Source: http://rc.com/practices/Litigation/BusinessLitigation/ClassActionLitigation/index.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:46:37+00:00

Document:
Robinson+Cole's Class Action Team has defended dozens of class actions in myriad substantive areas, including insurance and financial services, data breach/privacy, product liability, heath care, employment, sales practices, and Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases. We have served as lead national counsel in class actions across the country, including cases in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. In a high-profile case, our team successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari and served as co-counsel on the merits in Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), in which the Court rejected a plaintiff's attempt to evade federal jurisdiction by stipulating that the amount sought would not exceed the $5 million threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Bringing the right lawyers to the table from day one allows the Class Action Team to skillfully develop innovative case strategies. Class actions are typically staffed with lawyers experienced in substantial class action matters as well as in the relevant industry and substantive law. In addition, Robinson+Cole lawyers have significant trial experience. Our lawyers who handle health care-related class actions are proficient in that industry and the governing statutory and regulatory requirements. Insurance class actions are staffed with lawyers who focus their practice on insurance coverage issues and know the ins and outs of insurance company procedures and practices. Product liability class actions are staffed with lawyers who regularly try product liability cases. Our data breach/privacy class action team members closely follow developments in that rapidly evolving area of law.
Knowles v. Standard Fire Insurance Company 133 S. Ct. 1345 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013)— This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States and resulted in a 9-0 opinion in favor of our client. Our petition for certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court after the Eighth Circuit had declined to hear a discretionary appeal and after the Supreme Court had denied a petition for certiorari on the same issue the year before. This is the first case in which the Supreme Court granted review under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The issue on appeal was whether a named plaintiff in a putative class action can defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by stipulating to limit damages to $5 million or less even if the amount potentially recoverable by the putative class would exceed the federal jurisdictional amount in the absence of the stipulation. The Supreme Court accepted our argument that the federal court jurisdiction could not be defeated by such a stipulation. The underlying case involved the alleged failure to pay the general contractor overhead and profit as part of the settlement of property insurance claims and was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff after the case was remanded to the federal district court.
Defended a hospital in a putative class action arising from an alleged data breach. Successfully obtained a decision granting summary judgment in favor of our client based on lack of standing.
Served as lead counsel for the State of Connecticut in a class action brought against the state by a proposed class of state employees who were insured under group insurance policies issued to the State of Connecticut by Anthem Insurance or its predecessors. Upon the demutualization of Anthem Insurance, approximately $100 million was paid to the state as a “member” of Anthem. The proposed class contended that they were the “members” and that the proceeds of the demutualization should have been paid to them, not the state.
Defended employer in putative class action in Connecticut federal court alleging that employees were incorrectly categorized as exempt employees and seeking to recover overtime payments.
Defended a hospital in a putative class action alleging improper use of insulin injection pens.
Defended a managed care organization against a member class action (100,000-plus class members) challenging prompt provision of services and notification of denied and terminated benefits.
Defended a managed care organization against a class action lawsuit brought by providers alleging that the MCO failed to properly administer a risk-sharing arrangement.
Defended a managed care organization against a member class action alleging that the MCO improperly sought subrogation recoveries for medical costs paid in personal injury actions.
Defended a managed care organization against a class action brought by providers and a provider trade association alleging that differing reimbursement rates paid to different provider classes violated state public policy and constituted violations of unfair insurance and unfair trade practices statutes.
Defended a managed care organization in federal court actions brought by physicians and consumers as part of a nationwide class action against leading MCOs in the health care industry. Multiple lawsuits were filed in state court alleging RICO violations, unfair trade practices, and fraud claims.
Defended a managed care organization in a class action in New York Supreme Court alleging wrongful termination of health care coverage and failure to provide proper notice before terminating coverage.
Defended a managed care organization in 34 putative class actions in Connecticut federal court alleging that the company made false and misleading statements with respect to its financial condition in its securities filings.
Defending a managed care organization in putative class action in Connecticut Superior Court filed by providers alleging coercive and anticompetitive conduct, including violations of antitrust and unfair trade practice statutes.
Successfully represented insurer in a series of putative class actions in six different jurisdictions involving market conduct/claim-handling practices. All were resolved either on a dispositive motion or by settlement of the class representative's individual claims. Successfully conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on class certification in a Florida state court, which resulted in a decision denying class certification that was affirmed on appeal.
Successfully represented insurer in putative class action in Arkansas federal court alleging improper depreciation of labor costs on property insurance claims. After completion of depositions, case resulted in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the plaintiffs with no payment by our client.
Successfully represented insurer in putative class action in the Northern District of Florida involving allegations that the insurer overcharged for building ordinance and law coverage and failed to comply with a Florida statute. The district court granted our motion to dismiss, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Successfully represented insurer in putative class action in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan alleging that insurer improperly failed to apply the “made whole” doctrine with respect to subrogation recoveries. The trial court granted our motion to dismiss, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.
Successfully represented defendant in the Supreme Court of the United States (lead counsel on petition for certiorari and co-counsel on merits) in Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) (invalidating stipulation by named plaintiff attempting to limit amount in controversy to below $5 million to evade federal jurisdiction).
Defended a manufacturer of nutritional supplements against a proposed nationwide consumer product class action brought in California state court. The manufacturer, which distributes its product worldwide, was facing claims based on allegations that included product mislabeling and unfair trade practices, as well as violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and California-specific causes of action. We aggressively litigated the case in the early stages, and prior to any discovery production by the defendant or any depositions being conducted, the plaintiff agreed to a voluntarily dismissal with prejudice without any payment from the defendant.
Defending Fortune 50 manufacturer in putative nationwide/multistate class action involving alleged defect in microwave ovens. Successfully obtained dismissal of certain causes of action on a motion to dismiss.
Defended Fortune 50 manufacturer in putative statewide class action involving alleged defect in microwave ovens. Successfully obtained dismissal of unjust enrichment claim on motion to dismiss. Following completion of limited discovery, plaintiff and his counsel were persuaded to resolve the case on an individual basis.
Defended a leading manufacturer of baby products in putative multistate class actions in Connecticut and Illinois federal courts alleging defects in baby bottles. Successfully obtained dismissal of certain causes of action in both cases on motions to dismiss. Following completion of limited discovery, both cases were resolved on an individual basis.
Represented a pet products manufacturer in connection with two threatened nationwide class actions in Florida and California. After completing internal and external due diligence, the claims were resolved on an individual basis prior to the suits being filed.
Represented a cosmetics manufacturer in connection with a threatened class action in California. After our client took remedial measures to moot any class claims, the plaintiff’s counsel abandoned the case before the suit was filed.
Successfully represented law firm in a class action regarding the firm's handling of a large share of foreclosures in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued three major mortgage lenders and their law firms for allegedly wrongful foreclosure practices arising out of assignments of mortgages. The potential class would have involved over 9,000 foreclosures from 2004 to 2008 and tens of millions of dollars in exposure. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied class certification.
Robinson+Cole was again ranked as a “highly recommended” firm in Connecticut in the 2019 edition of Benchmark Litigation. The firm also received a “recommended” ranking in the area of labor & employment.
In addition, Stephen W. Aronson received the “Labor & Employment Star – Northeast” recognition, a new distinction from the inaugural edition of Benchmark Labor & Employment, and the following Robinson+Cole lawyers earned the “Local Litigation Stars” honor: Wystan M. Ackerman, Bradford S. Babbitt, Joseph L. Clasen, Gerald P. Dwyer Jr., Linda L. Morkan, Rhonda J. Tobin, Theodore J. Tucci, and James A. Wade. Read more in the press release.
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Wystan M. Ackerman was among the panelists that presented during a program on the “Judicial Scrutiny of Class Action Settlements: New Standards and Ensuring Timely Release of Attorney's Fees” on October 9, 2018. Presented by Strafford, the CLE webinar focused on recent trends in class action settlements at the preliminary approval, final approval, and new post-final approval stage. Panelists covered this new trend and offered insight on how judges are intervening to ensure that class action settlements are paid out in a fair and timely manner.
Class Action Team lawyer Wystan M. Ackerman was quoted in the article “Hyundai Fuel Economy Case Puts Nationwide Class Suits in Peril,” published in the class actions section of Bloomberg Law’s Big Law Business on September 26, 2018. The article covers a September 27, 2018 argument being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. “At issue is a split three-judge panel ruling of the Ninth Circuit that rejected the Hyundai settlement Jan. 23, holding that a nationwide class of car owners shouldn’t have been certified for settlement purposes because of varying state consumer laws.” “Nationwide class actions are on the line if [the court] rejects a settlement among Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motor America Inc., and car owners over allegedly false statements about some cars’ fuel efficiencies.” Wystan commented that parties will have to do significantly more work at the trial court level if the full court rules as the panel did. "Class actions may have to be restructured, he said, and the parties may have to do more research and submit more court filings, which raises costs." Read the full article.
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Wystan M. Ackerman participated in a panel discussion on “Defending Class Actions Using Absent Class Member Discovery” on May 30, 2018. Presented by Strafford, the live CLE webinar prepared defense counsel to evaluate whether and how to pursue discovery of absent class members in class litigation. Mr. Ackerman was among the panelists that covered the courts’ varying positions on permitting absent class member discovery, when to request discovery from putative class members, the type of discovery to request, how many absent class members to seek out for discovery, and strategies to leverage evidence obtained during certification, settlement, and trial.
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Wystan M. Ackerman participated in a program on “Effectively Mediating Class Actions” on May 17, 2018. The live audio call-in program was presented by the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Litigation Class Actions and Derivative Suits & Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees. Mediation is an increasingly popular alternative dispute resolution mechanism, and class actions are no exception. However, they involve different considerations than a typical mediation. The one-hour, roundtable discussion featured experienced practitioners who offered strategies, tips, and suggestions on how to effectively mediate a class action.
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Wystan M. Ackerman was among the faculty panelists participating in a webinar on "Pursuing or Challenging Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certification: Lessons From In Re Hyundai" on May 1, 2018. The CLE webinar examined new challenges facing class counsel in certifying a nationwide class, following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in In Re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., which vacated and remanded a district court order certifying a nationwide settlement class. The decision significantly impacts the framework for presenting nationwide and consumer protection class action settlements. The panel looked at the scope and impact of the decision and discussed best practices for counsel to challenge or overcome nationwide class certification challenges. Post-Hyundai, class counsel should prepare for district courts to carefully scrutinize whether the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied, even where certification is not opposed. Additionally, Hyundai strengthens a defense counsel’s position challenging certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The panel also discussed the implications of the decision for parties seeking to settle state law disputes nationwide on a class-wide basis.
JD Supra has recognized Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Wystan M. Ackerman and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team Lawyers Linn F. Freedman and Kathryn M. Rattigan in its 2018 Readers’ Choice Awards. Mr. Ackerman is editor of the firm’s Class Actions Insider blog and was recognized as a Top Author in the area of class action. Ms. Freedman is the editor of the firm’s Data Privacy + Security Insider blog and was recognized as the #1 author in the area of cybersecurity. Ms. Rattigan also contributes to the firm’s Data Privacy + Security Insider blog and was recognized as the #1 author in the area of airlines/aviation. In addition, Robinson+Cole was recognized as the Top Firm on the subjects of cybersecurity and airlines/aviation. The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms who were read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media, and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2017.
Congratulations to our authors recognized in JD Supra's 2016 Readers' Choice Awards. Wystan M. Ackerman, Linn Foster Freedman, Andrea Donovan Napp, and Kathryn M. Rattigan are among 200 JD Supra authors recognized as JD Supra Top Authors in this inaugural award. The top authors were selected from among more than 34,000 writers publishing on JD Supra in 2015 for their excellent visibility and engagement with readers in a specific industry (16 industries represented) or for thought leadership covering a key, cross-industry topic (10 represented). Following are their areas of recognition.
Linn Freedman - a Top Author with readers in the retail, insurance, healthcare, defense & space, and automotive industries, as well as a Top Author on the subjects of cybersecurity and class action defense. Additionally, her article "FBI warns of continued use of Cryptowall ransomware schemes" is noted as one of the most popular cybersecurity articles in 2015; her article "Privacy Tip #10 – What are digital assets and why should I care?" was one of the most popular estate planning articles; and her article "Uber class action case hits roadblock" was one of the most popular class action defense articles.
Wystan Ackerman - a Top Author on the subject of class action defense.
Andrea Napp - a Top Author on the subject of electronic discovery.
Kathryn Rattigan - a Top Author with readers in the airline & aviation industry.
Stephen E. Goldman has been elected Managing Partner of Robinson+Cole. Steve Goldman succeeds John B. Lynch, Jr. who led the firm for seven years. Additionally, Gregory R. Faulkner, from the firm's Hartford office, has been elected to the Managing Committee.
A trial lawyer at Robinson+Cole since 1980 with a focus on insurance coverage and class action litigation, Mr. Goldman has tried approximately 30 cases to conclusion in a wide range of jurisdictions throughout the United States, has handled numerous federal and state appeals in multiple jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and has served as lead counsel in many cases that have had high national visibility. Read more in the full release.
Robinson+Cole was again ranked as a "highly recommended" firm in Connecticut in the 2016 edition of Benchmark Litigation. The firm also had the most lawyers recognized as "Local Litigation Stars" in Connecticut. The nine lawyers who earned this honor are Wystan M. Ackerman, Bradford S. Babbitt, Joseph L. Clasen, Nuala E. Droney, Linda L. Morkan, Craig A. Raabe, Rhonda J. Tobin, Theodore J. Tucci, and James A. Wade.
Benchmark Litigation is the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation in the U.S. Benchmark results are based on comprehensive interviews with litigators and their clients. Firms listed as highly recommended received the most mentions by peers and clients and are held as dominate in their particular jurisdiction. Local litigation stars reflect lawyers who are consistently recommended as reputable and effective litigators by peers and clients. Benchmark is published by Euromoney's Legal Media Group. You can read more about their methodology here.
Robinson+Cole's Business Litigation Group was again ranked as "highly recommended" in Connecticut in the 2015 edition of Benchmark Litigation. The firm also had the most lawyers recognized as "Local Litigation Stars" in Connecticut. Wystan M. Ackerman, Bradford S. Babbitt, Joseph L. Clasen, Nuala E. Droney, Linda L. Morkan, Craig A. Raabe, Rhonda J. Tobin, Theodore J. Tucci, and James A. Wade all earned this honor. It is the first year Ms. Droney, Ms. Tobin, and Mr. Tucci earned this recognition.
Benchmark Litigation is the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation in the U.S. Benchmark results are based on comprehensive interviews with litigators and their clients. Read more in the press release here.
A total of 61 Robinson & Cole attorneys were named Super Lawyers® in the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Florida for 2013. The Super Lawyers® designation is based on regional balloting by attorneys, third-party research, and a peer review process encompassing myriad practice areas.
In addition, 19 attorneys at the firm were recognized as "Rising Stars." Read an explanation of the Super Lawyers methodology here.
On March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, No. 11-1450. This is the first case that the U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed involving the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Breyer the Court overturned the district court’s decision remanding a putative class action to state court. The Court held that a stipulation filed by the named plaintiff together with the complaint, concerning the amount in controversy under CAFA, must be ignored. The Court explained, among other things, that the named plaintiff had no right to bind the absent members of the proposed class at the time suit was filed, and jurisdiction must be determined as of the time of filing.
In Knowles, the federal district court had found the plaintiff’s stipulation was enforceable and remanded the case to state court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for permission to appeal under CAFA, and denied rehearing en banc. In August of 2012, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. Stephen E. Goldman and Wystan M. Ackerman of Robinson & Cole were lead counsel on the successful petition for certiorari and co-counsel on the merits.
DISCLAIMER: Please understand that every case is different and the result achieved in the case described above may differ from the result in some other case, which may involve different facts, different applicable law or a different jurisdiction. Past results do not guarantee future results, and you should always consult your own lawyer about your own case.
On January 21, environmental partner Peter R. Knight chaired a panel discussion on scientific issues associated with class certification at the ABA's Environmental, Mass Torts, and Products Liability Litigation Committee's Joint CLE seminar in Hollywood, Florida. The panel focused on the impact of the Supreme Court's recent Dukes v. Walmart decision on certifying environmental class actions.
Litigation partner Wystan M. Ackerman has authored a chapter in the book Litigating Products Liability Class Actions: Leading Lawyers on Interpreting Recent Decisions, Assessing a Case’s Validity, and Preparing for Trial. The book is part of the “Inside the Minds” series published by Aspatore Press in November 2011. The chapter is “Recent Developments and Anticipated Trends in Defending Products Liability Class Actions.” Mr. Ackerman is chair of Robinson & Cole’s Class Action Team.
Wystan Ackerman’s blog “Insurance Class Actions Insider,” launched earlier this year, has been selected as a 2011 LexisNexis Top Blog for Insurance Law. Mr. Ackerman tracks and comments on decisions and developments affecting class actions insurance law in his blog. Top Blogs are selected by the Insurance Law Editor at LexisNexis in conjunction with the Insurance Advisory Board based on criteria that include writing style and depth of information provided for the insurance law community, including timely news items, practical information, expert analysis, practice tips, frequent postings, and helpful links to other sites. Mr. Ackerman leads the Class Action Team at Robinson & Cole where he has a national practice that includes defending insurers in class actions and litigating high-profile coverage issues at the trial and appellate levels.
As insurers deploy their catastrophe teams and/or independent adjuster teams to handle claims in a region that has not been impacted by a hurricane in years, Wystan M. Ackerman offers advice on what claim executives and their counsel can do to manage these claims and minimize their potential class action exposure. Mr. Ackerman, chair of Robinson & Cole’s Class Action Team, spent several years defending insurance companies in lawsuits from hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Florida hurricanes of 2004. He is national counsel for Fortune 100 insurance companies in class actions, complex coverage litigation, and appeals.
To read Mr. Ackerman’s blog, visit Insurance Class Actions Insider.
Wystan Ackerman, chair of Robinson & Cole’s Class Action Practice Team, launched the blog Insurance Class Actions Insider (www.insuranceclassactions.com). Mr. Ackerman blogs about new developments in class actions brought against insurance companies and developments in class action law of interest to the insurance industry. The first posts include thoughts on how insurers may be affected by the trifecta of Supreme Court cases on class actions this year: the recent decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the blockbuster class action case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Smith v. Bayer Corp. He also comments on significant recent decisions in insurance class actions by the Seventh Circuit, Illinois Appellate Court and an Arkansas federal district court. The blog’s “Class Action Resources” area features links to key federal and state rules and statutes governing class actions and key case law.
Wystan M. Ackerman, chair of Robinson & Cole's Class Action Team, was quoted in the article “Planned CT Bank Merger Stirs Search for Uneasy Investors,” published in the Hartford Business Journal. The article talks about Southern Connecticut Bancorp, Inc.’s recently announced merger and how four out-of-state law firms have announced that they are investigating potential class action claims against the board of directors in connection with this merger. Mr. Ackerman said, “Almost any time there is a merger between public companies, lawyers investigate and, in many instances, bring a lawsuit about the adequacy of the compensation provided to shareholders.” He goes on to say, however, “Almost all of these cases are dismissed, and attempts to get a court to [prohibit] the merger is denied.” In fact, Mr. Ackerman said that he is “not aware of any instance” where a Connecticut court barred a merger of a public company.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.