her time in law school, she represented clients in state court through the Justice for Victims of Crime Clinical Law Program. She also served as an Associate Editor on the Journal of Healthcare Law and Policy, Executive Board Member of the Black Law Students Association, and Class Representative for the Student Bar Association. Prior to joining Siri and Glimstad, Ms. Williams served as a Judicial Law Clerk on the Appellate Court of Maryland.
Neil Williams
Attorney
With a robust background in data breach litigation, Mr. Williams is a seasoned legal professional dedicated to protecting the interests of clients in the digital age. Leveraging his extensive experience in cybersecurity law and privacy regulations, he has successfully represented numerous individuals in complex data breach cases. Mr. Williams meticulously navigates the intricate legal landscape surrounding data breaches, providing strategic counsel and vigorous advocacy to achieve favorable outcomes for his clients.
During law school, Mr. Williams was awarded CALI Awards on two occasions for the top grade in his class. He also worked alongside several South Carolina Pro Bono Services to ensure that competent legal representation was reaching the most at need populations in the area.
EXHIBIT 2
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE FIRM RESUME
For over 50 years, Chestnut Cambronne PA has been representing clients in class action litigation both in the Twin Cities area and at a national level. Since its inception, Chestnut Cambronne has been engaged in complex litigation throughout the country and has successfully both prosecuted and defended class litigation addressing substantive legal questions in the fields of data security breaches, securities, ERISA, banking, antitrust, and consumer protection law. Representative class action cases in which the firm and its members have been involved with over the past several years include:
In re: Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00146 (D. Me.). A pending class action against Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC, a Maine-based accounting firm, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re Loancare Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508 (M.D. Fla.). A pending class action against Loancare, Inc., a Florida-based mortgage provider, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re Ortholaska Data Breach Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-00242 (D. Ala.). A pending class action against Orthoalaska, an Alaska-based orthopedic clinic, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re DISH Network Data Breach Security Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01168 (D.Col.). A pending class action against DISH Network, a Colorado-based cable company, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re R&B Corporation of Virginia d/b/a Credit Control Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00066-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.). A pending class action against a R&B Corporation of Virginia, a Virginia-based collections company, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re ESO Solutions, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01557 (W.D. Tex.). A pending class action against ESO Solutions, Inc., a Texas-based hospital software solutions provider, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re Whitworth University Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00179 (E.D. Wash.). A pending class action against Whitworth University, a university located in Spokane, Washington, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re Wasserstrom Holdings, Inc., Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-2424 (S.D. Ohio). A pending class action against Wasserstrom Holdings, Inc., an Ohio-based restaurant supplier, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Philip J. Krzeski was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re: Group Health Plan Litigation, Case No. 23-cv-00267 (D. Minn.). A pending class action against Group Health Plain, a Minnesota-based healthcare network, alleging wiretapping claims stemming from a Facebook pixel. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Rasmussen, et al., v. Uintah Health Care Basin, 2:23-cv-0322 (Dt. Ut.). A pending class action against healthcare network Uintah Health Care Basin, a Utah-based healthcare network, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Anderson v. Fortra LLC, No. 23-cv-00533 (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Fortra LLC, a cybersecurity vendor, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Rodriguez v. Mena Regional Hospital Commission d/b/a Mena Regional Health System, No. 2:23-cv-2002 (W.D. Ark.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class action on behalf of medical patients against Mena Regional hospital Commission, an Arkansas Healthcare Network alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Hale v. ARcare, No. 3:22-cv-00117 (E.D. Ark.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against ARcare, an Arkansas healthcare network, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Hightower v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-01683 (W.D. Wash.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Receivables Performance Management, LLC, a Washington-based debt collection company, alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Johnson v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, No. 2:22-cv-01061 (D. Ariz.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Yuma Regional Medical Center, an Arizona healthcare network, and related entities alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In Re: Pawn America Consumer Data Breach Litigation, No. 21-cv-2544-PJS-HB (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Pawn America and related entities alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In Re: Netgain Technology, LLC, Consumer Data Breach Litigation, No. 21-cv-1210-SRN-LIB (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Netgain Technology alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Phillips v. Bay Bridge Administrators, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-022 (W.D. Tex.). A pending class actin on behalf of a putative class of consumers against an insurance administrator alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Philip J. Krzeski was court appointed as Executive Committee Counsel.
Lutz v. Electromed, Inc., No. 21-cv-2198-SRN-DTS (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Electromed alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Chestnut Cambronne is prosecuting the case with two additional plaintiffs' law firms.
Baker v. Parkmobile, LLC, No. 21-cv-2181-SCJ (N.D.Ga.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Parkmobile, LLC alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed to the Interim Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.
DeSue v. 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc., No. 21-cv-61275-RAR (S.D. Fla.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against 20/20 Eye Care Network alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was count appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Garrett v. Herff Jones, LLC, No. 21-cv-01329-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Herff Jones alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re EyeMed Vision Care, LLC Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against EyeMed alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
In re Luxottica of America, Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 20-cv-00908-MRB (S.D. Ohio). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Luxottica alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Greenstate Credit Union v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. 20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Hy-Vee alleging negligence and violations of the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner currently serves as co-counsel.
Village Bank v. Caribou Coffee Company, Inc., No. 19-cv-01640-JNE-HB (D. Minn.). A recently settled class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Hy-Vee alleging negligence and violations of the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner serves as court appointed settlement class counsel.
Walker v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 20-cv-3414-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio). A pending consumer protection class action against Nautilus, Inc. alleging Defendant materially misrepresented the horsepower produced by the electric motors in its treadmills. Chestnut Cambronne currently serves as Plaintiffs' counsel.
In re DPP Beef Litig., No. 20-cv-1319-JRT/HB (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers against beef product producers alleging claims of price fixing. Chestnut Cambronne serves as Plaintiffs' Counsel.
Alicia Schaeffer v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. et al., No. 27-cv-20-10513 (Minn. 2020). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of group fitness instructors against Life Time Fitness, Inc. alleging Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff and class members for work performed for their employer's benefit. Chestnut Cambronne currently serves as Plaintiffs' counsel.
In re WaWa, Inc. Data Security Litig., No. 19-cv-6019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against WaWa, Inc. alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner serves on the Financial Institution Track Defendant Discovery and ESI Committee
Teeda Barclay v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-02970-ECT-DTS (D. Minn.). A pending consumer protection class action against Icon Health & Fitness and NordicTrack alleging Defendants materially misrepresented the horsepower produced by the electric motors in its treadmills. Bryan L. Bleichner currently serves as Plaintiffs' counsel.
In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 19-cv-02863-WMW-KMM (D. Minn.). A pending shareholder class action against Resideo and its directors and officers for failing to disclose material information about its spin-off from Honeywell. Chestnut Cambronne serves as liaison counsel on this matter.
Delamarter v. Supercuts, Inc., No. 19-3158-DSD-TNL (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Supercuts alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Bryan L. Bleichner serves as Plaintiff's Counsel.
Kenneth Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., No. 19-cv-1129-JRT-HB (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers against beef product producers alleging claims of price fixing. Chestnut Cambronne served as Plaintiffs' Counsel.
In re: FedLoan Student Loan Servicing Litigation, No. 2:18-md-02833-CDJ (E.D. Pa.).
A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of student loan borrowers against FedLoan Servicing / Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency alleging consumer fraud violations and other claims. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed to the Executive Committee.
ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust v. St. Jude Medical, LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-02124-DSD-HB (D. Minn.). A class action on behalf of a putative class of third party health benefits payors against St. Jude Medical and Abbott Laboratories alleging product liability and other claims. Chestnut Cambronne served as Plaintiffs' Counsel.
In Re Pork Antitrust Litigation, No. 18-cv-1776-JRT-HB (D. Minn,). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers against pork product producers alleging claims of price fixing. Chestnut Cambronne currently serves as Plaintiffs' Counsel.
James Bruner, et al. v. Polaris Industries Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-00939-WMW-DTS (D. Minn.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of consumers against Polaris Industries alleging product liability claims. Chestnut Cambronne was court appointed as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel.
In re: Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 17-md-2800-TWT (N.D.Ga.). A settled class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Equifax alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed to the Financial Institution Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.
Marie Travis v. Navient Corp. et al., No. 17-cv-04885-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of student loan borrowers against Navient Corp. alleging consumer fraud act violations and other claims. Bryan L. Bleichner serves as Plaintiffs' Counsel.
Midwest Am. Fed. Credit Union v. Arby's Rest. Grp. Inc., No. 17-cv-00514-AT (N.D.Ga.). A pending class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Arby's alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was appointed to the Interim Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.
Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00356 (W.D. Wash.). A settled class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Eddie Bauer alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner served as Plaintiff's counsel.
Bellwether Community Credit Union v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-cv-1102 (D. Colo.). A settled class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Chipotle alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed to Chair of the Executive Committee.
First Choice Fed. Credit Union et al. v. The Wendy's Company et al., No. 2:16-cv-00506 (W.D. Pa.). An ongoing class action on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions against Wendy's alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed to the Executive Committee.
Gordon v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., No. 1:15-cv-05457 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015). A resolved putative class action alleging collusion and anticompetitive behavior among the companies that provide the systems used by travel agents to link to airline flight and fare information known as global distribution systems (GDS). Chestnut Cambronne served as Plaintiffs' Counsel in this litigation.
In re: Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 5:15-md-02617 (LHK) (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2015). A settled class action against Anthem alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach affecting in excess of 80 million consumers. Chestnut Cambronne served as Plaintiffs' Counsel in the litigation.
Gassoway v. Benchmark Energy Transport Services, Inc., (S.D. Tex. February 23, 2015). A certified and settled class action case alleging Benchmark Energy Transport Services deducted and withheld an undisclosed surcharge from trucking owner-operators in violation of Federal Regulations. Chestnut Cambronne served as co-lead counsel for the certified class.
In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02583 (TWT) (N.D.Ga.). This is an ongoing putative class action against The Home Depot alleging negligence and other claims in a data security breach affecting 56 million consumers and tens of thousands of financial institutions. Bryan L. Bleichner was court appointed to the Financial Institution Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.
In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 0:14-md-02522 (PAM/JJK) (D. Minn. December 26, 2013). This is a settled class action against Target Corporation alleging negligence and violations of the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act in a data security breach affecting 70 million consumers and tens of thousands of financial institutions. Chestnut Cambronne served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Financial Institution Class and Coordinating Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Christian v. National Hockey League, No. 0:14-md-02551 (SRN/JSM) (D. Minn. April 15, 2014) This is a settled putative class action against the National Hockey League (NHL) alleging that the NHL ignored the known risks of concussive injures and failed to safeguard its players. Chestnut Cambronne was court appointed to the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.
Puerta v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 0:14-cv-00786 (ADM/TNL) (D. Minn. March 21, 2014). A settled shareholder class action against Tile Shop Holdings and its directors and officers for failing to disclose material information about a supplier relationship. Chestnut Cambronne served as liaison counsel on this matter.
In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., No. 2:13-md-2437; 939 F.Supp.2d 1371 (E.D. Pa. 2013). This is an ongoing antitrust putative class action against domestic manufacturers of drywall alleging price-fixing. Chestnut Cambronne is acting as plaintiffs' counsel in this matter.
Lucas v. SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-02356 (SCJ) (N.D.Ga. Feb. 8, 2013. A settled consumer protection class action in which Chestnut Cambronne served as co-lead counsel.
In re: Imprelis Herbicide Mktg., Sales Practices and Products Liability Litig., No. 2:11-md-02284 (GP) (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2011). This is a settled products liability class action against the manufacturer of Imprelis Herbicide, DuPont. The class has recovered over $378 million to date.
Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Ass'n v. Medtronic, Inc, No. 08-6324 (PAM/AJB) (D. Minn. 2009); 618 F.Supp. 1016 (D. Minn. 2009); 278 F.R.D. 454 (D. Minn. 2011). This is a settled securities fraud class action in which Chestnut Cambronne was lead and liaison counsel. The class recovered $80 million.
In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig. (No. II), MDL No. 2221, 764 F.Supp.2d 1343 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). This is a settled class action alleging that Defendant American Express' policies prohibiting merchants from offering customers incentives to use a particular card or type of payment violated antitrust laws. The case is currently under appellate review before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mooney v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, No. 06-545 (ADM/FLN); 2010 WL 419962 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2010). This was a certified class action in which Chestnut Cambronne was co-lead counsel seeking damages of $2 billion. After a three-week trial, the jury concluded Allianz made false and misleading statements intentionally in violation of the statue, but did not award damages.
In re United Healthcare, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 631 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2011), affirming 631 F.Supp.2d 1151 (D. Minn. 2009). This is a settled shareholder derivative case involving the backdating of stock options. Chestnut Cambronne served as lead counsel and recovered on behalf of the company a settlement valued at $922 million. Today, it remains the largest recovery in a shareholder derivative case in United States history.
San Francisco Health Plan v. McKesson Corp., No. 1:08-cv-10843 (D. Mass. May 20, 2008). A settled RICO and Clayton Act class action challenging the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs. The class recovered $82 million. Chestnut Cambronne represented Plaintiff Anoka County.
In re MoneyGram Int'l, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 08-cv-883 (DSD/JJG) (D. Minn. July 22, 2008); 626 F.Supp.2d 947 (D. Minn. 2009). This is a settled securities fraud class action in which Chestnut Cambronne was co-lead counsel and recovered $80 million for the class.
Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., No. 0:07-cv-01817 (JNE/JJG) (D. Minn. April 9, 2007). This is a settled class action that alleged Defendant defrauded consumers in the sale of its Fixed Annuities. Chestnut Cambronne served as local counsel and recovered $31 million for the class.
In re: Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litig., No. 1:06-md-01775 (JG/VVP) (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2006). This is a partially settled class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by dozens of international air cargo carriers. To date over $500 million has been recovered for the class.
In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720, 398 F.Supp.2d 1356 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). A settled class action alleging that the rules Defendants Visa and MasterCard impose upon merchants violate antitrust laws. The case is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The current settlement value is in excess of $7.25 billion.
In re Xcel Energy, Inc. Sec, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig, 364 F.Supp. 980, 995-996 (D. Minn. 2005); In re Xcel Energy Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, 286 F.Supp.2d 1047 (D. Minn. 2003). This was a securities fraud class action in which Chestnut Cambronne was co-lead counsel. The class recovered $80 million. Cooper v. Miller, Johnson, Steichen & Kinnard, No. 0:02-cv-01236 (RHK/AJB) (D. Minn. June 5, 2002) This is a settled securities fraud class action in which Chestnut Cambronne served as lead counsel. The class recovered $5.6 million.
In Re E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 0:01-cv-00258 (JNE/JGL) (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2001) This is a settled securities fraud class action in which Chestnut Cambronne served as lead counsel. The class recovered $20 million.
In re Blue Cross Subscriber Litig., No. 19-C3-98-7780 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 1st Dist.) This was a consumer protection class action on behalf of Blue Cross subscribers. Over $41 million was recovered for Blue Cross policy holders. Chestnut Cambronne served as lead counsel.
Alford v. Mego Mortgage Home Loan Owner Trust 1997-1; Mazur v. Empire Funding Home Loan Owner Trust 1997-1; and Banks, et al. v. FirstPlus Home Loan Trust 1996-2 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 4th Dist.). These are settled consumer-lending cases in which Chestnut Cambronne acted as co-lead counsel.
Chestnut Cambronne also has experience successfully defending class litigation. See, e.g., In re K-Tel, 300 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2002); Wylde v. Champps of New Brighton, No. 10-cv-4953 (ADM/JJK) (D. Minn. 2011); Johnson v. BP America, Inc. No. 12-cv-00417 (RHK/JSM) (D. Minn. 2012).
Not only do the results obtained in the above cases attest to the skill and competence of Chestnut Cambronne lawyers in shareholder litigation, various courts have publicly commended Chestnut Cambronne for its efforts:
Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel have significant experience in representing shareholders and shareholder classes in federal securities actions around the country and in this district in particular. Counsel-both the lawyers representing lead plaintiffs and defendants-conducted themselves in an exemplary manner. … Thus, the effort of counsel in efficiently bringing this case to fair, reasonable and adequate resolution is the best indicator of the experience and ability of the attorneys involved, and this factor supports the court's award of 25%.
In re Xcel Energy, Inc. Sec, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig, 364 F.Supp. 980, 995 (D. Minn. 2005).
EXHIBIT 3
Founded in 1975 by Clayeo C. Arnold, the Arnold Law Firm is a litigation-oriented practice with locations in Sacramento and Los Angeles, California. In keeping with its founding principles, our firm consciously works for the interests of individual people and small businesses - not for large corporations or insurance companies.
The Arnold Law Firm prosecutes class action, mass tort, qui tam, product defect, employment, and personal injury cases. We pride ourselves on being a practice of trial lawyers, typically trying a minimum of ten cases per year to verdict. In addition to our practice throughout the state of California in both state and federal courts, we also pursue class action, qui tam and multi-district litigation claims on a nationwide basis.
Our team of twelve attorneys collectively encompass a broad and diverse professional background, including plaintiff contingency work, public entity representation, criminal defense, and civil defense. We have current and past board members of Capital City Trial Lawyers Association, as well as members of numerous prestigious professional organizations, including the American Board of Trial Advocates, American Association for Justice, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Sacramento County Bar Association, and Consumer Attorneys of California.
Our firm's operating structure is comprised of multiple teams directed towards specific practice areas. These teams regularly and intentionally collaborate and exchange information between their practice areas to improve the quality of representation for all of our clients.
For over four decades the Arnold Law Firm has developed a respected and extensive network of co-counsel and experienced contract counsel to rapidly expand our capabilities as necessary on an ad hoc basis (e.g. document review). We employ a robust staff of highly qualified and experienced legal staff including assistants and paralegals to ensure that attorney time is spent in the most efficient manner possible.
The Arnold Law Firm employs technology to increase productivity thereby resulting in more efficient and effective legal representation and driving excellent results on behalf of its clients. Specifically, the firm increases its efficiency by using numerous forms of legal and practice management software including template software, client management software, and secure internet-based client management for mass tort or multi-plaintiff litigation. We also invest in appropriate billing and tracking software for contemporaneous hourly record keeping.
The Arnold Law Firm places substantial value on representing clients in a manner that is both effective and courteous. Integrity with clients, the courts, and adverse counsel are all considered to be as indispensable as successful results.
Our highly accomplished counsel has a long history of successfully handling class actions across a range of industries, including data breach cases.
The Arnold Law Firm has a proven track record of success and the ability to work efficiently and cooperatively with others. In addition, our firm has the availability and resources necessary to litigate complex class actions.
M. Anderson Berry
M. Anderson Berry heads the data breach complex litigation and qui tam practices for the Arnold Law Firm. He brings substantial experience in complex litigation matters with a history of litigating in an efficient and practical manner, including as Lead Class Counsel, Co-Lead Class Counsel, and as a member of numerous Plaintiffs' Executive Committees.
Mr. Berry has an extensive background in privacy and consumer/government fraud litigation, actively participating in a currently sealed False Claims Act case involving widespread cybersecurity fraud upon the United States, and the class action litigations filed in federal and state courts across the nation, set out below.
Before joining the Arnold Law Firm in 2017, Mr. Berry worked as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California. As part of the Affirmative Civil Enforcement unit, Mr. Berry handled a wide variety of complex cases and recovered millions of dollars for the United States.
Before working for the Department of Justice, Mr. Berry practiced at one of the world's largest law firms, Jones Day, where he represented clients in international arbitration and complex commercial litigation, including defending class action allegations.
Mr. Berry was first selected as the Northern California Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2015 in the field of complex civil litigation.
Mr. Berry attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he majored in English and graduated with highest honors. Mr. Berry was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and served as President of the English Undergraduate Associate.
After working as a private investigator for both criminal and civil investigations in the San Francisco Bay Area, Anderson graduated from U.C. Berkeley School of Law, where he was a Senior Editor for both the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law and Berkeley Journal of International Law.
He was admitted to the California Bar in 2009 and is admitted to practice in the Northern, Eastern, Southern and Central Districts of California. Mr. Berry is also admitted to practice in the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the Districts of Colorado and Nebraska, and the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.
Mr. Berry was raised in Moraga, California and now lives in Fair Oaks, California, with his wife and three young sons.
Select Data Breach Cases
In re: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Data Breach Litig, 23-2-24266-1 SEA (Wash Super, King) (Co-Lead Counsel);
In Re: Entertainment Partners Data Breach Litigation, 2:23-cv-06546-CAS (CD. Ca.) (Co-Lead Counsel)
In Re: Snap Finance Data Breach, 2:22-cv-00761-TS-JCB (D.UT.) (Co-Lead Counsel) (settled) Ware v. San Gorgonio Memorial Hosp., CVRI2301216 (Cal Super, Riverside) (Co-Lead Counsel)
In Re: Overby-Seawell Co. Customer Data Security Breach Lit, 1:23-md-03056-SDG (N.D.Ga.) (Co-Lead Counsel);
Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Company, et al, 3:22-cv-00487-JAG (E.D. VA.) (Co-Lead Counsel); In Re: Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litigation, 1:21-cv -04056 (N.D.Ill.) (Co-Lead Counsel);
Petimat Dudurkaewa et al. v. Midfirst Bank et al., 5:23-cv-00817-R (W.D. Ok.) (Executive Comm.);
In Re: CaptureRx Data Breach Litigation, 5:21-cv-00523 (W.D.TX.)(Co-Lead Counsel) (settled);
Rossi v. Claire's Stores, 1:20-cv-05090 (N.D. Il.) (Co-Lead Counsel) (settled);
Desue v. 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc. et al., 0:21-cv-61275 (S.D. Fla.) (Executive Comm.);
In re: Mednax Services, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 21-MD-02994 (S.D. Fl.) (Executive Comm.);
Bowdle v. King's Seafood Co. LLC, 8:21-cv-01784-CJC-JDE, (CD. Cal.) (Class Counsel) (settled);
Hashemi et al. v. Bosley, Inc. 2:21-cv-00946 (CD. Cal.) (Class Counsel) (settled);
Heath et al. v. Insurance Technologies Corp et al., 3:21-cv-01444 (N.D. Tex.) (Class Counsel) (settled);
Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation et al., 1:21-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill.) (Class Counsel) (settled);
Ahn et al. v. Herff Jones, LLC, 1:21-cv-01381 (S.D. Ind.) (settled);
Bitmouni v. Paysafe Limited, 3:21-cv-00641-JCS (N.D. Cal.) (Class Counsel) (settled);
Gaston v. FabFitFun, Inc., 2:20-cv-09534 (CD. Cal.) (Class Counsel) (settled);
In Re: Ambry Genetics Data Breach Litigation, 8:20-cv-00791 (CD. Cal.) (settled);
In Re: Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, 1:20-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y.) (settled);
Pfeiffer et al. v. RadNet, Inc., 2:20-cv-09553-RGK-SK (CD. Cal.)(Class Counsel) (settled);
Thomsen v. Morley Companies, Inc., 1:22-cv-10271-TLL (E.D. Mi.) (settled);
In re Lakeview Loan Servicing Data Breach Litigation, 1:22-cv-20955-DPG (S.D. Fl.);
Gregory Haroutunian
Gregory Haroutunian is the Senior Associate and of the data breach complex litigation and qui tam practices for the Arnold Law Firm. He brings substantial experience in complex litigation matters with a history of litigating in an efficient and practical manner.
Mr. Haroutunian has an extensive background in complex litigation, privacy and consumer/government fraud litigation, actively participating in a currently sealed False Claims Act case involving widespread cybersecurity fraud upon the United States, and the class action litigations filed in federal courts across the nation, set out below.
Before joining the Arnold Law Firm in 2021, Mr. Haroutunian worked in diverse practices across the nation including litigating dozens of products liability medical device cases in state and ederal ourts throughout the country and employment and construction related complex class-action and surety bond litigations involving multi-million dollar settlements throughout New York and New Jersey.
Mr. Haroutunian attended Columbia College, Columbia University, where he majored in Political Science and served with the New York State Senate Minority Leader's Office.
After working as a paralegal for a small general litigation and elder law firm in New York City, Gregory attended the Georgetown University Law Center where he graduated cum laude. While at Georgetown Gregory held a year-long judicial internship under Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder of the United States Department of Transportation and served as a legal intern at the National Whistleblowers' Center and the firm Kohn, Kohn, & Colapinto where he had his first experiences in qui tam and fraud cases.
Work that Mr. Haroutunian did at Georgetown comparing and analyzing aviation regulations was subsequently published in the Law Journal of the Pacific.
He was admitted to the New Jersey and New York Bars in 2013 and the California Bar in 2020 and is admitted to practice in the Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Central Districts of California, the Southern and Northern Districts of New York, and the District of New Jersey. Mr. Haroutunian is also admitted to practice in the Southern and Northern Districts of Indiana and the District of Colorado.
Mr. Haroutunian has been separately appointed Lead Counsel or Class Counsel in the following matters:
Benavides v. HopSkipDrive, Inc., No. 23STCV31729 (Cal. Super. Los Angeles) (Lead Counsel);
Ishaq v. F21OpCo LLC, 2:23-cv-07390-MEMF-AGR (CD. Cal.) (Lead Counsel);
Bitmouni v. Paysafe Payment Processing Solutions, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-00641-JCS (N.D. Cal.) (Class Counsel);
In re: Ethos Technologies Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 3:22-cv-09203-SK (N.D. Cal.) (Class Counsel);
In re: Blackhawk Network Data Breach Litig., No. 3:22-cv-07084-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (Class Counsel);
Franchi v. Barlow Respiratory Hospital, No. 22STCV09016 (Cal. Super. Los Angeles) (Class Counsel);
Parkerv. Metromile, LLC, No. 27-2022-000-49770-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. San Diego) (Class Counsel).
Gilbert et al. v. BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-02158-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.) (Class Counsel)
Mr. Haroutunian was raised in Montvale, New Jersey.
EXHIBIT 4
For over two decades, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert (KO) has provided comprehensive, results-oriented legal representation to individual, business, and government clients throughout Florida and the rest of the country. KO has the experience and capacity to represent its clients effectively and has the legal resources to address almost any legal need. The firm's 25 attorneys have practiced at several of the nation's largest and most prestigious firms and are skilled in almost all phases of law, including consumer class actions, multidistrict litigation involving mass tort actions, complex commercial litigation, and corporate transactions. In the class action arena, the firm has experience not only representing individual aggrieved consumers, but also defending large institutional clients, including multiple Fortune 100 companies.
The firm has a roster of accomplished attorneys. Clients have an opportunity to work with some of the finest lawyers in Florida and the United States, each one committed to upholding KO's principles of professionalism, integrity, and personal service. Among our roster, you'll find attorneys whose accomplishments include Board Certified in their specialty; serving as in-house counsel for major corporations, as city and county attorneys handling government affairs, and as public defenders and prosecutors; achieving multi-millions of dollars through verdicts and settlements in trials, arbitrations, and alternative dispute resolution procedures; successfully winning appeals at every level in Florida state and federal courts; and serving government in various elected and appointed positions.
KO has the experience and resources necessary to represent large putative classes. The firm's attorneys are not simply litigators, but rather, experienced trial attorneys with the support staff and resources needed to coordinate complex cases.
Since its founding, KO has initiated and served as lead class counsel in dozens of high-profile class actions. Although the actions are diverse by subject area, KO has established itself as one of the leading firms that sue national and regional banks and credit unions related to the unlawful assessment of fees. Their efforts spanning a decade plus have resulted in recoveries in excess of $500 million and monumental practices changes that have changed the industry and saving clients billions of dollars.
Additionally, other past and current cases have been prosecuted for breaches of insurance policies; data breaches; data privacy; wiretapping; biometric privacy; gambling; false advertising; defective consumer products and vehicles; antitrust violations; and suits on behalf of students against colleges and universities arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The firm has in the past litigated certified and proposed class actions against Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare related to their improper reimbursements of health insurance benefits. Other insurance cases include auto insurers failing to pay benefits owed to insureds with total loss vehicle claims. Other class action cases include cases against Microsoft Corporation related to its Xbox 360 gaming platform, ten of the largest oil companies in the world in connection with the destructive propensities of ethanol and its impact on boats, Nationwide Insurance for improper mortgage fee assessments, and several of the nation's largest retailers for deceptive advertising and marketing at their retail outlets and factory stores.
The firm also brings experience in successfully defended many class actions on behalf of banking institutions, mortgage providers and servicers, advertising conglomerates, aircraft manufacturer and U.S. Dept. of Defense contractor, a manufacturer of breast implants, and a national fitness chain.
The firm also has extensive experience in mass tort litigation, including serving as Lead Counsel in the Zantac Litigation, one of the largest mass torts in history. The firm also has handled cases against 3M related to defective earplugs, several vaginal mash manufacturers, Bayer in connection with its pesticide Roundup, Bausch & Lomb for its Renu with MoistureLoc product, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals related to Prempro, Bayer Corporation related to its birth control pill YAZ, and Howmedica Osteonics Corporation related to the Stryker Rejuvenate and AGB II hip implants. In connection with the foregoing, some of which has been litigated within the multidistrict arena, the firm has obtained tens of millions in recoveries for its clients.
In addition to class action and mass tort litigation, the firm has extensive experience in the following practice areas: commercial and general civil litigation, corporate transactions, health law, insurance law, labor and employment law, marital and family law, real estate litigation and transaction, government affairs, receivership, construction law, appellate practice, estate planning, wealth preservation, healthcare provider reimbursement and contractual disputes, white collar and criminal defense, employment contracts, environmental, and alternative dispute resolution.
To learn more about KO, or any of the firm's other attorneys, please visit www.kolawyers.com.
Devore, et al. v. Dollar Bank, GD-21-008946 (Ct. Common Pleas Allegheny 2024) - $7 million
Nimsey v. Tinker Federal Credit Union, C1-2019-6084 (Dist. Ct. Oklahoma 2024) - $5.475 million
Precision Roofing of N. Fla. Inc., et al. v. CenterState Bank, 3:20-cv-352 (S.D. Fla. 2023) - $2.65 million
Checchia v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:21-cv-03585 (E.D. Pa. 2023) - $8 million
Quirk v. Liberty Bank, X03-HHD-CV20-6132741-S (Jud. Dist. Ct. Hartford 2023) - $1.4 million
Meier v. Prosperity Bank, 109569-CV (Dist. Ct. Brazoria 2023) - $1.6 million
Abercrombie v. TD Bank, N.A., 0:21-cv-61376 (S.D. Fla. 2022) - $4.35 million
Perks, et al. v. TD Bank, N.A., 1:18-cv-11176 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) - $41.5 million
Fallis v. Gate City Bank, 09-2019-CV-04007 (Dist. Ct., Cty. of Cass, N.D. 2022) - $1.8 million
Mayo v. Affinity Plus Fed. Credit Union, 27-CV-20-11786 (4th Judicial District Minn. 2022) - $1 million
Glass, et al. v. Delta Comm. Cred. Union, 2019CV317322 (Sup. Ct. Fulton Cty., Ga. 2022) - $2.8 million
Roy v. ESL Fed. Credit Union, 19-cv-06122 (W.D.N.Y. 2022) - $1.9 million
Wallace v. Wells Fargo, 17CV317775 (Sup. Ct. Santa Clara 2021) - $10 million
Doxey v. Community Bank, N.A., 8:19-CV-919 (N.D.N.Y. 2021) - $3 million
Coleman v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, 3:19-cv-0229-HRH (Dist. of Alaska 2021) - $1 million
Smith v. Fifth Third Bank, 1:18-cv-00464-DRC-SKB (W.D. Ohio 2021) - $5.2 million
Lambert v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 1:19-cv-00103-LO-MSN (S.D. Va. 2021) - $16 million
Roberts v. Capital One, N.A., 16 Civ. 4841 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y 2021) - $17 million
Baptiste v. GTE Financial, 20-CA-002728 (Cir. Ct. Hillsborough 2021) - $975,000
Morris v. Provident Credit Union, CGC-19-581616 (Sup. Ct. San Francisco 2020) - $1.1 million
Lloyd v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 17-cv-01280-BAS-RBB (S.D. Ca. 2019) - $24.5 million
Farrell v. Bank of America, N.A., 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG (S.D. Ca. 2018) - $66.6 million
Bodnar v. Bank of America, N.A., 5:14-cv-03224-EGS (E.D. Pa. 2015) - $27.5 million
Morton v. Green Bank, 11-135-IV (20th Judicial District Tenn. 2018) - $1.5 million
Hawkins v. First Tenn. Bank, CT-004085-11 (13th Jud. Dist. Tenn. 2017) - $16.75 million
Payne v. Old National Bank, 82C01-1012 (Cir. Ct. Vanderburgh 2016) - $4.75 million
Swift. v. Bancorpsouth, 1:10-CV-00090 (N.D. Fla. 2016) - $24.0 million
Mello v. Susquehanna Bank, 1:09-MD-02046 (S.D. Fla. 2014) - $3.68 million
Johnson v. Community Bank, 3:11-CV-01405 (M.D. Pa. 2013) - $1.5 million
McKinley v. Great Western Bank, 1:09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla. 2013) - $2.2 million
Blahut v. Harris Bank, 1:09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla. 2013) - $9.4 million
Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, 1:09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla. 2013) - $18.3 million
Case v. Bank of Oklahoma, 09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla. 2012) - $19.0 million Settlement
Hawthorne v. Umpqua Bank, 3:11-CV-06700 (N.D. Cal. 2012) - $2.9 million Settlement
Simpson v. Citizens Bank, 2:12-CV-10267 (E.D. Mich. 2012) - $2.0 million
Harris v. Associated Bank, 1:09-MD-02036 (S.D. Fla. 2012) - $13.0 million
LaCour v. Whitney Bank, 8:11-CV-1896 (M.D. Fla. 2012) - $6.8 million
Orallo v. Bank of the West, 1:09-MD-202036 (S.D. Fla. 2012) - $18.0 million
Taulava v. Bank of Hawaii, 11-1-0337-02 (1st Cir. Hawaii 2011) - $9.0 million
Gattinella v. Michael Kors (USA), 14-Civ-5731 (WHP) (S.D. NY 2015) - $4.875 million
Stathakos v. Columbia Sportswear, 4:15-cv-04543-YGR (N.D. Ca. 2018) - Injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive pricing practices
Lopez, et al. v. Volusion, LLC, 1:20-cv-00761 (W.D. Tex. 2022) - $4.3 million
Gupta v. Aeries Software, Inc., 8:20-cv-00995 (C.D. Ca. 2022) - $1.75 million
In Re: CaptureRx Data Breach, 5:21-cv-00523 (W.D. Tex. 2022) - $4.75 million
Ostendorf v. Grange Indemnity Ins. Co., 2:19-cv-01147-ALM-KAJ (E.D. Ohio 2020) - $12.6 million
Walters v. Target Corp., 3:16-cv-1678-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. 2020) - $8.2 million
Papa v. Grieco Ford Fort Lauderdale, LLC, 18-cv-21897-JEM (S.D. Fla. 2019) - $4.9 million
Bloom v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 18-cv-21820-KMM (S.D. Fla. 2019) - $3 million
Masson v. Tallahassee Dodge Chrysler Jeep, LLC, 1:17-cv-22967-FAM (S.D. Fla. 2018) - $850,000
DiPuglia v. U.S. Coachways, Inc., 1:17-cv-23006-MGC (S.D. Fla. 2018) - $2.6 million
In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., MDL 2626 (M.D. Fla.) - $88 million
In re: 21st Century Oncology Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 8:16- md-2737-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla. 2021) - $21.8 million
In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 9:20-md-02924-RLR (S.D. Fla.) - MDL No. 2924 - Co-Lead Counsel
In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Products Liability Litigation, 13-MD-2411 (17th Jud. Cir. Fla. Complex Litigation Division)
In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, 1:17-md-02804-DAP (N.D. Ohio) - MDL 2804
In re: Smith and Nephew BHR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL-17-md-2775
Yasmin and YAZ Marketing, Sales Practivces and Products Liability Litigation, 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF (S.D. Ill.) - MDL 2100
In re: Prempro Products Liab. Litigation, MDL 507, No. 03-cv-1507 (E.D. Ark.)
In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Fla.) - MDL 2885
Managing Partner
Bar Admissions
The Florida Bar District of Columbia Bar
Court Admissions
Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York U.S. District Court, District of Colorado U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Education
Nova Southeastern University, J.D. - 1997 University of Florida, B.S. - 1994
ostrow@kolawyers.com
Jeff Ostrow is the Managing Partner of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. He established his own law practice in 1997 immediately upon graduation from law school and has since grown the firm to 25 attorneys in 3 offices throughout south Florida. In addition to overseeing the firm's day-to-day operations and strategic direction, Mr. Ostrow practices full time in the areas of consumer class actions, sports and business law. He is a Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney in both legal ability and ethics, which is the highest possible rating by the most widely recognized attorney rating organization in the world.
Mr. Ostrow often serves as outside General Counsel to companies, advising them in connection with their legal and regulatory needs. He has represented many Fortune 500® Companies in connection with their Florida litigation. He has handled cases covered by media outlets throughout the country and has been quoted many times on various legal topics in almost every major news publication, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Sun-Sentinel. He has also appeared on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, and almost every other major national and international television network in connection with his cases, which often involve industry changing litigation or athletes in Olympic swimming, professional boxing, the NFL, NBA and MLB.
Mr. Ostrow is an accomplished trial attorney who has experience representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants. He has successfully tried many cases to verdict involving multimillion-dollar damage claims in state and federal courts. He is currently court- appointed lead counsel and sits on plaintiffs' executive committees in multiple high profile nationwide multi-district litigation actions involving cybersecurity breaches and related privacy issues. He has spent the past decade serving as lead counsel in dozens of nationwide and statewide class action lawsuits against many of the world's largest financial institutions in connection with the unlawful assessment of fees. To date, his efforts have successfully resulted in the recovery of over $1 billion for tens of millions of bank and credit union customers, as well as monumental changes in the way they assess fees. Those changes have forever revolutionized an industry, resulting in billions of dollars of savings. In addition, Mr. Ostrow has served as lead class counsel in many consumer class actions against some of the world's largest airlines, pharmaceutical companies, clothing retailers, health and auto insurance carriers, technology companies, and oil conglomerates, along with serving as class action defense counsel for some of the largest advertising and marketing agencies in the world, banking institutions, real estate developers, and mortgage companies.
In addition to the law practice, he is the founder and president of ProPlayer Sports LLC, a full-service sports agency and marketing firm. He represents both Olympic Gold Medalist Swimmers, World Champion Boxers, and select NFL athletes, and is licensed by both the NFL Players Association as a certified Contract Advisor. At the agency, Mr. Ostrow handles all player-team negotiations of contracts, represents his clients in legal proceedings, negotiates all marketing and NIL engagements, and oversees public relations and crisis management. He has extensive experience in negotiating, mediating, and arbitrating a wide range of issues on behalf of clients with the NFL Players Association, the International Olympic Committee, the United States Olympic Committee, USA Swimming and the World Anti-Doping Agency. He has been an invited sports law guest speaker at New York University and Nova Southeastern University and has also served as a panelist at many industry-related conferences.
Mr. Ostrow received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Florida in 1994 and Juris Doctorate from Nova Southeastern University in 1997. He is a licensed member of The Florida Bar and the District of Columbia Bar, is fully admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern District of Illinois, Western District of Tennessee, Western District of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Ostrow is also member of several Bar Associations.
He is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is the most prestigious group of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have had multi-million dollar jury verdicts. Additionally, he is consistently named as one of the top lawyers in Florida by Super Lawyers®, a publication that recognizes the best lawyers in each state. Mr. Ostrow is an inaugural recipient of the University of Florida's Warrington College of Business Administration Gator 100 award for the fastest growing University of Florida alumni- owned law firm in the world.
When not practicing law, Mr. Ostrow serves on the Board of Governors of Nova Southeastern University's Wayne Huizenga School of Business and is a Member of the Broward County Courthouse Advisory Task Force. He is also the Managing Member of One West LOA LLC, a commercial real estate development company with holdings in downtown Fort Lauderdale. He has previously sat on the boards of a national banking institution and a national healthcare marketing company. Mr. Ostrow is a founding board member for the Jorge Nation Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that partners with the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital to send children diagnosed with cancer on all-inclusive Dream Trips to destinations of their choice. Mr. Ostrow resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and has 3 sons, 2 of which currently attend the University of Florida.
Bar Admissions
The Florida Bar District of Columbia Bar
Court Admissions
Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Education
University of Miami School of Law, J.D. - 1985 Florida International University, B.S. - 1982
Email: gilbert@k olawyers.com
Robert C. “Bobby” Gilbert has over three decades of experience handling class actions, multidistrict litigation and complex business litigation throughout the United States. He has been appointed lead counsel, co-lead counsel, coordinating counsel or liaison counsel in many federal and state court class actions. Bobby has served as trial counsel in class actions and complex business litigation tried before judges, juries and arbitrators. He has also briefed and argued numerous appeals, including two precedent-setting cases before the Florida Supreme Court.
Bobby was appointed as Plaintiffs' Coordinating Counsel in In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., MDL 2036, class action litigation brought against many of the nation's largest banks that challenged the banks' internal practice of reordering debit card transactions in a manner designed to maximize the frequency of customer overdrafts. In that role, Bobby managed the large team of lawyers who prosecuted the class actions and served as the plaintiffs' liaison with the Court regarding management and administration of the multidistrict litigation. He also led or participated in settlement negotiations with the banks that resulted in settlements exceeding $1.1 billion, including Bank of America ($410 million), Citizens Financial ($137.5 million), JPMorgan Chase Bank ($110 million), PNC Bank ($90 million), TD Bank ($62 million), U.S. Bank ($55 million), Union Bank ($35 million) and Capital One ($31.7 million).
Bobby has been appointed to leadership positions is numerous other class actions and multidistrict litigation proceedings. He is currently serving as co-lead counsel in In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 9:20-md-02924-RLR (S.D. Fla.), as well as liaison counsel in In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., MDL 2626 (M.D. Fla.); liaison counsel in In re 21st Century Oncology Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL 2737 (M.D. Fla.); and In re Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Antitrust Litig., No. 19-21551 (S.D. Fla.). He previously served as liaison counsel for indirect purchasers in In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., MDL 1317 (S.D. Fla.), an antitrust class action that settled for over $74 million.
For the past 18 years, Bobby has represented thousands of Florida homeowners in class actions to recover full compensation under the Florida Constitution based on the Florida Department of Agriculture's taking and destruction of the homeowners' private property. As lead counsel, Bobby argued before the Florida Supreme Court to establish the homeowners' right to pursue their claims; served as trial counsel in non-jury liability trials followed by jury trials that established the amount of full compensation owed to the homeowners for their private property; and handled all appellate proceedings. Bobby's tireless efforts on behalf of the homeowners resulted in judgments exceeding $93 million.
Bobby previously served as an Adjunct Professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, where he co-taught a course on complex litigation in federal courts that focused on multidistrict litigation and class actions. He continues to frequently lecture and make presentations on a variety of topics.
Bobby has served for many years as a trustee of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation and previously served as chairman of the board of the Alexander Muss High School in Israel, and as a trustee of The Miami Foundation.
JONATHAN M. STREISFELD
Partner
Bar Admissions
The Florida Bar
Court Admissions
Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan
U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee
Education
Nova Southeastern University, J.D. - 1997 Syracuse University, B.S.-1994
Email: streisfeld@kolawers.com
Jonathan M. Streisfeld joined KO as a partner in 2008. Mr. Streisfeld concentrates his practice in the areas of consumer class actions, business litigation, and appeals nationwide. He is a Martindale Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney in both legal ability and ethics.
Mr. Streisfeld has vast and successful experience in class action litigation, serving as class counsel in nationwide and statewide consumer class action lawsuits against the nation's largest financial institutions in connection with the unlawful assessment of fees. To date, his efforts have successfully resulted in the recovery of over $500,000,000 for tens of millions of bank and credit union customers, as well as profound changes in the way banks assess fees. Additionally, he has and continues to serve as lead and class counsel for consumers in many class actions involving false advertising and pricing, defective products, data breach and privacy, automobile defects, airlines, mortgages, and payday lending. Mr. Streisfeld has also litigated class actions against some of the largest health and automobile insurance carriers and oil conglomerates, and defended class and collective actions in other contexts.
Mr. Streisfeld has represented a variety of businesses and individuals in a broad range of business litigation matters, including contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intellectual property, real estate, shareholder disputes, wage and hour, and deceptive trade practices claims. He also assists business owners and individuals with documenting contractual relationships and resolving disputes. Mr. Streisfeld has also provided legal representation in bid protest proceedings.
Mr. Streisfeld oversees the firm's appellate and litigation support practice, representing clients in the appeal of final and non-final orders, as well as writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. His appellate practice includes civil and marital and family law matters.
Previously, Mr. Streisfeld served as outside assistant city attorney for the City of Plantation and Village of Wellington in a broad range of litigation matters. As a member of The Florida Bar, Mr. Streisfeld served for many years on the Executive Council of the Appellate Practice Section and is a past Chair of the Section's Communications Committee. Mr. Streisfeld currently serves as a member of the Board of Temple Kol Ami Emanu-El.
Bar Admissions
The Pennsylvania Bar The New Jersey Bar
Court Admissions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits
U.S. District Ct, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Ct, Middle District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Ct, Western District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Ct, District of New Jersey
U.S. District Ct, Eastern District of Michigan
U.S. District Ct, Western District of Wisconsin
Education
Villanova University School of Law, J.D., 1999 University of Michigan, 1996
Email: grunfeld@kolaivyers.com
Ken Grunfeld is one of the newest KO partners, having just started working at the firm in 2023. Having worked at one of Philadelphia's largest and most prestigious defense firms for nearly a decade defending pharmaceutical manufacturers, national railroads, asbestos companies and corporate clients in consumer protection, products liability, insurance coverage and other complex commercial disputes while working, Mr. Grunfeld "switched sides" about 15 years ago.
Since then, he has become one of the city's most prolific and well-known Philadelphia class action lawyers. His cases have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for injured individuals.
Mr. Grunfeld brings with him a wealth of pre-trial, trial, and appellate work experience in both state and federal courts. He has successfully taken many cases to verdict. Currently, he serves as lead counsel in a number of nationwide class actions. Whether by settlement or judgment, Mr. Grunfeld makes sure the offending companies' wrongful practices have been addressed. He believes the most important part of bringing a wrongdoer to justice is to ensure that it never happens again; class actions can be a true instrument for change if done well.
Mr. Grunfeld has been named a Super Lawyer numerous times throughout his career. He has been a member of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and American Bar Associations, as well as a member of the American Association for Justice (AAJ). He was a Finalist for AAJ's prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2012 and currently serves as AAJ's Vice Chair of the Class Action Law Group. To his strong view that attorneys should act ethically, he volunteers his time as a Hearing Committee Member for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Grunfeld received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan. He is an active member of the Michigan Alumni Association, Philadelphia chapter and serves as a Michigan Alumni Student recruiter for local high schools. He received his Juris Doctor from the Villanova University School of Law. He was a member of the Villanova Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif.
Ken is a life-long Philadelphian. He makes his home in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, where he resides with his wife, Jennifer, and his year-old twins.
Bar A dmissions
The Florida Bar
The State Bar of California
Court Admissions
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court, Central District of California U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Education
Nova Southeastern University, J.D, 2007 University of Florida, B.A, 2004 Email:cardoso@kolaw ers.com
Kristen Lake Cardoso is a litigation attorney focusing on consumer class actions and complex commercial litigation. She has gained valuable experience representing individuals and businesses in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels in a variety of litigation matters, including contractual claims, violations of consumer protection statutes, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, professional liability, real estate claims, enforcement of non-compete agreements, trade secret infringement, shareholder disputes, deceptive trade practices, and other business torts.
Currently, Ms. Cardoso serves as counsel in nationwide and statewide class action lawsuits concerning violations of state consumer protection statutes, false advertising, defective products, data breaches, and breaches of contract. Ms. Cardoso is actively litigating cases against major U.S. airlines for their failure to refund fares following flight cancellations and schedule changes, as well cases against manufacturers for their sale and misleading marketing of products, including defective cosmetics and nutritional supplements. Ms. Cardoso as also represented students seeking reimbursements of tuition, room and board, and other fees paid to their colleges and universities for in-person education, housing, meals, and other services not provided when campuses closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, Ms. Cardoso has represented consumers seeking recovery of gambling losses from tech companies that profit from illegal gambling games offered, sold, and distributed on their platforms.
Ms. Cardoso is admitted to practice law throughout the states of Florida and California, as well as in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, Central District of California, Eastern District of California Northern District of Illinois, and Eastern District of Michigan.
Ms. Cardoso attended the University of Florida, where she received her Bachelor's degree in Political Science, cum laude, and was inducted as a member of Phi Beta Kappa honor society. She received her law degree from Nova Southeastern University, magna cum laude. While in law school, Ms. Cardoso served as an Articles Editor for the Nova Law Review, was on the Dean's List, and was the recipient of a scholarship granted by the Broward County Hispanic Bar Association for her academic achievements. When not practicing law, Ms. Cardoso serves as a volunteer at Saint David Catholic School, including as a member of the school Advisory Board and an executive member of the Faculty Student Association. She has also served on various committees with the Junior League of Greater Fort Lauderdale geared towards improving the local community through leadership and volunteering.
Bar Admissions The Florida Bar The New York Bar Court Admissions
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
United States District Court, Central District of Illinois
Education
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 20018
Northwestern University, B.S., 2010
Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
Steven Sukert has experience in all aspects of complex litigation in federal and state court, including drafting successful dispositive motions and appeals, handling discovery, and arguing court hearings. Steven focuses his practice at KO on complex class actions and multi-district litigations in courts around the country, including in data privacy, bank overdraft fee, and other consumer protection cases.
Before joining KO, Steven gained experience at Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. in Miami in high-stakes commercial cases often involving trade secret and intellectual property claims, consumer contract claims, and legal malpractice claims, as well as in international arbitrations. Steven co-authored an amicus brief in the Florida Supreme Court case Airbnb, Inc. v. Doe (Case No. SC20-1167), and helped organize the American Bar Association's inaugural International Arbitration Masterclass, in 2021.
Steven was born and raised in Miami. He returned to his home city after law school to clerk for the Honorable James Lawrence King in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In 2018, Steven earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. While living in the nation's capital, he worked at the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, where he won the Gary S. Tell ERISA Litigation Award; the Civil Fraud Section of the U.S Department of Justice, where he worked on large Medicare fraud cases and pioneered the use of the False Claims Act in the context of pharmaceutical manufacturers who engaged in price fixing; and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, where his proposal for writing an amicus brief in the Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court case was adopted by the organization's board of directors.
Steven has a degree in Molecular Biology from Northwestern University. Prior to his legal career, he worked as a biomedical laboratory researcher at the Diabetes Research Institute in Miami.
Bar Admissions
The Florida Bar
Court Admissions
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida
Education
University of Miami School of Law, JD. - 2020 University of Miami, B.S. - 2016
Email: Herter@kolawyers.com
Caroline Herter is a litigation attorney at the firm's Fort Lauderdale office. Caroline focuses her practice on consumer class actions, mass torts, and white-collar commercial litigation in state and federal courts nationwide. She has gained valuable experience representing individuals and businesses to hold wrongdoers accountable through claims involving personal injury, wrongful death, consumer fraud, products liability, breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft/conversion, corporate veil-piercing, fraudulent transfer, tortious interference, False Claims Act violations, and the like.
Before joining KO, Caroline worked at a boutique law firm in Miami where she represented plaintiffs in matters involving creditor's rights, insolvency, and asset recovery. She now applies this experience throughout her practice at KO, often combining equitable remedies with legal claims to ensure the best chance of recovery for her clients.
Notable cases that Caroline has been involved in include In Re: Champlain Towers South Collapse Litigation, where she was a member of the team serving as lead counsel for the families of the 98 individuals who lost their lives in the tragic condominium collapse. The case resulted in over $1 billion recovered for class members, the second-largest settlement in Florida history. She also co-authored a successful petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in Olhausen v. Arriva Medical, LLC et al., a False Claims Act case involving the standard for determining a defendant's scienter, which led the high Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal's earlier ruling against her client.
Caroline earned her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law, summa cum laude, where she received awards for the highest grade in multiple courses. During law school Caroline was an editor of the University of Miami Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board.
Outside of her law practice, Caroline serves on the Board of Directors of the non-profit organization Americans for Immigrant Justice.