1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO 

PADILLA, CECILIA LINARES, 

AUGUSTINA BLANCO, ABEL 

GONZALEZ, and RICHARD JENNINGS, 

On Behalf of Themselves and All Others 

Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and 

REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida 

corporation; TARGET CORPORATION, a 

Minnesota Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 11-CV-07972 

CLASS ACTION 

Hon. James B. Zagel 

DECLARATION OF ELAINE A. RYAN, STEWART M. WELTMAN, AND 

HOWARD J. SEDRAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 1 of 43 PageID #:2104
2 

Elaine A. Ryan, Stewart M. Weltman, and Howard J. Sedran, individually and 

jointly (as to paragraphs 4-16) declare as follows: 

1. I, Elaine A. Ryan, am a shareholder of the law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, 

Friedman & Balint, P.C. (“BFFB”). I am one of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs Pearson, 

Padilla, Linares, Blanco, and Gonzalez (hereafter the “Pearson Plaintiffs”) and the Class in the 

above entitled litigation. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards 

in the above-entitled action. BFFB has extensive experience prosecuting consumer class actions. 

The firm specializes in complex class action litigation, representing consumers, employees, and 

investors in class actions pending in state and federal courts throughout the United States. 

During its successful history, the firm has successfully litigated over 100 class action cases and 

has made available hundreds of millions of dollars for class members. Attached as Exhibit A is a 

firm biography for BFFB. 

2. I, Stewart M. Weltman, am the owner of Stewart M. Weltman LLC (collectively 

referred to as (“WELTMAN LLC”). Since February 1, 2012, WELTMAN LLC has been Of 

Counsel to Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman. WELTMAN LLC is one of the firms representing 

the Pearson Plaintiffs and the Class in the above entitled litigation. I am submitting this 

declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, 

Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards in the above-entitled action. Over 34 years, I 

have specialized in complex litigation, prosecuting and defending a variety of individual and 

class actions under the consumer fraud, securities fraud and antitrust laws. I have been in 

involved as lead counsel in cases that have made available hundreds of millions of dollars to 

victims of consumer fraud, securities fraud and antitrust violations. Attached as Exhibit B is my 

professional biography. 

3. I, Howard J. Sedran, am a member of the law firm of Levin Fishbein Sedran & 

Berman (“LFSB”). I am one of the attorneys representing the Pearson Plaintiffs and the Class in 

the above entitled litigation. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 2 of 43 PageID #:2105
3 

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards in 

the above-entitled action. LFSB has extensive experience prosecuting class actions. The firm 

specializes in complex class action litigation, representing plaintiffs in class actions in state and 

federal courts throughout the United States. The firm has successfully litigated numerous 

complex litigation matters and has made available hundreds of millions for its clients. Attached 

as Exhibit C is a firm biography for LFSB. 

4. Based upon pre-suit investigation, including extensive research and analysis of 

the science regarding glucosamine and chondroitin, BFFB and WELTMAN LLC (hereafter 

“Pearson Plaintiffs’ Counsel” or “PPC”) concluded that one of the primary objectives of any 

glucosamine/chondroitin litigation must be the removal of false joint health benefit 

representations from the product labels, such as representations that the products “rebuild” or 

“renew” joint cartilage. This objective could not be accomplished in isolation – where only one 

manufacturer changed its labeling while others remained free to say what they wanted. PPC 

determined that the most appropriate and effective course of action would be to initiate similar 

litigation against the primary glucosamine/chondroitin manufacturers seeking the same 

injunctive relief and monetary relief as achieved against the parties to the Settlement Agreement. 

5. On June 14, 2011, PPC filed the first class action involving any of the Covered 

Products in this litigation, Cardenas and Padilla1 v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc., No. 

2:11-CV-01615-LKK-CKD (E.D. Cal.), involving the Osteo Bi-Flex line of 

glucosamine/chondroitin products. Thereafter, PPC initiated litigation against two other large 

branded glucosamine/chondroitin product lines, Schiff Nutrition’s Move Free products (Lerma v. 

Schiff Nutrition Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01056-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal.) (filed May 13, 2011) and 

Pearson v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l Inc., and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08914 (N.D. 

Ill.) (filed December 15, 2011)); and Pharmavite’s TripleFlex products (Barrera v. Pharmavite, 

LLC, No. 2:11-cv-04153-CAS-AGR (filed May 13, 2011)). 

 

1

 Plaintiff Francisco Padilla was included as a named plaintiff in the Third Amended Complaint, filed on October 

30, 2012. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 3 of 43 PageID #:2106
4 

6. PPC also initiated litigation against various large private label 

glucosamine/chondroitin manufacturers: Costco (Padilla v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 1:11-

cv-07686 (N.D. Ill.) (filed October 28, 2011) and Linares and Gonzalez2 v. Costco Wholesale, 

Inc., No. 3:11-cv-02547-MMA-RBB (S.D. Cal.) (filed November 2, 2011)); Target (Pearson v. 

Target Corp., No. 1:11-cv-07972 (N.D. Ill.) (filed November 9, 2011)); and CVS (Blanco v. CVS 

Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00406-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.) (filed March 4, 2013). At the time that 

PPC filed suit against these private label glucosamine/chondroitin products, PPC was not aware 

that the Rexall defendants manufactured these private label products and first learned of this 

during settlement negotiations. 

7. PPC also has initiated litigation against other private label 

glucosamine/chondroitin sellers, including Walgreen Company (Ehrman and Guilin v. Walgreen 

Company, No. 1:11-cv-07763 (N.D. Ill.) (filed November 1, 2011) (a case that is currently 

pending before this Court); Wal-Mart (Eckler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00727-WNLS (S.D. Cal.) (filed March 26, 2012); Direct Digital (Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC., No. 

1:13-cv-01829 (N.D. Ill.) (filed March 8, 2013); GNC (Lerma v. GNC Corp., No. 3:13:cv00933-CAB-KSC (filed April 18, 2013) and Nutramax (Conrad v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 

1:13-cv-03780 (N.D. Ill.) (filed May 21, 2013). 

8. While PPC is, of course, not seeking compensation for its work on matters 

relating to products not covered by the Settlement Agreement, the existence of these other 

matters provides important context. If this Settlement is approved, it is likely that the benefits 

provided by this Settlement, in particular the important labeling changes described in the final 

approval papers, will be effected on an industry-wide basis, particularly since Rexall is one of 

the market leaders in sales of glucosamine products. 

9. PPC has aggressively prosecuted this case and vigorously represented the best 

interests of the Pearson Plaintiffs and the Class. PPC engaged in extensive pre-litigation 

 

2

 Plaintiff Abel Gonzalez was included as a named plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint, filed on April 25, 

2012. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 4 of 43 PageID #:2107
5 

research of the scientific evidence regarding glucosamine/chondroitin by, inter alia, reviewing 

numerous studies and reviews and consulting with experts; drafted the original and various 

amended complaints filed in each of these actions, successfully defeated several motions to 

dismiss; retained and worked with various experts; engaged in discovery and review of 

documents; commenced and engaged in class certification proceedings, including the preparation 

of expert disclosures and reports; and defended expert depositions. 

10. PPC also played an instrumental role in settlement negotiations, which were hardfought, involving numerous and extensive telephone conferences, emails, and in-person 

meetings. Even after all the material terms of the Settlement had been reached, PPC played an 

important role and expended a significant amount of effort in negotiating the definitive 

Settlement Agreement and the preparation and drafting of the exhibits (including the forms of 

Notice), preparing the preliminary approval papers and appearing at the preliminary approval 

hearing, monitoring the claims administration process, and preparing the final approval papers, 

including preparing responses to each of the objections that were filed. 

The Requested Fee In Relation to the Settlement 

11. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, PPC and LFSB are requesting, 

and Settling Defendants have agreed not to oppose, a combined attorneys’ fee and expense 

award of $2 million. 

12. As set forth in the Final Approval Brief, the Parties’ Joint Response to Objections 

and Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections, filed herewith, several valuation methodologies can be 

utilized to evaluate the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses. Here, 

under any of the various approaches, the attorneys’ fees and expenses requested by PPC are 

reasonable and justified. 

13. The total potential compensatory benefits made available to Class Members is 

approximately $27.3 million (12 million class members x 76% reach x $3.00 minimum claim) or 

$14.2 million (4.7 million direct notice recipients x $3.00). These amounts are conservative 

because class members are entitled to make multiple claims, up to $12 each for undocumented 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 5 of 43 PageID #:2108
6 

purchases and up to $50 for documented purchases. See Final Approval Brief, at §III.C.1.a 

§V.B.1; Parties’ Joint Response to Objections, at §II.A. Based on these valuations, the 

attorneys’ fees requested in this Declaration represent 7.3% and 14.0% of the minimum value of 

the monetary relief provided by the Settlement. 

14. If the value of the amounts paid by Rexall for notice and administration, 

attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards are added to the total potential compensatory benefits 

made available to Class Members for purposes of calculating attorneys’ fees, the value of the 

settlement increases to a minimum of either: (1) $33.3 million (Total Class Notice Value of 

$27.3 million, plus $1.5 million notice and administrative costs, plus $4.5 million in attorneys’ 

fees and expenses); or (2) $20.2 million (Individual Notice Value of $14.2 million, plus $1.5 

million in notice and administrative costs, plus $4.5 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses). See

Final Approval Brief, at §V.B.1; Parties’ Joint Response to Objections, at §II.B. Based on these 

valuations, the attorneys’ fees requested in this Declaration represent 6.0% and 9.9% of the 

value of the monetary relief provided by the Settlement. 

15. In addition to the monetary relief available to the Class, the injunctive relief 

provided by this Settlement has significant value. For the 30-month period set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement, the estimated benefit to the Class from the injunctive relief set forth in 

the Settlement is approximately $46.2 million to consumers and approximately $21.7 million to 

current Class members. See Final Approval Brief, at §III.C.1.b; §V.B.2; Plaintiffs’ Response to 

Objections. If the value of the injunctive relief is included in the total monetary value of the 

settlement fund, it results in a value ranging from $79.5 million (Total Class Notice Value of 

$27.3 million, plus $46.2 million in injunctive relief, plus $1.5 million notice and administrative 

costs, plus $4.5 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses) to $41.9 million (Individual Notice 

Value of $14.2 million, plus $21.7 million value of the injunctive relief to current Class 

members, plus $1.5 million in notice and administrative costs, plus $4.5 million in attorneys’ 

fees and expenses). Using the lower range of the total value of the combined monetary and 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 6 of 43 PageID #:2109
7 

injunctive relief valuations, the attorneys’ fees and expenses requested in the Declaration 

represent 4.7% of the value of the total relief provided by the Settlement.3 

16. Finally, a lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the requested 

attorneys’ fees. See Final Approval Brief, at §V.C. The firms’ respective lodestar totals (as set 

forth below in detail) are: BFFB - $617,166.50; Weltman/LFSB - $377,636.25; this totals a 

combined lodestar of $$994,802.75. If the Court considers Declarants’ combined lodestar, this 

represents a multiplier of 2. 

BFFB Lodestar and Expense Detail 

17. The total number of hours spent on this litigation by BFFB is 1,517.7. BFFB 

spent approximately 91.1 hours on pre-suit investigation, approximately 194.9 hours on litigation 

strategy/coordination/management, approximately 229.7 hours drafting the Complaints and other 

submissions to the Court (including legal and other research and investigation), approximately 

311.2 hours related to motions to dismiss and class certification (including legal research), 

approximately 236.1 hours on discovery and depositions, approximately 62.4 hours on court 

appearances and preparation, and approximately 392.3 hours related to settlement (including 

preparing court filings in support of preliminary and final approval). 

18. The total lodestar amount for attorney/professional time based on the BFFB’s 

rates is $617,166.50. The hourly rates shown below are the usual and customary rates charged 

for each individual in all of our class action cases. A breakdown of the lodestar is as follows: 

NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR 

Elaine A. Ryan Shareholder 390.1 $575.00 $224,307.50 

Patricia N. Syverson Shareholder 399.3 $525.00 $209,632.50 

Todd D. Carpenter Shareholder 40.2 $525.00 $21,105.00 

T. Brent Jordan Associate 42.4 $500.00 $21,200.00 

 

3

 If the Court were to consider the total attorneys’ fee award requested by all Plaintiffs’ Counsel pursuant to the 

terms of the Settlement (i.e., $4.5 million), the corresponding percentage of fees compared to the total value of 

monetary relief would be 16.5% and 31.7%; total value of monetary relief, plus notice and administrative costs and 

attorneys’ fees would be 13.6% and 22.3%; and total value of the lower range of injunctive relief would be 10.7%. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 7 of 43 PageID #:2110
8 

Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray Associate 365.2 $250.00 $91,300.00 

Kevin R. Hanger Associate 35.2 $250.00 $8,800.00 

Brian R. Elser Litigation Support Specialist 3.0 $225.00 $675.00 

Rose K. Creech Paralegal 16.7 $175.00 $2,922.50 

Lydia L. Rueda Paralegal 199.3 $165.00 $32,884.50 

David J. Streyle Paralegal 20.6 $165.00 $3,399.00 

Meredith K. Kight Paralegal 5.7 $165.00 $940.50 

TOTALS: 1,517.7 $617,166.50 

19. The lodestar amount has been compiled based on BFFB’s records. Attorneys and 

professionals at BFFB record time on a daily basis and the time entries are entered into a 

computerized timekeeping system. In computing the total compensable time, attorneys at BFFB 

consistently exercised their billing judgment by reducing some time entries based upon the task 

and to avoid unnecessary duplication of billing entries with other attorneys at BFFB and other 

PPC firms representing the Pearson Plaintiffs in the case. 

20. The hourly rates reflected in the foregoing BFFB table are consistent with those 

charged by similarly situated practitioners in the legal community. In particular, BFFB’s rates 

have been accepted for purposes of lodestar determinations and cross-checks made in the 

following class action cases among many others: 

Hohman v. Matrixx Initatives Inc. et. al, No. 1:09-cv-03693 (N.D. Ill.); 

Payares v. J.P. Morgan Chase, No. CV 07-05540 (C.D. Cal.);

Negrete v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Ins. Co., No. CV-05-6837 (C.D. Cal.); 

Allen v. Decision One Mortgage Co., No. 1:07-cv-11669 (D. Mass);

Rand v. American National Ins. Co., No. CV 09-0639 (N.D. Cal.);

Ramirez v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00369 (N.D. Cal.);

In re Midland National Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., No. 2:07-ml-1825 

(C.D. Cal);

In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litig., No. CV 04-2147 (D. Ariz.); and

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 8 of 43 PageID #:2111
9 

In re Conseco Ins. Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., No. 5:05-cv04726 (N.D. Cal). 

21. BFFB incurred a total of $57,398.04 in un-reimbursed expenses in connection 

with the prosecution of this litigation. They are broken down as follows: 

EXPENSE CATEGORY AMOUNT 

Court/Filing Fees $2,439.00 

Service of Process $528.70 

Expert Fees $42,001.32 

Electronic Research (Westlaw/Lexis Nexis/Pacer) $3,518.12 

Outside Messenger $441.00 

Overnight Delivery $317.84 

Internal Reproduction $74.40 

Telephone/Facsimile $16.45 

Travel/Lodging/Transportation/Meals $7,839.88 

Glucosamine Product Purchases $221.33 

TOTAL: $57,398.04 

22. The aforementioned expenses pertaining to this case are reflected in the books and 

records of BFFB. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, 

and other documents and are an accurate record of the expenses. All of the expenses listed were 

reasonably incurred in the normal course of business, were reasonably necessary to the conduct 

of the litigation, and were otherwise not duplicative. 

23. BFFB’s compensation for the services rendered to the Class is wholly contingent. 

Any fees and reimbursement of expenses will be limited to the stipulated amount agreed to by 

the Defendants, subject to the approval of the Court. 

24. The lodestar summary reflects BFFB’s experience in the field, the complexity of 

the matters involved in this litigation, and the prevailing rate for providing such services. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 9 of 43 PageID #:2112
10 

25. Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I, Elaine A. Ryan, 

declare and believe that the time expended by BFFB in connection with this action is reasonable 

in amount, was necessary to prosecute this litigation and represents BFFB’s efforts to diligently 

litigate this case while at the same time recognizing the need to avoid needless billing and 

duplication of efforts both between the attorneys in BFFB and the attorneys in the other PPC 

firms representing the Pearson Plaintiffs in this litigation. Throughout this litigation I, as well as 

all the other attorneys at my firm involved in this litigation, have kept in mind our professional 

and fiduciary obligations to our clients, the Court, and the Class both in our litigation efforts and 

strategy, as well as in our billing (including in the amount of time and exercise of judgment 

regarding specific tasks performed).

WELTMAN LLC Lodestar and Expense Detail 

26. WELTMAN LLC, along with BFFB spent substantial numbers of hours in initial 

research both legal and scientific before filing all of the actions set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 

above. Many of those hours, while of benefit to the cases which are the subject of this litigation 

(because they provided initial background information both legally and scientifically) were not 

billed to this litigation and are not part of the lodestar analysis below. The total number of hours 

spent on this litigation by WELTMAN LLC is 474.75. WELTMAN LLC spent approximately 

32.5 hours on pre-suit investigation, litigation strategy/coordination, drafting 

pleadings/complaints and other submissions to the Court; approximately 402.5 hours 

briefing/legal research and other research and investigation (including motions to dismiss, class 

certification and preliminary and final approval papers; approximately 4 hours on court 

appearances and preparation; and approximately 35.75 hours related to settlement negotiations. 

27. The total lodestar amount for attorney/professional time based on WELTMAN 

LLC’s rates is $325,203.75. Mr. Weltman’s hourly rate is the usual and customary rate charged 

by WELTMAN LLC. Mr. Weltman spent 474.75 hours at an hourly rate of $685 for a total 

lodestar of $325,203.75. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 10 of 43 PageID #:2113
11 

28. The lodestar amount has been compiled based on WELTMAN LLC’s records. 

Mr. Weltman records time on a daily basis and the time entries are compiled monthly on 

computerized data sheets. In computing the total compensable time, WELTMAN LLC has 

consistently exercised its billing judgment by reducing some time entries based upon the task and 

to avoid unnecessary duplication of billing entries with other PPC firms representing the Pearson 

Plaintiffs in the case. 

29. The hourly rates reflected above for WELTMAN LLC are consistent if not lower 

than those charged by similarly situated practitioners in the legal community. In particular, Mr. 

Weltman’s rates have been accepted for purposes of lodestar determinations and cross-checks 

made in the following class action cases among many others: 

Hohman v. Matrixx Initatives Inc. et. al, No. 1:09-cv-03693 (N.D. Ill.) 

In Re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-cv-10191, MDL NO. 1543 (D.C. Mass.) 

In Re EPDM Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:03-md-1542 (D.C. Conn.) 

In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Misc. No. 99-197, MDL 1285 (D.D.C.) 

30. In connection with its Of Counsel relationship with LFSB, WELTMAN LLC’s 

expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this litigation have been paid for and 

advanced by LFSB. 

31. WELTMAN LLC’s compensation for the services rendered to the Class is wholly 

contingent. Any fees will be limited to the stipulated amount agreed to by the Defendants, 

subject to the approval of the Court. 

32. The lodestar summary reflects WELTMAN LLC’s experience in the field, the 

complexity of the matters involved in this litigation, and the prevailing rate for providing such 

services. 

33. Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I, Stewart M. 

Weltman, declare and believe that the time expended by WELTMAN LLC in connection with 

this action is reasonable in amount, was necessary to prosecute this litigation, and represents 

WELTMAN LLC’s efforts to diligently litigate this case while at the same time recognizing the 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 11 of 43 PageID #:2114
12 

need to avoid needless billing and duplication of efforts between the attorneys in the other PPC 

firms representing the Pearson Plaintiffs in this litigation. Throughout this litigation I have kept 

in mind my professional and fiduciary obligations to our clients, the Court, and the Class both in 

my litigation efforts and strategy, as well as in my billing (including in the amount of time and 

exercise of judgment regarding specific tasks performed).

LFSB Lodestar and Expense Detail 

34. The total number of hours spent on this litigation by LFSB is 116.3. LFSB’s 

paralegal assisted in finalizing and proofing briefs and attended to other administrative filing 

matters. Additionally, LFSB participated in legal research, case oversight, and settlement. 

35. The total lodestar amount for attorney/professional time based on the LFSB’s 

rates is $52,432.50. The hourly rates shown below are the usual and customary rates charged for 

each individual in all of our class action cases. A breakdown of the lodestar is as follows: 

NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR 

Howard J. Sedran Partner 12.3 $775.00 $9,532.50 

Charles Sweedler Associate 59.0 $525.00 $30,975.00 

James Rapone Paralegal 45.0 $265.00 $11,925.00 

TOTALS: 116.30 $52,432.50 

36. The lodestar amount has been compiled based on LFSB’s records. Attorneys and 

professionals at LFSB contemporaneously record their time and the time entries are compiled on 

a monthly basis. 

37. The hourly rates reflected in the foregoing LFSB table are consistent with those 

charged by similarly situated practitioners in the legal community. In particular, LFSB’s rates 

have been accepted for purposes of lodestar determinations and cross-checks made in the 

following class action cases among many others:

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:06-md–01775 (E.D. 

N.Y.), MDL No. 1775 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 12 of 43 PageID #:2115
13 

In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:08-md-01950 (S.D. N.Y.), 

MDL No. 1950 

In re Potash Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:08-cv-06910 (N.D. IL) Eastern Division, 

MDL No. 1996 

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002 (E.D. Pa.), 

MDL No. 2002 

In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:04-md-01616 (D.C. KS), MDL 1616 

38. LFSB incurred a total of $29,091.06 in unreimbursed expenses in connection with 

the prosecution of this litigation. They are broken down as follows: 

EXPENSE CATEGORY AMOUNT 

Court/Filing Fees $1,584.00 

Expert Fees $22,826.36 

Deposition/Transcript Fees $2,400.05 

Electronic Research (Westlaw/Lexis Nexis/Pacer) $1,811.40 

Outside Messenger $0.00 

Overnight Delivery $0.00 

Postage $24.17 

Outside Photocopy Expense $15.00 

Internal Reproduction $0.00 

Telephone/Facsimile $27.93 

Travel/Lodging/Transportation/Meals $402.15 

Mediation Fees $0.00 

TOTAL: $29,091.06 

39. The aforementioned expenses pertaining to this case are reflected in the books and 

records of LFSB. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records 

and other documents and are an accurate record of the expenses. All of the expenses listed were 

reasonably incurred in the normal course of business, were reasonably necessary to the conduct 

of the litigation and were otherwise not duplicative. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 13 of 43 PageID #:2116

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 15 of 43 PageID #:2118
16 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 4, 2013, a true and correct copy of the following document 

was electronically filed and served on all counsel of record in this action who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system: Declaration of Elaine A. 

Ryan, Stewart M. Weltman, and Howard J. Sedran in Support of Motion For Attorneys’ 

Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards. 

I also certify that the foregoing document is being served by U.S. Mail this day on all 

counsel of record or pro se parties identified below who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

C. Jane Radlinski 

309 E. Church Street 

Jacksonville, FL 32202-2725 

(904) 633-2699 

Pro se Objector 

John Michael Buckley 

370 Canyon Spring Dr. 

Rio Vista, CA 94571 

(707) 374-3853 

Pro se Objector 

 

Peggy Thomas 

2109 N.W. 12th Avenue 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311 

(954) 761-1589 

Pro se Objector 

 

Simone Thomas 

2109 N.W. 12th Avenue 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311 

(305) 903-6935 

Pro se Objector 

 

Rhonda L. Paulson 

13383 E. Marie Creek Road 

Couer d’Alene, ID 83814 

Pro se Objector 

Donald Charles Koneval 

8314 Manorford Drive 

Parma, OH 44129-5309 

(440) 842-6232 

Pro se Objector 

 

Anthony Leardi 

1813 Renwick Street 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

(610) 865-7821 

Pro se Objector 

 

Joseph Darrell Palmer 

Law Office of Darrell Palmer PC 

603 N. Highway 101, Suite A 

Solana Beach, CA 92075 

(858) 792-5600 

Attorney for Objectors Kathleen McNeal 

 and Alison Paul 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 16 of 43 PageID #:2119
17 

Melissa A. Holyoak 

Center for Class Action Fairness 

1718 M Street NW, No. 236 

Washington, DC 20036 

(573) 823-5377 

Attorney for Objector Ted Frank 

 

Jonathan E. Fortman #40319 

250 Saint Catherine Street 

Florissant, Missouri 63031 

(314) 522-2312 

Attorney for Objector Pamela Easton 

 

Steve A. Miller 

Steve A. Miller, PC 

1625 Larimer Street, No. 2905 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 892-9933 

Attorney for Objector Pamela Easton 

 

Maureen Connors (0074094OH) 

6625 Pearl Road 

Parma Heights, OH 44130 

(216) 640-9860 

Attorney for Objector Pamela Easton 

John C. Kress (53396MO) 

The Kress Law Firm, LLC 

4247 S. Grand Blvd. 

St. Louis, MO 63111 

(314) 631-3883 

Attorney for Objector Pamela Easton 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 17 of 43 PageID #:2120
Exhibit A

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 18 of 43 PageID #:2121
ABOUT THE FIRM 

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. is an AV rated firm of 27 lawyers. Our clients include 

many individuals and local businesses, as well as major national and international companies in a wide 

range of civil litigation in both federal and state courts. 

The firm has developed a recognized practice in the area of complex commercial litigation, including 

major class actions and is widely regarded as the preeminent firm in Arizona representing plaintiffs in 

class action proceedings. Over the last twenty years, the firm has successfully handled more than 100 

class action lawsuits. We have represented consumers and victims in a wide range of class action 

proceedings, including actions alleging antitrust claims, securities fraud, civil rights claims and 

consumer fraud. 

Our antitrust practice includes the prosecution of class claims on behalf of direct purchasers of 

products as well as indirect purchaser claims. These antitrust cases include, among others, class 

actions against Microsoft, MasterCard, Apple Computer and sellers of products such as polyester and 

rubber chemicals, waste management services, financial products and other industries. In addition to 

our class action practice, the firm also has represented plaintiffs in individual litigation asserting 

antitrust claims, including Culligan International. 

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint has taken a leading role in numerous important actions on 

behalf of consumers and investors, and we have been responsible for many outstanding results that 

have yielded dozens of multi-million dollar recoveries for class members in Arizona and throughout 

the United States. 

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. 

2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Phone: (602) 274-1100 

Toll Free Number: (800) 847-9094 

Fax: (602) 274-1199 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 19 of 43 PageID #:2122
PRACTICE AREAS 

CLASS ACTION 

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint represents consumers and investors in major class action cases 

in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Under the direction of Andrew S. Friedman, 

the firm's class action section represents plaintiff classes in the following areas: 

Securities Fraud: Protects institutional shareholders and individual investors from corporate 

fraud and mismanagement. 

Consumer Protection: Protects consumers from defective products and fraudulent 

marketing practices. 

Antitrust: Protects individuals and businesses from price fixing, unfair business practices 

and other anticompetitive conduct. 

Civil Rights and Employment: Protects employees and consumers against unfair practices 

and racial, age, gender, and other forms of discrimination. 

Insurance and Health Care: Represents victims of fraud and unfair sales practices by life 

insurance companies and HMOs. 

Tobacco: Seeks redress for fraudulent marketing of "Light" cigarettes as a less toxic version 

of "Full Flavor" varieties. 

False Claims and Whistleblowers: Provides for awards to individuals who uncover false 

claims for payment submitted to the federal government. 

SECURITIES 

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint has extensive experience in plaintiffs' class action securities 

cases in and out of the State of Arizona. Its attorneys have recovered substantial verdicts and 

settlements in various high-profile cases representing bondholders who have suffered significant losses 

due to the criminal activities of individuals in the securities and banking industries, including 

victimized investors in the Lincoln Savings scandal. 

APPELLATE LITIGATION 

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint has extensive appellate experience at all levels of the state and 

federal court systems. Attorneys from the firm have appeared before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the 

Arizona Supreme Court, and numerous U.S. Circuit Courts. Decisions to appeal a matter are not made 

lightly by the firm; we carefully analyze the likelihood of a positive result for the client against the 

potential cost of an unfavorable outcome. Although we draw on the clerking and practical experience 

of many of our attorneys in making this analysis, a fully informed client is always an integral part of 

this process. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 20 of 43 PageID #:2123
ELAINE A. RYAN is a firm shareholder. Her practice has focused on complex 

litigation, including class action litigation, since the early 1990's.

Ms. Ryan has represented millions of retail consumers, holders of automobile 

and health insurance policies, credit card customers, and debit card holders. She 

practices in both state and federal courts throughout the country. 

Ms. Ryan was trial counsel in Smith v. American Family Insurance Company, a 

Missouri class action, wherein after a 3 and a half week jury trial, a unanimous 

jury awarded plaintiffs $17.4 million in damages. Ms. Ryan was also trial counsel in Lebrilla v. 

Farmers Insurance Group, Inc., a multi-state class action which settled on terms favorable to the class 

after a month long trial and just before closing arguments. Also, Ms. Ryan was involved in obtaining a 

settlement in White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (exceeding $2.25 million) in Arizona state court. 

 

Ms. Ryan has represented millions of purchasers of consumer products, including food, vitamin 

supplements and over-the-counter drugs, cosmetics and sunscreen products, and fitness apparel, in 

state and federal courts throughout the United States in cases arising out of various unfair business 

practices and false and deceptive advertising claims made by manufacturers and retailers, including: 

Procter & Gamble, Chattem, General Mills, Kellogg, Bayer, Clorox, WD-40, Dean Foods, Mead 

Johnson, Pharmavite, NBTY/Rexall, Schiff, Neutrogena, Maybelline, Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart, CVS, 

Groupon, Living Social, Reebok and Sketchers. Ms. Ryan assumed a leadership role in many of these 

cases, and was appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel in In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales 

Practices Litigation, No. 09-02087 (S.D. Cal.). Ms. Ryan had an instrumental role in reaching 

settlements with many of the above retailers and manufacturers, resulting in millions of dollars of 

relief to the class members, including the following: Hartless v. Clorox Company, 3:06-cv-02705-CAB 

(S.D. Cal.) (final approval Jan. 20, 2011); In re: Enfamil Lipil Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., 

11-MD-02222 (S.D. Fla.) (final approval Dec. 19, 2011); Godec v. Bayer Corp., 1:10-cv-00224-JG 

(N.D. Ohio) (final approval March 14, 2013); Duffer v. Chattem, 3:11-cv-02735-W-WVG (S.D. Cal.) 

(final approval July 10, 2013). 

Ms. Ryan has extensive experience litigating against life, auto and health insurance carriers on behalf 

of consumers. Her experience litigating against auto insurance companies includes representing 

policyholders whose cars were repaired with imitation parts, who were not compensated for necessary 

repairs and were not paid for their diminished value loss against a number of major insurers, including 

State Farm, Geico, Farmers, American Family, SafeCo, Hartford, Nationwide, Esurance and Allstate. 

Ms. Ryan also has represented policyholders in “vanishing premium” life insurance actions and 

medical providers in lawsuits against health insurers. 

Ms. Ryan also has represented consumer credit card holders against several major retailers, and debit 

cardholders against major lending institutions. She was designated Team Co-Leader in In re: Checking 

Account Overdraft Litigation, Larsen v. Union Bank and Dee v. Bank of the West, MDL No. 2036 

(S.D. Fl.). 

Ms. Ryan also has been involved in precedent-setting appellate decisions in areas which include 

consumer and insurance law and class action procedure. These appellate decisions include State ex 

rel. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clark, 106 S.W.3d 483 (Mo. 2003) (automobile insurance and 

class action procedure); and Lebrilla v. Farmers Group, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2004) 

(automobile insurance and class actions procedure). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 21 of 43 PageID #:2124
Ms. Ryan is admitted to practice in the states of Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Washington, 

Colorado, Utah and Idaho as well as the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 

District of Eastern Michigan, District of Idaho, Western District of Wisconsin, and Northern District of 

Illinois. Ms. Ryan received her Juris Doctor from Duke University in 1989 and her Bachelor of 

Science with honors in Economics and Political Science from the University of Iowa in 1986. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 22 of 43 PageID #:2125
PATRICIA N. SYVERSON is a firm shareholder. Her practice has focused on 

complex litigation, including class action litigation, since the early 2000's. 

Ms. Syverson has represented millions of retail consumers, holders of 

automobile insurance policies, and credit card and debit card customers. She 

practices in both state and federal courts throughout the country. 

Ms. Syverson was trial counsel in Smith v. American Family Insurance 

Company, a Missouri class action, wherein after a 3 and a half week jury trial, a 

unanimous jury awarded plaintiffs $17.4 million in damages. Ms. Syverson was also trial counsel in 

Lebrilla v. Farmers Insurance Group, Inc., a multi-state class action which settled on terms favorable 

to the class after a month long trial and just before closing arguments. Also, Ms. Syverson was 

involved in obtaining a settlement in White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (exceeding $2.25 

million) in Arizona state court. 

Ms. Syverson has represented millions of purchasers of consumer products, including food, vitamin 

supplements and over-the-counter drugs, cosmetics and sunscreen products, and fitness apparel, in 

state and federal courts throughout the United States in cases arising out of various unfair business 

practices and false and deceptive advertising claims made by manufacturers and retailers, including: 

Procter & Gamble, Chattem, General Mills, Kellogg, Bayer, Clorox, WD-40, Dean Foods, Mead 

Johnson, Pharmavite, NBTY/Rexall, Schiff, Neutrogena, Maybelline, Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart, CVS, 

Groupon, Living Social, Reebok and Sketchers. Ms. Syverson was involved in reaching settlements 

with many of the above retailers and manufacturers, resulting in millions of dollars of relief to the class 

members, including the following: Hartless v. Clorox Company, 3:06-cv-02705-CAB (S.D. Cal.) (final 

approval Jan. 20, 2011); In re: Enfamil Lipil Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., 11-MD-02222 (S.D. 

Fla.) (final approval Dec. 19, 2011); Duffer v. Chattem, 3:11-cv-02735-W-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (final 

approval July 10, 2013). 

Ms. Syverson also has represented consumer credit card holders against several major retailers, and 

debit cardholders against major lending institutions, including assuming a leadership role in In re: 

Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Larsen v. Union Bank and Dee v. Bank of the West, MDL No. 

2036 (S.D. Fl.). 

Ms. Syverson has extensive experience litigating against auto insurance carriers on behalf of 

policyholders whose cars were repaired with imitation parts, who were not compensated for necessary 

repairs and were not paid for their diminished value loss against a number of major insurers, including 

State Farm, Geico, Farmers, American Family, SafeCo, Hartford, Nationwide, Esurance and Allstate. 

Ms. Syverson has been involved in precedent-setting appellate decisions in areas which include 

consumer and insurance law and class action procedure. These appellate decisions include State ex rel. 

American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clark, 106 S.W.3d 483 (Mo. 2003) (automobile insurance and class 

action procedure); and Lebrilla v. Farmers Group, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2004) (automobile 

insurance and class actions procedure). 

Ms. Syverson also has worked on numerous complex class action litigation matters involving annuity 

policies marketed and sold to senior citizens, insurer kickbacks known as “contingent commissions” in 

the insurance brokerage industry and discriminatory mortgage lending policies. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 23 of 43 PageID #:2126
Ms. Syverson received her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Urban Studies and Planning from 

the University of California at San Diego in 1996 and received her law degree in 1999 from California 

Western School of Law. Ms. Syverson was admitted to the Bar of the State of California in 1999 and 

the State of Arizona in 2000, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona, the Southern, Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of California, and the 

Northern District of Illinois. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 24 of 43 PageID #:2127
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 

ATTORNEYS 

JERRY C. BONNETT, born Canton, Illinois, April 3, 1946; admitted to bar, 1973, Arizona; 1977, 

United States Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. District 

Court, District of Arizona, and U.S. Tax Court. Education: University of Illinois (B.S., with highest 

honors, 1969; LL.M., 1974); Arizona State University (J.D., magna cum laude, 1973). Author and 

Articles Editor, Arizona State Law Journal, 1972-1973. Judge Pro Tem, Arizona Court of Appeals, 

Division One, 1986 and 1992. 

WILLIAM G. FAIRBOURN, born Salt Lake City, Utah, April 21, 1947; admitted to bar, 1973, 

Arizona; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Utah (B.S., 1970); Arizona 

State University (J.D., 1973). Member: Maricopa County Bar Association (Member, Board of 

Directors, 1984-1986); Arizona Association of Defense Counsel (Member, Board of Directors, 1981-

1989; President, 1986); National Association of Railroad Trial Counsel; American Board of Trial 

Advocates (President Phoenix Chapter, 1994); Arizona State Bar Certified Specialist in Personal 

Injury and Wrongful Death. 

ANDREW S. FRIEDMAN, born Plainfield, New Jersey, September 26, 1953; admitted to bar, 1978, 

Arizona; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona; U.S. Supreme 

Court. Education: University of Rochester (B.A., with high distinction, 1975); Duke University (J.D., 

with high distinction, 1978). Order of the Coif. Member: State Bar Committee on Civil Practice and 

Procedure (1980-1984); State Bar Committee on Bench-Bar Relations (1991); State Bar Bankruptcy 

Section; National Association of Commercial Trial Attorneys (1991-present); American Bar 

Association, Trial Practice Committee, Subcommittees and Class and Derivative Actions. 

FRANCIS J. BALINT, JR., born Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, January 9, 1957; admitted to bar, 1982, 

Virginia and District of Columbia; 1983, Arizona; U.S. District Court, Districts of Arizona and 

Virginia; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. Supreme Court. Education: 

University of Virginia (B.A., with high distinction, 1979; J.D., 1982). Former President and Current 

Director: Arizona Association of Defense Counsel (Member of Board of Directors 1988 through 2001; 

president 1999-2000). 

VAN BUNCH, born Chattanooga, Tennessee, April 28, 1957; admitted to bar, 1984, Arizona; 2007, 

West Virginia; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: Vanderbilt University (B.A., 

1979); University of Tennessee at Knoxville (J.D., with high honors, 1984). Order of the Coif. 

Member: State Bar of Arizona Bankruptcy Section. 

MICHAEL N. WIDENER, born Mt. Ranier, Maryland, June 10, 1950; admitted to bar, 1983, 

Arizona and Tennessee; United States Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; U.S. 

District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Virginia (B.A., with distinction, 1972); 

University of Illinois (M.S., 1974); University of Arizona (J.D., 1982). Author and Articles Editor, 

Arizona Law Review, 1980-1982. Law Clerk to Hon. James Duke Cameron, Supreme Court of 

Arizona, 1982-1983. (Certified Specialist, Real Estate Law, Arizona Board of Legal Specialization). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 25 of 43 PageID #:2128
ROBERT J. SPURLOCK, born Janesville, Wisconsin, November 23, 1954; admitted to Arizona bar, 

1984; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison (B.S., 

with honors, 1976), Arizona State University (J.D., 1984). Law Clerk to the Honorable D.L. Greer, 

Arizona Court of Appeals, 1984-1985; Member: Phoenix Association of Defense Counsel; State Bar 

Bankruptcy Section; Defense Research Institute; Arizona Association of Defense Counsel; American 

Bankruptcy Institute. 

C. KEVIN DYKSTRA, born Phoenix, Arizona, March 30, 1964; admitted to Arizona bar, 1989; U.S. 

Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: Northern Arizona 

University (B.S., 1986); California Western School of Law (J.D., 1989). Director: Arizona 

Association of Defense Counsel. 

ELAINE A. RYAN, born Emmetsburg, Iowa, June 15, 1963; admitted to Arizona bar, 1989; Texas 

bar, 2008; Kansas bar, 2010; Missouri bar, 2010; Washington bar, 2010; Colorado bar, 2011; Utah bar, 

2011; Idaho bar, 2011; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona; U.S. District Court, District of Eastern 

Michigan; U.S. District Court, District of Idaho; U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin; 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Education: University of Iowa (B.S., with distinction, 

1986); Duke University (J.D., 1989). 

WENDY J. HARRISON, born Walnut Creek, California, May 24, 1965; admitted to California bar, 

1990, Arizona bar, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, First, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits; U.S. 

District Court, District of Arizona; U.S. District Court, Central, Northern and Southern Districts of 

California. Education: University of California, Berkeley (B.A., with honors, 1987); University of 

Southern California Law Center (J.D., 1990). 

ANDREW Q. EVERROAD, born Phoenix, Arizona, August 8, 1969; admitted to Arizona bar, 1995; 

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Arizona (B.A., 1992); University of 

London – Bloomsburg, 1990; Arizona State University (J.D., 1995). Law clerk to the Honorable 

Thomas C. Kleinschmidt, Arizona Court of Appeals, 1995-1996. 

KATHRYN A. HONECKER, born Naples, Florida, May 9, 1973; admitted to Illinois bar, 1998; 

Arizona bar, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona; U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of Illinois; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. Education: 

Carthage College (B.A., cum laude, 1995); Creighton University (J.D., cum laude, 1998). 

PATRICIA N. SYVERSON, born San Diego, California, July 16, 1975; admitted to California bar, 

1999; Arizona bar, 2000; U.S. District Court, Southern, Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of 

California; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. 

Education: University of California at San Diego (B.A., 1996); California Western School of Law 

(J.D., 1999). 

JONATHAN S. WALLACK, born Huntington, New York, June 7, 1975; admitted to Arizona bar, 

2001; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Arizona (B.A., 1998); 

University of Arizona (J.D., cum laude, 2001). 

GUY A. HANSON, born Baltimore, Maryland, November 12, 1952; admitted to Arizona bar, 1991; 

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Florida (B.S., 1976); University of 

Florida (J.D., 1990). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 26 of 43 PageID #:2129
KIMBERLY C. PAGE, born Washington, D.C., February 16, 1968; admitted to Georgia bar, 1993; 

Alabama bar, 1993; Arizona bar, 2004; U.S. District Court, Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of 

Alabama; U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Education: Miami University (B.A., 1990); 

Cumberland School of Law of Samford University (J.D., magna cum laude, 1993). 

CHRISTINA L. BANNON, born Ames, Iowa, September 16, 1968; admitted to Arizona bar, 1995; 

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1997; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: 

Arizona State University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1989); Arizona State University College of Law 

(J.D., cum laude, 1995). Associate Articles Editor, Arizona State University Law Journal, 1994-1995. 

Law Clerk to Hon. E. G. Noyes, Jr., Arizona Court of Appeals, 1995-1996. 

MANFRED P. MUECKE, born Inglewood, California, August 28, 1971; admitted to California bar, 

2002; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Education: California State University 

Northridge (B.A., 1996); University of San Diego (J.D., 2002). 

WILLIAM F. KING, born Phoenix, Arizona, October 21, 1978; admitted to Arizona bar, 2005; U.S. 

District Court, District of Arizona. Education: Rockhurst College (B.A., 2001); Creighton University 

School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2005). 

TONNA K. FARRAR, born Sedalia, Missouri, April 9, 1972; admitted to Missouri bar, 1997; Kansas 

bar, 1998, California bar, 2005; U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri; U.S. 

District Court, District of Kansas; U.S. District Court, Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern 

Districts of California. Education: University of Missouri, Columbia (B.A. 1994); University of 

Missouri, Kansas City School of Law (J.D. 1997). 

T. BRENT JORDAN, born Urbana, Illinois, November 21, 1967; admitted to Minnesota bar, 1993, 

Pennsylvania bar, 2003; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Education: University 

of Illinois (B.A., B.S., magna cum laude, 1990); University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., cum 

laude, 1993). Judicial clerkship: United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson, United States 

District Court, District of Minnesota, 1993-1995. 

ANDREW M. EVANS, born Hanover, New Hampshire, September 26, 1973; admitted to Arizona 

bar, 2006. Education: University of Colorado at Boulder (B.S., cum laude, 1997); Arizona State 

University College of Law (J.D., 2006). 

TY D. FRANKEL, born Phoenix, Arizona, November 13, 1983; admitted to Arizona bar, 2009; U.S. 

District Court, District of Arizona. Education: Boston College (B.A., Dean’s List, 2006); Boston 

College Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2009). 

LINDSEY M. GOMEZ-GRAY, born San Leandro, California, June 24, 1984; admitted to Arizona 

bar, 2009; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: Arizona State University (B.A., magna 

cum laude, 2006); Arizona State University College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2009). 

KEVIN R. HANGER, born Chandler, Arizona, September 1, 1983; admitted to Arizona bar, 2009; 

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Arizona (B.S., cum laude, 2006); 

University of Oklahoma College of Law (J.D., with honors, 2009). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 27 of 43 PageID #:2130
ERIC D. ZARD, born Brainerd, Minnesota, April 4, 1984; admitted to Arizona bar, 2009; U.S. 

District Court, District of Arizona. Education: University of Minnesota (B.S., 2006); University of 

Saint Thomas, Minneapolis (J.D., 2009). 

BARRETT N. LINDSEY, born Phoenix, Arizona, May 14, 1985; admitted to Arizona bar, 2011. 

Education: Arizona State University (B.S., magna cum laude, 2007); Creighton University (J.D., 

magna cum laude, 2010). Law Clerk to the Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Court, 

Western District of Missouri, 2010-2012. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 28 of 43 PageID #:2131
Exhibit B

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 29 of 43 PageID #:2132
STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC 

Of Counsel 

Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman 

53 W. Jackson, Suite 364 

Chicago, IL 60604 

(312) 588-5033 

sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com

Mr. Weltman has been a complex litigator for over thirty-three years, leading and trying complex 

litigation matters in both Federal and State courts throughout the United States. Formerly a 

partner with Much Shelist and an Antitrust and Securities litigation partner with the Washington 

D.C. based litigation boutique formerly known as Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll P.L.L.C., in 

February 2012, Mr. Weltman joined Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, a Philadelphia based 

litigation boutique, as Of Counsel. 

Mr. Weltman has been a lead and trial counsel in numerous complex litigation matters for both 

plaintiffs and defendants, ranging from antitrust, accounting malpractice, legal malpractice, 

securities fraud, patent issues, contract actions, and consumer fraud. 

While much of his practice has centered on pursuing claims on behalf of individuals and classes 

who have been injured as the result of fraud, consumer fraud or antitrust violations, Mr. Weltman 

has also successfully defended complex matters. 

He has been lead counsel in numerous consumer fraud class actions, the most recent being 

Hohman v. Matrixx Initatives Inc. et. al, (N.D. Ill.). 

Mr. Weltman was one of the lead trial counsel in In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation ( D.C. 

Mass.), which settled for $20 million. He was a lead counsel and one of the members of the trial 

preparation team In Re EPDM Antitrust Litigation (D.C. Conn.), in which three defendants 

settled claims for a total of $81 million. 

He formerly served as lead counsel in In re PCP Antitrust Litigation (D.C. Conn.), which settled 

for $80 million and was lead counsel in In Re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation

(M.D. Pa.). 

Mr. Weltman was a member of the trial team in In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), 

which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and the class of $148.5 million after trebling. 

In addition to his antitrust experience, Mr. Weltman also acted as lead attorney or lead counsel in 

several securities fraud matters. He was the lead attorney for his client Pacific Life Insurance 

Company in individual actions brought against various underwriter defendants arising out of (1) 

the WorldCom frauds and (2) the RepublicBank frauds. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 30 of 43 PageID #:2133
He served as Derivative Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in a securities fraud and derivative/breach of 

fiduciary duty case in which a $33 million settlement was reached with the former directors and 

officers of the Public Service Company of New Mexico. He was co-lead counsel in a securities 

fraud class action that resulted in a combined settlement of $31 million against a law firm and a 

national accounting firm arising out of the Sunderman Limited Partnerships. 

Mr. Weltman served as co-lead counsel in Benfield v. Steindler and General Electric Co. (S.D. 

Ohio), a derivative action in which a settlement of $21 million was reached. He was also co-lead 

counsel for a class of 1,500 homeowners in South Florida and obtained a $15 million settlement 

arising out of defective construction claims. 

He has argued before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Seventh, Fifth and Federal Circuit Courts 

of Appeals. He has appeared before the United States Supreme Court as both counsel of record 

and as amicus counsel. 

Mr. Weltman graduated from Roosevelt University with a B.A. in English Literature in 1975 and 

from the John Marshall Law School (J.D., High Distinction 1978), where he was a member of 

the Law Review. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 31 of 43 PageID #:2134
Exhibit C

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 32 of 43 PageID #:2135
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 33 of 43 PageID #:2136
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 34 of 43 PageID #:2137
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 35 of 43 PageID #:2138
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 36 of 43 PageID #:2139
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 37 of 43 PageID #:2140
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 38 of 43 PageID #:2141
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 39 of 43 PageID #:2142
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 40 of 43 PageID #:2143
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 41 of 43 PageID #:2144
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 42 of 43 PageID #:2145
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 125 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 43 of 43 PageID #:2146