In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2311) (USDC Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed among the first 4 cases in what is anticipated to be the largest private antitrust case in United States history on behalf of an American based wire harness manufacturer headquartered in Virginia. In the originally filed complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants foreign suppliers engaged in a conspiracy over a 10-year period to illegally increase the price of “Wire Harness Systems Products,” which include wire harnesses, electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, wiring connectors, wiring terminals, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, and power distributors. Notably, in a separate governmental investigation, two of the named defendants, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and Yazaki Corporation, as well as some of their executives, pleaded guilty for their involvement in the conspiracy and agreed to pay nearly $700 million in criminal fines and serve prison sentences. Other guilty pleas have been entered as to other automotive parts. Since that time the number of parts involved in the litigation has increased with an additional 200 plus automotive parts anticipated to be added to the list. Other products include but are not limited to: Wire harness products, Anti-lock brake products; Catalytic converter products: Alternators, starters, ignition parts, and electronics products; Occupant safety system products; Panel products; and more. This action is actively being litigated.
In Re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, (MDL 2522) (USDC District of Minnesota – Bonsignore LLC represents a financial institution in claims related to the major security breach at Target stores that began on or around Nov. 27, just before “Black Friday,” and continued through at least Dec. 15, which allowed hackers access to customers’ credit and debit card information. As a result of Target’s Data Breach, the personal information of approximately 70 million individuals and the confidential financial information of approximately 40 million credit and debit card accounts was accessed by hackers. See Target Now Says 70 Million People Hit in Data Breach, The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 10, 2014. Target’s wrongful conduct caused banks and credit unions to incur ascertainable economic loss and the class action lawsuit seeks compensation for financial losses associated with the cost of customer fraud loss reimbursements, the cost of credit and debit card cancellations and re-issuances, lost interest, the administrative expenses associated with preventing fraud, the ascertainable administrative expenses associated with customer inquiries, and the economic cost of fraudulent transactions.
In re: Batteries (MDL 2420) (USDC Northern District of California) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed the second case nationally and represents direct purchasers of Lithium Ion Batteries. The complaint alleges that several of the largest lithium-Ion Battery producers, including LG Chem, Ltd. (KSE: 051910.KS), Panasonic Corporation (NYSE: PC), Sanyo Corporation (TAI: 1614.TW), Sony Corp. (NYSE: SNE), Samsung SDI (KSE: 006405.KS), Hitachi, Ltd. (OTC: HTHIY) and Maxell Corporation of America collectively controlled between 60 to 90 percent of the market for lithium-ion batteries between 2000 and 2011unlawfully conspired to fix and artificially increase the price of the batteries, inflating the cost of notebooks and other portable computers paid by consumers. The complaint also alleges that battery prices fell by nearly 50 percent when several Korean companies entered the market in the early 2000s and that, in response, the Japanese companies who had long controlled the market entered into an illegal price-fixing agreement, resulting in a stabilization of prices that lasted until 2008. In 2008, the lawsuit claims that the defendants received notice that they were being investigated for price-fixing activities by both American and European regulators. Almost immediately after the investigations were disclosed, prices began to fall again, about 10 percent in three months. This action is actively being litigated.
In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2481) (USDC Northern District of New York) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represents direct purchasers of primary aluminum (“Aluminum”) on the spot market in the United States from February 1, 2010 through the present at prices linked to or explicitly incorporating London Metal Exchange prices, including the Platts MW US Transaction Premium price and the Platts MW US net-cash premium (the “Midwest Premium”), The litigation is advanced under the antitrust laws of the United States. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy for the purposes of restricting the supply of aluminum and thereby increasing the price of aluminum sold both on the LME and in the spot market. This action is actively being litigated.
In re: Zinc Antitrust Litigation) (USDC Northern District of New York) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed the first in the nation antitrust class action on behalf of direct purchasers of zinc (“Zinc”). The complaint alleges that direct purchasers and those who incurred storage fees at one of the defendants warehouses paid substantially more for physical lead and/or zinc (“Zinc”) than they otherwise would have since September 15, 2010, due to a conspiracy between major bankers, metals warehousing companies, commodities trading companies, metals trading companies and the company that oversees global metals trading – the London Metal Exchange.
Dale Bozzio v. EMI Group Limited et al (USDC Northern District of California Oakland Division and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #13-15685) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, that arises from the widespread and systematic breach of recording contracts involving legacy musicians. The complaint was brought on behalf of a nationwide class for breach of contract and statutory violations of California law against Defendants EMI Group Limited; Capitol Records, LLC; EMI North America, LLC; EMI Recorded Music; and EMI Marketing (collectively referred to herein as “EMI”).The complaint alleges that EMI’s failure to properly account for and pay its recording artists and music producers for income it has received, and continues to receive, from the licensees of its recorded music catalog for the sale of digital downloads, ringtones and streaming music (collectively, “digital content”). The Standard EMI Recording Agreement typically sets forth payments to EMI’s recording artists and producers for licensing of masters at 50% of the receipts of EMI, rather than a lesser percentage (typically 12% to 20%) as a royalty paid to the artist or producer based on the price of each unit sold. The Ninth Circuit has held, in an analogous action against another major record label that royalties for digital downloads and ringtones should be paid pursuant to the amounts agreed to for a “license” and not at the lower rate of a “sale Record labels are paying these musicians a fraction of what they are owed when digital versions of their songs are streamed, downloaded, or installed on phones as ringtones. The USDC dismissed the action as to Bozzio on the basis of standing and an appeal is being actively litigated. Bonsignore Trials Lawyers, PLLC was co author of the winning appellate briefing that reversed the district court’s ruling and reinstated the claims of thousands of music artists.
In re: After Market Filters Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1957) (USDC Northern District of Illinois) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented a direct purchasers of replacement automobile air and oil filters in this nationwide, anti trust price fixing case. This case has been settled for approximately 35 million dollars.
In re: Optical Disc Drive Litigation (MDL 2143) (USDC Northern District of California) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented direct purchasers in an antitrust action challenging the price fixing of optical disc drive in this international antitrust price fixing case. This case has been settled for approximately 60 million dollars.
In re: Employee Benefit Insurance Brokerage Litigation (MDL 1663) (USDC New Jersey) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed one of the first bid-rigging class actions in the country on behalf of a large upstate New York employer and major plastics manufacturer. The lawsuit alleged that insurance companies and brokers conspired with one another to allocate customers and markets and initiated kickbacks (“contingent commissions”) with certain insurance companies. Using the kickback agreements to obtain inflated or false price quotes that they used to steer their customers into purchasing higher priced insurance policies issued by the insurance companies that paid the brokers the highest kickbacks. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC serves as Class Counsel and has been assigned to the Discovery and Class Certification Committees in the multi-district action pending in New Jersey. Robert J. Bonsignore was responsible for taking numerous depositions of the defendants corporate officers and other firm members carried out numerous massive document review projects. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the district court’s dismissal of the suit and reinstated many of the core claims in the case. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the reinstated claims. The Class Plaintiffs have settled with the Zurich, Gallagher and Marsh Defendant groups for an aggregate amount in excess of $218 million. Objections to those settlements were either rejected by the Court of Appeals or dismissed by the appellants, and those settlements are final. On May 23, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted a brief to the Court seeking Preliminary Approval of an additional Settlement Agreement, with 12 of the remaining 16 Defendants, in the amount of $41 million. Final approval of that Settlement was heard on September 14, 2011.
In re: Cement Antitrust Litigation 1:05 cv 979 (USDC Southern District of Indiana) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented a direct purchaser (business) in an antitrust action challenging the price fixing of cement in the mid west United States. The Firm served as Class Counsel in the multi-district litigation that settled for more than $24 million in the United States District Court for the District of Indiana.
SKYVA International v. ABB (Privately Settled) – Complex matter involving arbitration, mediation, litigation and negotiation of multiple disputes revolving around a $600 million contract and related business relationships and pending relationships with and between Microsoft, IBM, Adjenture, ABB and SKYVA. Choice of law issues involving this product technology included Swiss, New York, Delaware and Massachusetts’ law.
In Re: Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1516) (USDC North Carolina) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed one of the first direct purchaser (business) cases in the country representing Malden Mills a major textile manufacturing firm. The firm represented direct purchasers of Polyester Staple in a case alleging a single, nationwide conspiracy among defendants to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of, and/or allocate markets and customers for, Polyester Staple in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S. C. § 1. The claims brought on behalf of Plaintiffs further alleged that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy, they and other purchasers of Polyester Staple paid more for Polyester Staple than they would have paid absent the conspiracy. Defendants named in the Complaints included Wellman, Inc., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation; Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, DAK Americas LLC; DAK Fibers LLC.; Arteva Specialties LLC d/b/a KoSa and now named INVISTA S.ar.l.; Arteva Specialties S.ar.l.; and Koch Industries. By Order dated April 22, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation centralized the Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. On May 20, 2004, the court granted final approval of a $17,150,000 settlement with the DAK defendants. In addition to the settlement amount paid by the DAK Defendants, the Settlement Agreement required these defendants to cooperate with Plaintiffs in connection with their prosecution of claims in this action against the other defendants. On October 5, 2005, the court preliminarily approved settlements with two other defendants, Wellman and Nan Ya, with $6,800,000 being paid to the Class from Wellman and $4,000,000 from Nan Ya. The court held a Fairness Hearing on December 15, 2005. Subsequently, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of these settlements and distributions were made to Class members at the end of 2006. On June 24, 2008, the court granted final approval of a $33,000,000 settlement with the Arteva defendants d/b/a KoSa.
Darbar Cusine, Inc. v Chef’s Choice Mesquite Charcoal, Lazzari Fuel Company LLC, California Charcoal and Firewood, Inc., (USDC Northern District of California 3:13-CV-05331 JSC) – After a year long investigation, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed a related class action complaint in the Northern District of California on behalf of all businesses in the United States who purchased bulk lump mesquite charcoal directly from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs’ allege the Defendants engaged in unlawful combination and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of mesquite charcoal sold directly by the Defendants and their affiliates during the period from approximately January 1, 2000 through at least September 30, 2010 (the “Class Period”). This action is actively being litigated.
In re: Apple Shareholders Derivative Litigation– Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed among the first 3 shareholder lawsuits against Apple. The complaint alleges Apple entered into illegal non solicitation agreements with high level executives at other companies including Google and Intel and asserts violations of §§10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78n(a) as well as California law. These agreements provided that Apple and other companies would not recruit each other’s employees. Accordingly, they regulated the competition for talent and suppressed job mobility. Bloomberg Businessweek reported “Silicon Valley’s vast wealth and warped sense of entitlement led to an audacious conspiracy to suppress salaries.” As a result shareholders suffered significant ascertainable economic loss.
In re: Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2471
“Vehicle Carriers” transport large numbers of cars, trucks or other automotive vehicles including agriculture and construction equipment (collectively “Vehicles”) across large bodies of water using specialized cargo ships known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels (“RoRos”). “Vehicle Carrier Services” refers to the paid ocean transportation of Vehicles by RoRo. The complaint alleges violations of state law in approximately 30 states were a direct result of a conspiracy among certain Vehicle Carriers, between January 1, 2008 and May 24, 2013, to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for, Vehicle Carrier Services in violation of certain state and federal laws. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represents indirect purchasers of Vehicle Carrier Services in multiple states including Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont.
In re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation (2424) (USDC Central District of California)
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company of Korea, Kia Motors America, and Kia Motor Company of Korea because they admitted they overstated the fuel economy for many vehicles they sold in the United States after independent tests by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed a discrepancy. The multi- district class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California was brought on behalf all consumers who own or lease Hyundai and Kia vehicles whose EPA fuel economy ratings were less than the fuel economy rating produced by the applicable federal test in that model’s year. Hyundai will lower fuel-consumption estimates on most Hyundai and Kia models produced in 2012 and 2013. It will reportedly lower estimates by as much as five miles-per-gallon for its Kia Soul Eco and by one or two miles-per-gallon for most other models. This action is actively being litigated and the Court ruled that Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC and others (“Non-Settling Parties”) are serving to test the sufficiency of a proposed settlement. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC was requested and did play a major role in the related litigation advanced by the Non-Settling Parties and as a result the original settlement was greatly improved. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC supports the current settlement that is pending final approval.This case has been settled for approximately 255 million dollars.
In re: (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1917) (USDC Northern District of California) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed one of the first indirect purchaser cases in the country and coordinated the filing of 12 other cases. The nationwide action alleges a price fixing conspiracy in the CRT industry. Bonsignore presently represents end use indirect consumers in Nevada and South Dakota.
In re: Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (M.D.L.1631) (USDC Connecticut) – Robert Bonsignore served as the Court appointed Lead Counsel in MDL 1631 for all indirect end use purchasers. The firm was instrumental in the coordination and prosecution of a number of multi-state indirect purchaser actions. This action focuses on the alleged national and international price fixing of certain types of publication grade paper during certain time periods. Final Approval of a class action settlement against the last remaining Defendants was approved and the litigation is finally resolved.
In re: Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1717 (D. Del.) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represent indirect end use purchasers in a number of states in the multi-district class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ claim the microprocessor giant unlawfully maintained a monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), another microprocessor manufacturer. Specifically, that Intel forced PC makers and technology partners to boycott its competitors product launches and promotions; forced major customers into exclusive or near-exclusive deals, conditioned rebates, allowances, and market development funding on customers’ agreements to severely limit purchases from its competitor AMD; established a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered by purchases at such high levels that in effect deny customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors; threatened retaliation against customers introducing AMD computer platforms; established and enforced quotas among key retailers effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Intel-powered computers, thereby limiting consumer choice; and otherwise unlawfully leveraged its market power by forcing technical standards and products on the industry. This action is actively being litigated.
In re: Massachusetts Smokeless Tobacco Litigation (Massachusetts Superior Court Business Litigation Session) – Robert Bonsignore was appointed as Co-Lead Counsel by the Chief Justice of the Business Litigation Session for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This action was fiercely litigated for 7 years. Notably, this was the first contested indirect purchaser class action in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be certified. The action sought economic damages for consumers and alleged that U.S. Smokeless unlawfully created and maintained an unlawful monopoly and artificially inflated prices. The action was also noteworthy because counsels certified a fifteen-year class period by successfully establishing that fraudulent concealment of the bad acts was included in the questioned conduct. The all cash $10.16 million dollar settlement provided the greatest recovery per consumer (consumer class members are eligible to receive up $700 cash) in any price fixing action brought against the manufacturers of moist smokeless tobacco. The settlement received Preliminary Approval on May 22, 2009 and received Final Approval on October 23, 2009.
In re: California Vitamin Cases (San Francisco Superior Court) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC served on the Executive Committee in In Re: Vitamin Cases which was settled on behalf of California indirect purchasers. This action advanced antitrust claims against an international cartel of vitamin manufacturers accused of fixing prices and allocating markets in every level of the chain of distribution. In January 2002, the Court granted final approval of a $96 million settlement with certain vitamin manufacturers in a class action alleging that these and other manufacturers engaged in price fixing of particular vitamins. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to over $8.8 million in additional settlement
In re: Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1486) (USDC Northern District of California) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed one of the first indirect purchaser DRAM cases in the country. Robert Bonsignore was selected to serve as a member of the Executive Committee. Subsequent to filing, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLCcoordinated the consolidation and coordination of like cases in 48 states. The nationwide action alleges a price fixing conspiracy in the DRAM industry. Robert Bonsignore was appointed by the Court to serve as interim lead counsel of a related putative class.
In re: Chocolate Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1935) (USDC Middle District of Pennsylvania) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented indirect end use purchaser of chocolate in 14 of 29 states involved in the litigation. The action alleges an international price fixing conspiracy in the Chocolate industry. Robert J. Bonsignore was responsible for taking numerous depositions of the defendant’s corporate officers, corporate document discovery, and was designated to serve as the discovery liaison with the largest purchaser of chocolate in the United States. Mr. Bonsignore serves on the 5-person Settlement Negotiation team and the expert witness and class certifications teams. Other firm members carried out numerous massive document review projects.
In re: Neurontin Marketing Litigation (MDL) (USDC District of Massachusetts) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed a consumer protection class action alleging that the manufacturers of Neurontin falsely represented that the drug was effective for conditions that completely lacked any scientific support and validity. Plaintiffs pointed to internal documents comparing this unfair and deceptive marketing plan to the sale of “snake oil.” Plaintiffs further offered proof that the manufacturers targeted the most vulnerable and defenseless segments of population in our society – the mentally ill, the terminally ill, and those in chronic pain.
In re: Silicone Gel Breast Implant Product Liability Litigation (MDL 926) (USDC Northern District of Alabama and USDC Eastern District of Michigan) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented over 400 pre-1991 recipients of saline and silicone breast implants. During the multi-district litigation, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC served as Co-Counsel and on the Discovery Committee. Robert Bonsignore was part of the discovery team. A $2.35 billion fund was created in one of the largest class action settlements in U.S. history. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC continues to obtain compensation for breast implement claims. Contact us today for more information.
In re: Mercury Vaccine Litigation – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed several of the first consumer protection class action cases in the country alleging that the toxic levels of mercury coupled with the increased number of vaccinations poisoned infants and directly caused their learning disabilities and autism. The action sought medical monitoring, a public release of related studies and data that could be used in diagnosis and treatment, and to reimburse the families as well as local and federal government for the staggering costs associated with the treatment of the affected children. The Firm helped spearhead a collective group of North America’s best trial lawyers and significantly contributed to this national litigation. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC served on the Executive, Science, Expert, Class Certification, State Coordination and Discovery Committees. The related claims gained no traction because the science relied upon were compromised when a researcher exaggerated his findings. The sudden and continuing spike in the rate of autism remains stunning and unexplained.
In re: Rezulin Products Liability Litigation (MDL 1348) (USDC Southern District of New York) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed one of the first wrongful death, liver failure and consumer protection class action cases in the country. The action alleged that the makers of the diabetes drug did not adequately test its safety and efficacy prior to mass marketing it to consumers. On March 21, 2000, per the FDA’s request, Warner-Lambert finally issued the Rezulin recall after its controversial run on the U.S. market. Robert Bonsignore’s early aggressive discovery lead to the key admission that Warner Lambert had health department reviewers of the drug on its payroll at the time it was approved. Robert Bonsignore served on the Science, Expert, Class Certification, State Coordination and Discovery Committees in the multi-district action. In addition, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC was selected to take critical depositions. Mr. Bonsignore also secured the largest single award in an individual action, obtaining a $3.75 million dollar recovery for his client.
In re: Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., Hip Prothesis and Knee Prothesis Product Liability Litigation (MDL 1410) (USDC Northern District of Ohio) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC filed one of the first hip failure consumer protection class actions cases in the country. Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC took and attended the first depositions obtaining key admissions. The aggressive discovery conducted by Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC resulted in key admissions by one of its chief worldwide recall investigators. The multi-district class action alleged that the makers of hip and knee prostheses negligently coated these medical devices with commercial grade motor oil and did not adequately test safety and efficacy prior to mass marketing to consumers. The related products were recalled from the United States market. A settlement was reached approximating $1 billion.
In re: Lead Paint – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented the City of Providence Rhode Island in an action seeking to have the manufacturers of lead paint pay for its removal and to pay for the costs absorbed by the city for the health care and special education of children who suffered from lead paint poisoning.
In re: VIOXX Product Liability Litigation (MDL 1657) (USDC Eastern District of Louisiana) Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC served as class-counsel and a member of the Discovery Committee in the multi-district action concerning VIOXX. The Firm represented patients who claimed that it’s manufacturer didn’t adequately disclose Vioxx safety data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, didn’t properly warn doctors and patients of the drug’s risks and misrepresented the potential harm in marketing materials and suffered personal injury as a result. A class settlement was reached with Janssen Pharmaceutica, a Johnson & Johnson company, and the creation of a $90 million settlement fund.
In re: Propulsid Product Liability Litigation (MDL 1355) (USDC Eastern District of Louisiana) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC served as class-counsel and member of the Discovery Committee in the multi-district action concerning the heartburn drug Propulsid. The Firm represented patients who alleged that Propulsid caused them heart problems. A class settlement was reached with Janssen Pharmaceutica, a Johnson & Johnson company, and the creation of a $90 million settlement fund.
Water supply in Flint Michigan being contaminated with elevated levels of posion – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC have been extensively involved in comprehensive testing of the water and the scientific analysis of water system. As a result of the water supply in Flint Michigan being contaminated with elevated levels of poison containments.
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC are accepting claims of individuals and families who were injured by bathing, breathing or drinking the poisoned flint water.
In re: Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Practices Litigation (M.D.L. 1735) (USDC District of Nevada and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – This successfully and finally resolved multi – district class action is the largest certified class in a wage and hour case in United States history. The filing, coordination and prosecution of coordinated proceedings in 39 states were found to have been the brainchild of Robert Bonsignore. Bonsignore first successfully, argued that the litigation should be granted MDL status and coordinated for all pre-trial proceedings. Mr. Bonsignore was then appointed by the court to serve as national Co-Lead Counsel in this Multi District Litigation and fully litigated the action. This action focused on allegations that Wal-Mart systematically failed to pay its hourly employees for all time worked, including supplemental benefits. The action settled for $85 million dollars plus injunctive relief designed to prevent the alleged violations from occurring again. After the settlement received Finally Approval a law firm that entered the case one-month prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement purchased an interest in the attorney fees award. (Objector) After the allocation of the attorney fees was arbitrated, the Objector filed an FAA 10 appeal of the Arbitration Award. The District Court rejected that appeal in a lengthy opinion, finding the challenge to be meritless. The Objector appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 18, 2013, nearly 10 years after the litigation was filed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the appeal to be meritless and affirmed the District Courts ruling. Robert Bonsignore briefed and argued all appeals.
In re: Wal-Mart Massachusetts Wage and Hour Litigation- Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC serves as Class Counsel in Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a certified Massachusetts class action of 67,000 hourly employees alleging wage and hour violations against Wal-Mart occurring in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This action is the largest certified employment class in Massachusetts state history. Notably, rulings and bodies of evidence obtained in this action have been relied upon in other employment litigation around the country. Attorney Robert Bonsignore successfully convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to reverse a trial court decision decertifying the class. The argument, which is the second most watched archived SJC argument, set numerous precedents that have been frequently cited in numerous decisions.
In re: Federal Express (MDL 1700) (Northern District of Indiana) – Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC represented misclassified employees of Federal Express in South Dakota and Colorado. The action seeks to reclassify route drivers as employees and to obtain back compensation for the economic loss suffered by the drivers during the period they were misclassified. The litigation is pending with certification granted in part and denied in part. Attorney Generals in a number of states requested Fed Ex on July 1, 2009 to properly classify their drivers. The litigation is presently on appeal.
The information provided by class-actions.us is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
The views and opinions expressed on the site do not necessarily represent those of class-actions.us.