Source: https://www.wilentz.com/attorneys/kevin-p-roddy
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:31:13+00:00

Document:
Kevin P. Roddy - Class Action | Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A.
Kevin P. Roddy is a shareholder in the law firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. He concentrates his practice on complex litigation, including class actions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, anti-racketeering, and securities fraud statutes.
During 2005-2007, Mr. Roddy served as President of the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT). From 2000 to 2011, he served on NASCAT’s Executive Committee and, from 1991 to 2011, he served as Chair of the NASCAT Amicus Committee. From February 2000 through December 2004, he was managing partner of the Los Angeles Office of Hagens Berman LLP, a Seattle-based firm specializing in class action litigation. From December 1991 to February 2000, he was managing partner of the Los Angeles Office of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, a New York- and San Diego-based law firm specializing in class action litigation.
Mr. Roddy and his wife, Joann, have three children. They live in Brielle, New Jersey.
G. Robert Blakey & Kevin P. Roddy, Reflections on Reves v. Young: Its Meaning and Impact on Substantive, Accessory, Aiding and Abetting and Conspiracy Liability Under RICO, 33 Amer. Crim. L. Rev. 1345 (1996). This article was published as the Special 25th Anniversary issue of AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, and it has been favorably cited by numerous federal circuit and district courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Smith v. Berg, 247 F.3d 532, 536 nn. 7&8 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Business & Professions Code Section 17200: Is The Unfair Competition Law “Unfair”?, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Francisco, California, December 9, 2003.
Northwestern University School of Law-Securities Regulation Institute, 29th Annual Securities Regulation Conference, San Diego, California, January 23, 2002.
For more than 35 years, Kevin Roddy has represented plaintiffs in many significant class actions, representative actions, and derivative actions litigated in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He has represented individual and institutional clients. Mr. Roddy has played the lead role in representing plaintiffs in many significant cases, and has helped secure recoveries exceeding $2 billion.
Mr. Roddy’s efforts in these complex cases have been praised by federal and state courts. In approving a worldwide settlement of a civil RICO and consumer protection class action brought on behalf of approximately 18 million people who used Western Union’s money transfer services to transfer money from one country to another, in which Mr. Roddy served as Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton of the Eastern District of New York lauded Mr. Roddy’s “extensive experience handling civil RICO cases and class actions.” The Court noted that the team of plaintiffs’ counsel, led by Mr. Roddy, had “secured a significant recovery, including injunctive relief that requires [Western Union] to materially change the consumer disclosure forms and receipts that it uses throughout the world, in a complex, risky class action, and confronted defense counsel from highly respected law firms.” In re Western Union Money Transfer Litigation, Master File No. CV-01-0335 (CPS) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2005) (Memorandum and Order, at 13, 16). That case was settled in 2005 on a worldwide basis for consideration exceeding $65 million and the imposition of worldwide injunctive relief.
In coordinated cases brought in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, In re Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4266 & 4270, Mr. Roddy was chosen Co-Lead Counsel for the California Plaintiff Class, which consisted of over 450,000 vehicle owners. In 2005, Coordination Trial Judge David DeAlba certified a statewide (California) class. During 2007, Mr. Roddy, along with other Plaintiffs’ counsel, tried the class action for 50 days in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The same year, the parties announced a proposed four-state class action settlement on behalf of nearly one million vehicle owners residing in California, Illinois, Texas and Connecticut. That settlement was approved by Judge DeAlba in 2008.
In another class action that was prosecuted simultaneously in state courts in California and Florida, In re Rexall Cellasene Cases, Mr. Roddy was chosen Co-Lead Counsel for the nationwide consumer class and, working together with attorneys from the Federal Trade Commission, in 2003 he successfully negotiated a $20 million settlement that provided consumers with a full-dollar recovery and imposed precedent-setting injunctive relief governing the entire dietary supplement industry.
Mr. Roddy has played a significant role in several multidistrict litigations (“MDLs”). For example, in In re Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020, pending in the District of New Jersey, he was chosen to serve as one of the Subscriber Class Counsel in a class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of health insurance plans. In In re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litigation, MDL No. 2639, pending in the Central District of California, he serves as chair of the law committee in proposed class actions asserting consumer protection claims brought on behalf of purchasers of pay-per-view services to watch a disputed prizefight. In In re Imprelis Herbicide Litigation, MDL No. 2284, a consumer protection class action brought against the manufacturer of a defective herbicide and litigated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, he was the designated negotiator of a class of landscaping professionals and participated in successfully negotiating a highly beneficial nationwide settlement.
In DCG&T f/b/o Battaglia v. Knight, 68 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Va. 2014), a shareholder derivative action, Mr. Roddy was chosen co-lead counsel for plaintiff, and he successfully negotiated a $12 million settlement for the benefit of REIT unit holders who objected to a corporate merger.
Mr. Roddy has tried more than a dozen cases in federal and state courts in New Jersey, California, Colorado, Virginia, Arizona, Tennessee and North Carolina. In In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savings & Loan Securities Litigation, he was one of the lead trial counsel for a class of 23,000 defrauded shareholders and bondholders; that case (including a five-month jury trial in the District of Arizona) resulted in settlements of approximately $250 million and a jury verdict against the non-settling defendants exceeding $3 billion. In The Industry Network System, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, he was co-lead trial counsel in a 68-day antitrust conspiracy jury trial in the District of New Jersey. In Stilwell Developments v. Wing Wah Chong, he was lead trial counsel for the plaintiff smoke alarm manufacturer in a two-month intellectual property trial involving the enforcement of patents and copyrights; that case resulted in a $7 million jury verdict for plaintiff, which was successfully enforced in ancillary proceedings in the Hong Kong courts.
In CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Hutchens, Case No. 11-1012, a RICO class action arising out of an advance fee lending scheme and pending in the District of Colorado, he was appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and the certified class of consumers who were allegedly defrauded. In May 2017, Mr. Roddy served as co-lead trial counsel during a 10-day jury trial. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and class members, found defendants to be liable for RICO violations, and awarded $8.4 million in compensatory damages. On September 26, 2017, Judge Blaine Jackson awarded treble damages and entered a judgment awarding more than $24 million to plaintiffs and class members.
On December 18, 2017, Judge Jackson issued his Rulings on Additional Post-Trial Motions, directing the clerk to enter a final judgment in the amount of $25 million, including costs and interest, and imposed a constructive trust over defendants’ properties. Describing the litigation as “a complex, intensely litigated, and difficult case,” Judge Jackson described the performance of Mr. Roddy and his co-counsel as “an excellent job.” CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Hutchens, Civil Action No. 11-cv-01012-RBJ-KLM, Docket No. 890 (D. Colo.).
Mr. Roddy has served as an expert witness in both federal and state court. In one case litigated in the Northern District of Texas, he served as an expert witness for the defendant law firms in a legal malpractice action arising out of class action settlements. In another case litigated in the Orange County, California, Superior Court, he served as an expert witness for the defendant lawyers in a malicious prosecution case arising out of a consumer protection class action. In August 2016, Mr. Roddy testified as an expert witness on behalf of the defendant attorney in a federal criminal case tried in the Southern District of Mississippi. In February 2018, Roddy testified as an expert witness on behalf of the defendant attorney in a federal criminal case tried in the Western District of Texas.
Mr. Roddy has extensive experience in the appellate courts. For example, in March 2006, Mr. Roddy argued a civil RICO case in the United States Supreme Court. The resulting decision, Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006), established the standard for evaluating proximate causation in such cases.
Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc., 318 F.R.D. 457 (D. Utah 2017) (certifying nationwide class as to state law claims asserted by long-haul truck drivers against trucking company); 321 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (D. Utah 2018) (refusing to decertify class); 2018 WL 2387364 (D. Utah Mar. 27, 2018) (approving class notice campaign); 2018 WL 2386056 (D. Utah Apr. 24, 2018) (refusing to certify question for appellate review).
During 1991-2011, as Chair of NASCAT’s Amicus Committee, Mr. Roddy filed more than three dozen amicus curiae briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, federal circuit courts and state supreme courts, including Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, No. 08-905 (securities litigation); Jones v. Harris Assocs., L.P., No. 08-586 (shareholder litigation); Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank, Ltd., No. 08-1191 (securities litigation); Boyle v. United States, No. 07-1309 (RICO); Bridges v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., No. 07-210 (RICO); Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., No. 06-484 (securities litigation); Mohawk Indus. v. Williams, No. 05-465 (RICO); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, No. 04-1371 (SLUSA preemption of “holder” actions; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005); Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, No. 03-932, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005) (securities fraud “loss causation”); Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 102 P.3d 268 (Cal. 2004) (“economic loss rule” in consumer fraud cases); Borowiec v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 808 N.E.2d 957 (Ill.2004) (consumer protection action; validity of arbitration clauses); SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002) (broker-dealer’s liability for securities fraud); Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) (RICO; liability of corporate officers); Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S. 808 (1999) (media and privacy rights under First Amendment); Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) (asbestos class action settlements); Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (RICO); Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (asbestos class action settlements); BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (punitive damages in consumer protection cases); Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (ERISA rights of employees); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73 (1995) (ERISA rights of employees); Boca Grande Club v. Florida Power & Light Co., 511 U.S. 222 (1994) (contribution rights of defendants); Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) (securities fraud; liability of aiders and abettors); TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993) (punitive damages under state law); Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Insurance, 508 U.S. 286 (1993) (contribution rights of defendants in securities fraud cases); Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1992) (RICO; liability of professional advisers); and Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (RICO; proximate causation and recovery of damages).

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