he United States has paid $1.95million to the daughter and estateof Francisco Castaneda, an immi-

gration detainee who died from penilecancer that federal authorities had refusedto diagnose or treat during his nearly 11months in their custody. Castaneda died

in February 2008, one year after his peniswas amputated in an attempt to stop thecancer from spreading.

The payment settled a federal lawsuitalleging that Castaneda died as a result ofthe government’s medical negligence,health care policies for immigrationdetainees that failed to meet correctionalindustry standards, and intentional disre-gard of Castaneda’s serious medicalneeds. Trial had been scheduled to beginin April.

Public Justice Managing AttorneyAdele Kimmel said not only does the set-tlement in the federal case “represent vin-

s u p p o r t i n g t h e w o r k o f a m e r i c a ’ s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t l a w f i r m

he U.S. Supreme Court has justhighlighted and increased the needfor Public Justice’s Access to Justice

Campaign. In three disturbing decisionsin the last two months, five members ofthe Court continued changing the law tobenefit corporations and limit or elimi-nate consumers’ and workers’ rights.

In AT&T v. Concepcion, the five-member majority held that the FederalArbitration Act of 1925 preempts—i.e.,wipes out—a California Supreme Courtrule barring corporations from usingconsumer contracts to ban class actionsin cases charging companies with cheat-ing large numbers of people out of indi-vidually small amounts of money. PublicJustice is now leading the battle to prove—and educate others about—the limita-tions of the decision. (See article below.)

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the same mem-bers of the Court—Chief Justice John

Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, andAnthony Kennedy—precluded currentand former women employees of thecountry’s largest retailer from pursuing anational class action against the companyfor sex discrimination in promotion andpay. In so doing, they announced newrules of law that could make it muchmore difficult for victims of employmentdiscrimination—and many others—tohold corporations accountable in court.(See article on Page 3).

In Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, again by a 5-to-4 vote, the Court declared that genericdrug manufacturers cannot be sued forfailing to warn patients or doctors of theirdrugs’ dangers—even though the Courtheld two years ago in Wyeth v. Levine thatname-brand drug manufacturers can besued for failing to warn patients and doc-tors of their drugs’ dangers. As a result,

T

See Concepcion, page 5.

3: High Court Rejects Failure to Warn,Gender Discrimination Claims

5: Fighting to Hold Banks Accountable6: Iqbal Project Files Appeal8: Auto Preemption Victory11:Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalists

INSIDE

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt acrushing blow to class action litiga-tion in its April decision in AT&T

Mobility v. Concepcion, but Public Justiceand other plaintiffs’ attorneys say thereare limits to the ruling’s reach.

According to the Court, the FederalArbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) preemptsCalifornia’s Discover Bank rule, which, itsaid, would invalidate a class action banin an arbitration clause—and could forcedefendants into class arbitration withouttheir consent—even if claims brought onan individual basis would be “most likelyto go unresolved.” Prohibiting arbitra-tion of a broad category of claims and

T

See Neglected Detainee, page 7.

®

when pharmacists fill prescriptions by sub-stituting generic drugs for name-branddrugs, as most states require them to do,consumers will be losing their rights in theprocess. (See article on Page 3.)

The United States aspires to the wordsinscribed on the front of the U.SSupreme Court: “Equal Justice UnderLaw.” Public Justice is determined to pre-serve access to justice for all. �

New U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Jam the Courthouse Doorsfor Consumers, Employees, Others Seeking Access to Justice

Public Justice LeadsBattle to Show Limitsof ConcepcionRuling

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1

U.S. Pays $1.95 Million to Family of Late,Medically Neglected Immigration Detainee

s u m m e r 2 0 1 12

p r e s i D e n t ’ s r e p o r t

or all of history, much ofhumanity has struggledagainst injustice, merely to

survive. Over 5,000 years ago,under claim of divine entitle-ment, a privileged and powerfulfew individuals conscripted themasses to build pyramid monu-ments. Are we a significantlybetter world today?

Over the past four decades,inflation has effectively cut theminimum wage worker’s buy-ing power in half. Corporationshave used bankruptcy protection to enrich their CEOs and dis-solve worker pension funds. Fewer and fewer working familiesare provided with health insurance.

Courts abdicate their power in favor of dubious arbitration.Governments allow private companies to imprison and mis-treat citizens. Class action bans in small cases prevent corporateaccountability for thousands of individual wrongs.

Are we winning or losing the fight against injustice? In 1982, Public Justice began its first major battle against

injustice. As Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, we filed the case ofAnderson v W.R. Grace, a landmark toxic tort case on behalf ofeight families in Woburn, MA, whose children contractedleukemia from toxic chemicals dumped in the town’s drinkingwater (later the subject of the bestselling book and movie, “ACivil Action”).

Twenty-nine years later, with your support and assistance,we are still fighting, and winning, battle after battle in the pub-lic’s interest.

There will always be a wall of injustice to overcome. Fivethousand years of privileged entitlement mentality will notevaporate in our lifetimes. The seductive temptation of moneyand power will not suddenly disappear like the Berlin Wall. Aswe remove bricks from one part of the wall, those who aretempted will add bricks elsewhere.

Public Justice advocacy effectively provides judicial andpublic enlightenment to prevent the exploitation of power.Absent effective public interest litigation, privileged attorneysand judges in positions of power will quickly overlook thestruggles of citizens in our midst. Injustice lurks in the shadows,waiting to strike whenever illumination fails.

Now more than ever, it is critically important to ensure thatindividuals retain the right to be heard in a meaningful forum.Without access to justice through our courts, no other safe-guard protects the less fortunate among us in today’s society.

Thanks to your participation and support, Public Justicewill always carry the torch of enlightenment to those in powerwho care enough to listen and act. Public Justice matters. �

ahe law, as Justice OliverWendell Holmes said, “isnot a brooding omnipres-

ence in the sky.” People create,refine, and develop it with jus-tice as the goal. The law affectshow people act and what hap-pens to them.

That is why the U.S.Supreme Court’s recent 5-to-4decisions are so alarming. Theirreal-world consequences areextremely grave.

In AT&T Mobility v. Con-cepcion, the Court made it much easier for corporations to useform consumer and employer contracts to bar customers andworkers from bringing class actions against them—and muchharder for concerned States and attorneys to overturn classaction bans and preserve access to justice. Unscrupulous corpo-rations will be more free to—and will—cheat consumers andworkers and walk away with the money. Millions, even billions,of dollars will be transferred illegally from consumers and work-ers to corporate wrongdoers, and few people will be able to doanything about it.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the five-member majority essentiallymade it impossible for the company to be held accountablenationwide for sex discrimination against its female employees.The Court also made it much more difficult to prevent anddeter corporations throughout the country from mistreatingworkers and discriminating against men and women on thebasis of their gender, age, disability, religion, political beliefs orsexual orientation. The law will be broken, people will suffer,and companies will not be held accountable.

The practical effect of PLIVA v. Mensing is the most far-reaching of all. The decision endangers almost everyone inAmerica. When generic drugs are available, over 90% of patientsuse them. Now, no matter what manufacturers know or whenthey know it, they will have little financial incentive to warn con-sumers of their drugs’ dangers—and no obligation to compen-sate the people their products harm. Pharmacists substitutinggeneric drugs for name-brand drugs will be eliminating patients’rights in the process. People will be injured and killed.

This is not the way our legal system is supposed to work.Each member of the Supreme Court is called “Justice.” That iswhat we want them to do. In these cases, they inflictedSupreme Injustice instead. �

Harry Deitzler

Arthur H. Bryant

The Supreme Injustice

Why Public Justice?

FT

e x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r ’ s r e p o r t

n a blow to consumer claims, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled in late June thatgeneric drug manufacturers cannot be

sued for failing to provide adequate warn-ings of their drugs’ risks.

The Court held that state failure-to-warn claims against generic manufactur-ers are preempted by federal law. PublicJustice and the Center for ConstitutionalLitigation (CCL) were appellate counselfor the plaintiff, Gladys Mensing. CCL’sLouis Bograd argued the case in March.

The Supreme Court decided Pliva, Inc.v. Mensing by a 5 to 4 vote. The majority,led by Justice Thomas, held that eventhough the generic drug manufacturerscould have sought approval from theFood and Drug Administration (FDA)for a stronger warning label—and,indeed, were required to seek suchapproval—generic manufacturers’ inabil-ity to unilaterally change their drugs’labels in advance of FDA approval meantthat it was “impossible” for them to com-ply with both federal and state law.

The decision reverses the EighthCircuit Court of Appeals, which had

rejected the generic manufacturers’ pre-emption defense. The Fifth and NinthCircuits had also held that failure-to-warn claims against generic manufactur-ers were not preempted.

Joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyerand Kagan, Justice Sotomayor wrote adissent in Mensing, noting the Court’s2009 holding in Wyeth v. Levine that fail-ure-to-warn claims against brand-namedrug makers are not preempted.

The opposite results reached inMensing and Levine mean that “a drugconsumer’s right to compensation forinadequate warnings now turns on thehappenstance of whether her pharmacistfilled her prescription with a brand-namedrug or a generic,” said the dissent. Itdescribed that and other consequences ofthe majority opinion as “absurd” and notwhat Congress intended.

For three years, Gladys Mensing tookthe generic drug metoclopramide to treatgastroesophageal reflux. Her physicianhad prescribed Reglan, the brand nameversion of the drug, but in accordancewith Minnesota law, her pharmacy filled

the prescription with the generic form. Mensing’s long-term use caused her to

develop tardive dyskinesia, a disabling,Parkinson’s Disease-like disorder.

The Supreme Court’s decision doesnot address whether plaintiffs likeMensing may be able to recover from themakers of their drugs’ brand-name ver-sions. Some courts have held that plain-tiffs who are given generics have viableclaims against the brand-name manufac-turers, although other courts (includingthe Eighth Circuit in Mensing itself) haverejected such claims.

Public Justice’s Claire Prestel and LeslieBrueckner were Mensing’s co-counsel withCCL. Co-counsel in the Supreme Courtalso included Michael Johnson and LuciaMcLaren of Goldenberg & Johnson,P.L.L.C. in Minneapolis and Daniel Mc-Glynn of McGlynn, Glisson & Moutonin Baton Rouge, LA. In a second case thatcombined with Mensingbefore the Court,the plaintiff was represented by RichardTonry, II, Raymond Binson, Brian Gloriosoand Kristine Sims, all of Tonry, Brison &Glorioso, L.L.C. in Slidell, LA. �

IU.S. Supreme Court Rules that Generic Drug ManufacturersCannot Be Sued for Failing to Warn of Their Drugs’ Dangers

he U.S. Supreme Court dealt astunning blow to employment dis-crimination class actions in June,

rejecting class certification for a group ofmore than 1 million female workers whoalleged gender discrimination by Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer.

An amici brief by Public Justice, theNational Association of ConsumerAdvocates, and the National ConsumersLeague supported the women.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, JusticeAntonin Scalia said that the plaintiffs hadfailed to offer “‘significant proof’ thatWal-Mart ‘operated under a general poli-cy of discrimination,’” which he said wasnecessary in discrimination cases to satis-fy the “commonality” requirement forclass certification under federal rules gov-erning civil procedure.

Justice Scalia stated that the plaintiffs’evidence of Wal-Mart giving discretion to

local supervisors over employment mat-ters was “[o]n its face . . . just the oppositeof a uniform employment practice thatwould provide the commonality neededfor a class action; it is a policy against hav-ing uniform employment practices.”

All three female justices—Ruth BaderGinsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and ElenaKagan—along with Justice StephenBreyer dissented from that part of theopinion. Justice Ginsburg wrote that theplaintiffs’ evidence showed that “genderbias suffused Wal-Mart’s company cul-ture.” Justice Ginsburg noted that due topeople’s unconscious biases, “[t]he prac-tice of delegating to supervisors large dis-cretion to make personnel decisions,uncontrolled by formal standards, haslong been known to have the potential toproduce disparate effects.”

But the Court held unanimously thatthe plaintiffs’ “claims for back pay were

improperly certified under Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).” The Courtexplained that a part of the class actionrules “does not authorize class certifica-tion when each class member would beentitled to an individualized award ofmonetary damages.”

Public Justice’s brief before the Courthad argued that a restrictive interpreta-tion of Rule 23 would effectively strip theability of many workers and consumersto seek redress for corporate wrongdoing.

Monique Olivier of Duckworth PetersLebowitz Olivier LLP in San Francisco,CA authored Public Justice’s brief, withinput from Public Justice Senior Attor-neys Victoria Ni and Paul Bland, andExecutive Director Arthur Bryant. Co-counsel on the brief were James Stur-devant of San Francisco, CA, and TracyRezvani and Karen Marcus of FinkelsteinThompson, LLP in Washington, DC. �

THighCourt BlocksClassCertification in Wal-Mart Bias Case

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 3

espite announcing key decisionsthis term that strip or limit plain-tiffs’ access to the courts, the U.S.

Supreme Court issued two unanimousdecisions in early June overturning FifthCircuit decisions limiting securities andcivil rights plaintiffs’ access to the courts,as Public Justice amicus briefs urged.

In Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton,investors alleged that the energy con-glomerate had misrepresented its earn-ings to inflate its stock price. When thecompany corrected the misstatements,its stock price dropped. Investorsbrought a securities fraud class actionand moved for class certification.

Both the district court and the FifthCircuit Court of Appeals denied class cer-tification on the grounds that plaintiffshad to show that Halliburton’s misrepre-sentations caused their loss at the certifi-cation stage—even though no other cir-cuit requires that until summary judg-ment or trial. The Supreme Court over-turned the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, remov-ing a nearly insurmountable burden forplaintiffs at the class certification stage.

In another Fifth Circuit case, RickyFox, a candidate for police chief ofVinton, LA, sued the incumbent chieffor allegedly launching an intimidationcampaign against him. When Fox volun-tarily dismissed his federal civil rightsclaim, the defendant sought attorneys’fees on the ground that the claim wasfrivolous. The Fifth Circuit granted theentire amount of the defense feesincurred in Fox v. Vice.

Public Justice and other public inter-est groups argued that the Fifth Circuit’srule would profoundly affect plaintiffs’ability to vindicate their federal civilrights. The Supreme Court held thatwhen a civil rights plaintiff ’s suitinvolves both non-frivolous and frivo-lous claims, a court may only awardattorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendantto the extent the fees requested wouldnot have accrued “but for” the frivolousclaims. The Court’s opinion, written byJustice Kagan, explained that the FifthCircuit’s ruling would grant a windfall tothose defendants facing a frivolous claimintertwined with meritorious ones.

In Halliburton, Charles Pearsall Good-win of Berger & Montague, P.C., inPhiladelphia, was the lead author ofPublic Justice’s amicus brief, with assis-tance from Yael May, also of Berger &Montague, P.C.; Lisa M. Mezzetti and S.Douglas Bunch of Cohen MilsteinSellers & Toll, PLLC, in Washington,DC; Public Justice Brayton-ThorntonAttorney Melanie Hirsch; and Public Jus-tice Executive Director Arthur Bryant.

The Fox amici brief was written byAndrew G. Celli, Jr., O. Andrew F.Wilson, and Debra L. Greenberger ofEmery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP,in New York, NY, on behalf of a coalitionof groups including Public Justice,American Civil Liberties Union, Amer-icans United for Separation of Churchand State, Impact Fund, Lawyers’Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,The Legal Aid Society, NationalEmployment Lawyers Association,National Fair Housing Alliance, andPeople For the American Way. PublicJustice’s Senior Attorney Vicky Ni andHirsch provided input on the brief. �

s u m m e r 2 0 1 14

DJustices Unanimously Overturn Fifth Circuit’s Rulings Limiting Court Access in Securities and Civil Rights Cases

State Claims Still Possibility after Climate Change Rulingpotentially blockbuster climatechange case in the U.S. SupremeCourt turned out to be a loss for

environmentalists without being a bigwin for industry.

Several states and land trusts had filedsuit against five major power plants tolimit carbon dioxide emissions, relyingon federal and state common law onpublic nuisance. Those power plants col-lectively account for 10% of the UnitedStates’ carbon dioxide emissions.

In June, the Supreme Court held inAmerican Electric Power Co. v. Connecti-cut that the Clean Air Act—and theEnvironmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) authority to regulate greenhousegas emissions under that Act—displacesthe states and land trusts’ federal com-mon-law claims. The district court haddismissed the case on the grounds that it

presented a political question that wasup to Congress to resolve, not the courts.The Second Circuit reversed and hadallowed the case to proceed.

To support the plaintiffs, PublicJustice had filed an amicus brief onbehalf of some of the nation’s leading cli-mate scientists to show that, if the Courtfollowed its decision in Massachusetts v.EPA—which held that the Clean Air Actcovers greenhouse gas emissions andallows states to challenge EPA’s refusal toregulate greenhouse gas emissions—itwould find that the plaintiffs had thekind of injuries needed to give themstanding to bring the case.

The Court affirmed, by an equallydivided court, that the plaintiffs havestanding to pursue their claims—a find-ing urged by Public Justice’s amicus brief.Had Justice Sotomayor not recused her-

self from the case (she had heard oralargument while on the Second Circuit),there likely would have been a 5-4 major-ity opinion holding that at least some ofthe plaintiffs have standing to bring com-mon-law nuisance claims.

If Congress were to prevent EPAfrom carrying out its Clean Air Act man-date, the plaintiffs could potentially rein-state their federal common-law claims.

Moreover, the Court’s decision doesnot rule out future global warming law-suits based upon state claims. Thoughthe plaintiffs cannot continue to bringtheir federal nuisance claims, the Courtdid not dismiss their state nuisanceclaims. As in tobacco litigation, thechallenge remains to find a claim thatwill bring to justice the companies thatput profits before people and, in thisinstance, the planet. �

A

n two new cases, De la Cruz v.Wachovia Dealer Services and Epps v.JPMorgan Chase Bank, Public

Justice is continuing its challenge tonational banks’ argument that they areexempt from compliance with stateconsumer protection laws.

In both cases—Epps in the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuitand De la Cruz in the California Courtof Appeal—consumers purchased vehi-cles from car dealerships under retailinstallment contracts. Shortly after thesale, the dealerships assigned the con-sumers’ contracts to national banks.When the consumers became unable tomake payments and defaulted, the banksrepossessed.

But the banks’ post-repossessionnotices failed to comply with state lawsthat provide crucial protections to con-sumers when a creditor is trying to collectits debt. In both cases, after consumersbrought suits on behalf of a putativeclass, the banks argued that they did notneed to comply with these debt collec-

tion laws because the National Bank Act(NBA) and a regulation from the Officeof the Comptroller of the Currency(OCC) preempt such state laws.

Public Justice contends that preemp-tion is not warranted in either case, fortwo key reasons. First, the lenders in bothcases contractually agreed to complywith state law when they purchased theconsumer contracts from the dealerships,and federal law does not preempt aparty’s voluntarily assumed contractualobligations. In essence, the banks seek tocollect deficiency judgments from con-sumers—a right created by state law—without having to meet the obligationson which that right is conditioned.

Second, the banks’ preemption argu-ments fail to recognize that the NBA andthe OCC regulation govern only a bank’sability to lend; under both the OCC reg-ulation and more than a century ofSupreme Court precedent, state debt-col-lection laws, like the ones at issue in Eppsand De la Cruz, are not preempted.

Epps and De la Cruz are the most

recent efforts in Public Justice’s fightagainst banking preemption, whichbegan in 2007 with De la Cruz v. WFSFinancial—in which the lender agreed toforgive over $34 million in debts afterPublic Justice successfully sought reviewby the California Supreme Court—andcontinued with Aguayo v. U.S. Bank,argued in the Ninth Circuit in February2011.

In Epps, Public Justice SeniorAttorney Paul Bland and Brayton-Thornton Attorney Melanie Hirsch arecounsel, along with Scott C. Borison ofthe Legg Law Firm, LLC, in Frederick,MD; Peter Holland of the Holland LawFirm, P.C., in Annapolis, MD; and JaneSantoni of Williams & Santoni, LLP, inTowson, MD.

Hirsch is also counsel for the plaintiffsin De la Cruz, along with Public JusticeStaff Attorney Claire Prestel; Andrew J.Ogilvie and Carol McLean Brewer ofAnderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLC, inSan Francisco; and Michael E. Lindsay inSan Diego. �

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 5

I

Public Justice Challenges Banks’ Preemption Argument

imposing class-wide arbitration againstthe parties’ consent was inconsistentwith—and thus preempted by—theFAA, said the Court.

In the wake of Concepcion, corporatedefendants have asked many courts toreexamine their prior decisions invalidat-ing class action bans, arguing thatConcepcion requires the enforcement ofany contract term banning class actions,no matter what the evidence in the casewould show or what state law is at issue.

But the Court did not hold that theFAA requires a court to enforce a classaction ban in an arbitration clause wherethe factual record proves that the termwould effectively preclude consumers oremployees from vindicating their statuto-ry rights. Indeed, in order to so hold, theSupreme Court would have had to over-rule decades of its own precedent makingclear that arbitration clauses are onlyenforceable so long as the parties can

effectively vindicate their rights.Public Justice has argued in a number

of cases that courts should harmonizeConcepcion with the Supreme Court’s ex-tensive case law on vindication of rightsby leaving in place state laws that limit classaction bans in particular circumstanceswhere the evidence shows such an effect.

In addition, the Court did not holdthat corporations can ban all class actionsbrought under federal law. Concepcionaddressed whether the FAA preemptsparticular rules of state law; the FAA doesnot preempt other federal laws. That issignificant because several federal courtshave held that class action bans violatethe FAA when, for example, the costs orclaims involved—like antitrust claimsthat would require expensive and com-plex expert testimony—preclude indi-vidual litigation.

Furthermore, Public Justice attorneyssay there are strong arguments thatConcepcion’s holding should not apply instate court. Justice Thomas, who provid-ed the critical fifth vote in the decision,

has maintained in five separate cases thatthe FAA does not apply to cases in statecourt. Observers say that if Concepcionhad come to the Supreme Court fromstate court, Justice Thomas would likelyhave voted against preemption—and atleast one federal district court has alreadyrecognized that Concepcion’s preemptionholding is likely limited to cases which,like Concepcion itself, arise in federal court.

Since the ruling, Public Justice hasjoined a nationwide effort to decipher theimplications of Concepcion. A variety ofresources, including a memorandumabout those legal arguments and links tobriefs and decisions filed sinceConcepcion, can be accessed on the PublicJustice website, www.publicjustice.net.

Public Justice had filed an amicus briefin Concepcion opposing federal preemp-tion. The brief was authored by StaffAttorney Leslie Bailey with input fromSenior Attorney Paul Bland, Budd-Kazan Attorney Matt Wessler, Brayton-Thornton Attorney Melanie Hirsch, andExecutive Director Arthur Bryant. �

Concepcioncontinued from page 1.

s part of its fight to preserveclass actions, Public Justice hasfiled an amicus brief urging the

Arizona Supreme Court to adopt a cru-cial protection for absent class members.

Under federal rules governing classactions, as explained by the U.S.Supreme Court in American Pipe &Construction Co. v. Utah, the filing of aclass complaint tolls the statute of limi-tations for absent class members untilclass certification is denied. Essentially,American Pipe means that absent classmembers do not lose their ability tobring a lawsuit due to a statute of limita-tions while a putative class action ispending.

In Albano v. Shea Homes LimitedPartnership, the Arizona Supreme Courtis now deciding whether it should adoptthe American Pipe rule. Public Justiceargues in its brief that without such arule, the promise of the class actiondevice is thwarted because individuals

will be forced to file separate suits to pre-serve their rights.

In 2003, in a separate case calledHoffman v. Shea Homes LimitedPartnership, a number of homeowners inan Arizona subdivision brought a classaction against the developer for defectiveconstruction. The plaintiffs filed anuntimely motion for class certificationmore than two years later; the trial courtdenied that motion as well as a motionto add 86 new plaintiffs who sought tointervene.

Alfred Albano, along with numerousother individuals who had been deniedthe right to intervene in Hoffman,brought their own suit in November2007, which the defendants removed tofederal court. In its ruling, the federaldistrict court applied a modified versionof American Pipe: it held that because ofthe delay in filing for class certification inHoffman, Arizona’s eight-year statute ofrepose for real-estate developers should

only be tolled beginning from the datethe Hoffman plaintiffs filed their motionfor class certification, not the date theyfiled the class complaint. As a result, theAlbano complaint—which would havebeen timely if the statute of repose wastolled starting from the filing of thecomplaint—was deemed untimely,through no fault of the Albano plaintiffs.

On appeal, the Albano plaintiffsargued that the district court had erredin failing to toll the statute of repose forthe entire pendency of the Hoffman liti-gation. The Ninth Circuit certified tothe Arizona Supreme Court the ques-tion of whether and how Arizona wouldfollow American Pipe.

Public Justice’s brief was written byFrancis J. Balint, Jr., and Kevin R. Hangerof Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &Balint, P.C. in Phoenix, AZ. PublicJustice’s Brayton-Thornton AttorneyMelanie Hirsch and Senior AttorneyPaul Bland provided assistance. �

s u m m e r 2 0 1 16

APublic Justice Urges Arizona Supreme Court to Protect ClassMembers fromStatute of Limitations WhenClassActionPending

whistleblower who says he wasfired after objecting to employ-ment discrimination at an Ohio

shipping company is entitled to have hisfederal claims heard, argues an appellatebrief filed by Public Justice as part of itsIqbal Project.

Eugene Rhodes, an experiencedmanagement executive at Ohio-basedR+L Carriers and its sister companies,was fired after only eight months on thejob, despite his highly rated performanceand 34 years in the industry.

In a lawsuit filed in federal districtcourt last year, Rhodes said he witnesseddiscrimination against R+L employees,but when he objected, was told by uppermanagement that R+L would notchange because the company “had neverhad to write a big enough check” tomake complying with anti-discrimina-

tion laws worth the trouble. The district court dismissed Rhodes’s

claims before discovery,holding that they failed tomeet the pleading stan-dard announced by theU.S. Supreme Court inAshcroft v. Iqbal.

In its appeal to the Sixth Circuit,Public Justice argues that Rhodes’s com-plaint met the pleading requirements ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedurebecause it gave the defendants fair noticeof his claims and is supported by well-pleaded factual allegations that make theclaims plausible on their face. The briefalso argues that Rhodes cannot berequired to plead facts obtainable onlythrough discovery or more facts than arenecessary to state a plausible claim.

Rhodes’s appeal has won amicus sup-

port from other groups committed toensuring that employment discrimina-

tion and retaliation plain-tiffs still have access to jus-tice. The NationalEmployment LawyersAssociation and AARPhave asked the Sixth

Circuit for permission to participate asamici curiae in the case, and the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commis-sion also filed a friend-of-the-court briefurging the Sixth Circuit to reverse thedismissal of Rhodes’s claims.

Public Justice Staff Attorney ClairePrestel, Senior Attorney Paul Bland, andBrayton-Thornton Attorney MelanieHirsch are lead counsel on the appeal;Jon Allison and Randy Freking ofCincinnati’s Freking & Betz, LLC arelead trial counsel. �

AOhio Whistleblower’s Claims Not Precluded by Decision inAshcroft v. Iqbal, Argues Public Justice Sixth Circuit Appeal

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 7

ublic Justice recently joined anoth-er lawsuit to protect immigrationdetainees’ right to receive adequate

medical care while in custody. PratheesMurugesapillai, a 28-year-old native of SriLanka, suffered severe brain damage andcan no longer care for himself, as a resultof receiving grossly inadequate medicalcare for meningitis at both the detentionfacility where he was held and at a hospi-tal where he was provided treatment.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2009,asserts civil rights and medical negligenceclaims against those responsible for Mur-ugesapillai’s catastrophic injury—includ-ing the United States; the Los AngelesCounty Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’sDepartment) and a county medical pro-vider; Antelope Valley Hospital (AVH); aphysician who treated Mr. Murugesapil-lai at AVH; and the physician’s employer.

Mr. Murugesapillai came to the Uni-ted States in 2007 seeking political asylumand to escape persecution and torture bythe Singhalese majority in Sri Lanka; he isan ethnic minority of Tamil descent.Immediately upon entering the UnitedStates, Immigration and Customs En-forcement (ICE) detained him and placedhim in custody at the Mira LomaDetention Facility in Lancaster, CA.

The Sheriff’s Department operates

Mira Loma pursuant to an agreementwith the federal government and pro-vides only limited medical services todetainees. There is no doctor at the facil-ity. And the nurses are not allowed directcontact with patients during sick call.Instead, they provide care through abank teller-type window that preventsthem from physically examining patientsand taking their vital signs. This, ofcourse, makes it very difficult to diagnosemeningitis—a potentially deadly illnessthat is common in a custodial setting.

To make matters worse, the facility isseverely understaffed. On the date thatMr. Murugesapillai began to complainabout an unremitting headache andbody aches, a single nurse saw between100 and 165 detainees in a three-hourperiod. Despite his going to sick call fivetimes in a two-week period to complainabout his condition—which had notresponded to the Motrin and cold medi-cines that had been dispensed to him—no one ever checked his vital signs or per-formed any tests to rule out meningitis.

On March 4, 2008, the day after hislast visit to “sick call,” Mr. Murugesapillaisuffered a seizure and was sent to theemergency room at AVH. He was treat-ed for meningitis and a brain abscess atthe hospital, but, according to AVH’s

own medical expert—a very prominentneurosurgeon—Mr. Murugesapillai’streatment fell below the accepted standardof care. The day after he arrived at AVH,Mr. Murugesapillai suffered a brain her-niation, underwent a craniotomy, andsuffered permanent brain injuries.

After several weeks at AVH, Mr.Murugesapillai was transferred to a reha-bilitation hospital, had to endure furtherbrain surgery at yet another hospital, andwas then transferred to a federal detentionfacility in Florida. On March 11, 2011,ICE released Mr. Murgesapillai fromdetention, dropping him at a homelessshelter in New Jersey. His brother,Ramesh—a legal resident—removedhim from the homeless shelter andbecame his primary caregiver.

Mr. Murugesapillai requires 24-hour-a-day care now and takes six differenttypes of prescription medicine each dayto survive. He was completely healthywhen he entered the United States andwas taken into custody.

Mr. Murugesapillai is represented byConal Doyle of Willoughby Doyle LLPin Beverly Hills, CA, lead counsel; Tho-mas M. Dempsey of the Law Offices ofThomas M. Dempsey in Beverly Hills,CA,co-counsel; and Public Justice ManagingAttorney Adele Kimmel, co-counsel. �

PPublic Justice Joins Suit on Behalf of Former ImmigrationDetainee Severely Brain Damaged from Medical Neglect

dication for the Castaneda family,” butthe Castaneda case helped shed light onserious problems regarding the medicaltreatment of immigration detainees.

To settle a class action lawsuit bydetainees, the U.S. government agreed inDecember 2010 to specific improve-ments in medical care at the San DiegoCorrectional Facility, where Castanedahad been detained for eight months.Since then, the government has changedthe policies nationwide so that alldetainees will get better care.

“Mr. Castaneda had hoped that hiscase would lead to better health care for

immigration detainees,” said Kimmel,co-lead counsel for the Castanedas. “Hisfamily is taking some comfort in knowingthat his ordeal has made a difference.”

The settlement in Castaneda v. UnitedStates was approved by the federal districtcourt in Los Angeles and resolved theCastanedas’ claims against the UnitedStates and federal employee GeorgeMolinar, who was the Immigration andCustoms Enforcement officer-in-chargeat one of the federal detention facilitieswhere Mr. Castaneda was held.

“This historic settlement is recogni-tion by our government that everyhuman life has value,” said Conal Doyle,co-lead counsel for the Castaneda family.“Mr. Castaneda’s story has been a catalyst

for the reform of immigration detaineehealthcare and has therefore impactedthe human rights of people worldwide.”

Though the settlement brings an endto a four-year pursuit of justice from theUnited States, the Castanedas continueto seek justice for the grossly inadequatemedical care Mr. Castaneda receivedwhile in California’s custody. LastNovember, a Los Angeles jury awarded$1.73 million to Castaneda’s daughterand estate in a wrongful death claimagainst the State of California. That ver-dict is currently on appeal. TheCastanedas also have a federal case pend-ing against California medical person-nel, which is on hold until the statecourt appeal is resolved. �

Neglected Detaineecontinued from page 1.

s u m m e r 2 0 1 18

c a s e u p Dat e s

Here are the latest developments inother Public Justice cases:

Argueta v. U.S. Immigration andCustoms Enforcement (NJ)In an amici brief filed in the ThirdCircuit Court of Appeals, Public Justicejoined other civil rights groups in arguingthat the plaintiffs, whose homes wereraided by ICE, adequately alleged consti-tutional claims against high-ranking ICEofficials. On June 14, 2011, the ThirdCircuit held that the plaintiffs’ claimsagainst the high-ranking defendantsshould have been dismissed. ProfessorAlex Reinert of the Benjamin N.Cardozo School of Law in NY authoredthe amici brief on behalf of Public Justice,The Pennsylvania Institutional LawProject, and the Prisoners’ Rights Projectof the Legal Aid Society of the City ofNew York.

Banderas v. United StatesThis is a Federal Tort Claims Act case onbehalf of a former federal immigrationdetainee who received such grossly inade-quate medical care for a diabetic foot

wound that doctors recommendedamputating his right leg to save his life.Trial is scheduled to begin on July 12,2011. Conal Doyle in Beverly Hills, CA,is lead counsel; Public Justice’s AdeleKimmel and Goldberg Attorney AmyRadon are co-counsel.

Browning v. Angelfish Swim School,Inc. (FL)In this case before Florida’s Third DistrictCourt of Appeal, Public Justice filed anamici brief opposing the defendant’s pro-posed rule for determining the adequacyof a class representative, which wouldrequire class plaintiffs to demonstratetheir ability to finance the entire cost ofclass litigation, rather than merely a prorata share. This rule, Public Justice argued,would limit class actions to the wealthy,who have the least need of them. OnApril 6, the appeals court reversed thetrial court’s order certifying the class, onthe grounds that the class representativewas inadequate. Public Justice’s brief wasauthored primarily by Brian W. Warwickand Janet R. Varnell in The Villages, FL,with assistance from Public JusticeBrayton-Thornton Attorney MelanieHirsch.

Turner v. Association of AmericanMedical Colleges (CA)In an amici brief, Public Justice joined acoalition of public interest groups urgingthe California Court of Appeal to affirmthe trial court’s refusal to grant the pre-vailing defendant’s request for a $1.6 mil-lion attorneys’ fee that would have beenfinancially ruinous for the plaintiffs. OnMarch 24, the court—as we had urged—affirmed the trial court’s decision reject-ing the defendant’s request for attor-neys’ fees. The amici brief was written byPaula Pearlman of the Disability RightsLegal Center and Peter Roan and JadeChien of Locke Lord Bissell & LiddellLLP, on behalf of Public Justice, theDisability Rights Legal Center, theDisability Rights Education and DefenseFund, Inc., and the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center.

CONSUMER RIGHTS

Betts v. McKenzie (FL)This is a putative class action alleging thata payday lender violated Florida law bycharging usurious rates. In January,

n two separate cases, Public Justice isfighting to make it easier for personalinjury victims to hold car makers

accountable when they fail to use thesafest type of window materials in theside windows of passenger vehicles.

In Bernal v. Daewoo, an Arizona fed-eral district court in June rejected a carmaker’s argument that federal law pre-empts tort claims alleging that a car wasdefective because its side windows weremade of tempered glass, which shatterson impact, rather than laminated glass,which holds together in the event of acrash, thereby preventing passengerejections.

This ruling signals a potentially majorshift in the law of auto safety preemp-tion. A host of courts have disagreedabout whether window-glazing claimsare preempted, but the tide may have

turned when the U.S. Supreme Courtdecided Williamson v. Mazda this spring,a seminal ruling that rejected federal pre-emption in a case involving a different—but similar—auto safety standard.

Public Justice contends thatWilliamson removes any doubt that win-dow-glazing claims are not preempted byfederal law, and the Bernal court agreed,signaling that the law in this area willincreasingly favor auto-injury victims.

In a second case, Public Justice recent-ly filed an opening brief in a products lia-bility lawsuit by the mother of JamesPriester, a South Carolina man who waskilled in 2002 after being ejected fromthe window of a 1997 Ford F-150.

Ford had chosen not to install lami-nated glass, the safest window material,because it was more expensive, but thenargued that Mary Priester’s state law tort

claim is preempted by Federal MotorVehicles Standard 205, which gives carmanufacturers the choice of temperedor laminated glass. To encourage opti-mal safety, however, the government hasextolled the benefits of laminated glass;but Ford still chose tempered for the F-150.

The state Supreme Court had ruledin 2010 that federal standards preemptedMs. Priester’s state claims, but at PublicJustice’s urging, the U.S. Supreme Courtreviewed the decision and, last winter,ruled against preemption.

Senior Attorney Leslie Brueckner andBudd-Kazan Attorney Matthew Wesslerhave led Public Justice’s efforts on bothcases. Julio Zapato of Phoenix, AZ, is leadtrial counsel in Bernal. Mary Priester’sSouth Carolina trial counsel are DarrellJohnson, Jr., and James Richardson, Jr. �

Auto Window Safety Preemption Victory, Battle Continues

I

c o n s u m e r r i g h t s

Continued to opposite page.

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 9

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appealaffirmed the trial court’s ruling that thedefendants’ class action ban and manda-tory arbitration clause were unenforceableunder Florida law. The Florida SupremeCourt has accepted the case for review.Public Justice’s Paul Bland and GoldbergAttorney Amy Radon are taking the leadin briefing the appeal. Co-counsel areClay Yates in Fort Pierce, FL.; TedLeopold and Diana Martin in West PalmBeach, FL; Chris Casper in Tampa, FL.;and Richard Fisher in Cleveland, TN.

CGI v. Rose (WA)In this ERISA subrogation case, PublicJustice represents an injured employeewho has been sued by her employer-fund-ed health insurance plan for 100% reim-bursement of the medical expenses thePlan advanced in the aftermath of a caraccident. The Plan claims that it is entitledto all of its money back despite the factthat Ms. Rose only recovered for a fractionof her damages. The district court heldthat the Plan could obtain 100% reim-bursement against Ms. Rose, but that itcould not prevent Ms. Rose’s attorneyfrom first deducting the costs of collectionfrom this amount. The parties havecross-appealed and the case is currentlypending in the Ninth Circuit. PublicJustice’s Matt Wessler and LeslieBrueckner are lead counsel; Seattle attor-neys Mike Nelson, Paul Stritmatter, andMike Withey, and Washington, DC attor-ney Caitlin Palacios are all co-counsel.

Cárdenas v. AmeriCredit FinancialServices, Inc. (CA)In this appeal in the Ninth Circuit, anautomobile finance company argues thatJuan and Florencia Cárdenas can beforced to arbitrate their claims for injunc-tive relief, even though two longstandingdecisions of the California SupremeCourt provide that claims for “publicinjunctions” are not arbitrable. PublicJustice argues that the lender waived itsargument that the Federal Arbitration Actpreempts these cases and that the FAAdoes not mandate the enforcement ofarbitration agreements that strip plaintiffsof their rights under generally applicable

state law. On May 20, AmeriCreditmoved for summary reversal followingthe Supreme Court’s decision inConcepcion. Senior Attorney Paul Blandis lead counsel on the appeal, along withBrayton-Thornton Attorney MelanieHirsch and Andrew J. Ogilvie and CarolM. Brewer in San Francisco.

Coneff v. AT&T (WA) This class action lawsuit charges that mil-lions of cell phone users were misled andovercharged when Cingular merged withAT&T Wireless in 2004. The U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Washington ruledthat this case could proceed and struckdown AT&T’s class action ban, holdingthat the vast majority of AT&T’s cus-tomers would never obtain justice. PublicJustice attorneys Leslie Bailey and PaulBland have taken the lead on the arbitra-tion issue. AT&T has appealed to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit, and the parties will shortly bebriefing whether the appeal is governedby the Supreme Court’s Concepciondecision. Co-counsel are Kevin Coluccioin Seattle; Harvey Rosenfield ofCalifornia’s Consumer Watchdog; BruceSimon and Esther Klisura in SanFrancisco; Paul Stritmatter in Hoquiam,WA; and other nationally recognized con-sumer advocates and law firms.

Cruz v. Cingular Wireless (FL)The plaintiffs in this putative class actionon behalf of Florida consumers allege thatCingular, now AT&T Mobility (ATTM),violated the state’s Unfair Trade PracticesAct when it imposed monthly charges fora purportedly “optional” RoadsideAssistance service that the plaintiffs hadnever requested or enrolled in. Cingularmoved to compel individual arbitrationpursuant to an arbitration clause that bansclass actions, and the U.S. District Courtfor the Middle District of Florida grantedthe motion. On appeal, Public Justiceargues that the question of whetherCingular’s class action ban violates Floridalaw is a controlling, unresolved state-lawquestion that should be certified to theSupreme Court of Florida and that, if theCourt does not certify the question, itshould strike ATTM’s class action ban asunenforceable under Florida law. ATTM

has asked the Court to dismiss theappeal, arguing that it is governed bythe Supreme Court’s Concepcion deci-sion, and Public Justice is opposing thisclaim. Public Justice’s Paul Bland, AmyRadon, and Leslie Bailey are lead counselon the appeal. Co-counsel are ScottWeinstein and Andrew Meyer in FortMyers, FL.

Felts v. Paycheck Today (NM)This is a putative class action challenginga payday lender’s practice of violating NewMexico law by making payday loans with-out licenses. The payday lender moved tocompel arbitration pursuant to an arbitra-tion clause that bans class actions. Thetrial court denied the motion and thelender appealed. The New Mexico Courtof Appeals affirmed the trial court’s deci-sion. The New Mexico Supreme Courthas granted the lender’s petition for certiorari, and the case will now pro-ceed in the state’s high court. PublicJustice’s Paul Bland and GoldbergAttorney Amy Radon are lead counsel onappeal. Co-counsel are Rob Treinen inAlbuquerque, and Douglas Micko andRichard Fuller in Minneapolis.

Homa v. American Express (NY)This is a class action by borrowers allegingthat a credit card issuer violated NewJersey’s consumer protection laws by fail-ing to pay rebates in the manner promisedin its promotional materials and contract.In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit held that the FederalArbitration Act does not preempt statelaws protecting consumers from abusivecontract terms. Although the case hadbeen proceeding in the trial court forthe last two years, American Expresshas asked the district court to hold thatthe Third Circuit’s decision has beenoverturned by the U.S. SupremeCourt’s decision in Concepcion, andPublic Justice is opposing. PublicJustice’s Paul Bland and Matt Wessler aretaking the lead in briefing the issue. Co-counsel are Gary Graifman in ChestnutRidge, NY, and Howard Longman inNew York City and Los Angeles.

Cases Updates, continued on page 10.

Continued from opposite page.

Jenkins v. Haverford at Potomac (MD) In this mandatory arbitration case, PublicJustice represents homeowners whosenewly constructed home was infested withmold that made the homeowners sick andthat the builder failed adequately to reme-diate. The builder appealed after the trialcourt denied its motion to compel arbitra-tion and, in 2010, the Maryland Court ofSpecial Appeals granted our motion to dis-miss the builder’s appeal on the groundthat a trial court order denying a motion tocompel arbitration is not immediatelyappealable. The case has now settled.Public Justice’s Claire Prestel and PaulBland briefed the case; Prestel argued it.Co-counsel is Jane Santoni in Towson,MD.

Khan v. Dell, Inc. (NJ)Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit challenging an arbitra-tion clause as unenforceable because itrequires arbitration before the NationalArbitration Forum.Public Justice SeniorAttorney Paul Bland argued the case onApril 29, 2011. Bland and Brayton-Thornton Attorney Melanie Hirsch areproviding strategic assistance on appeal.Co-counsel are Elizabeth Berney, EduardKorsinsky, Scott Holleman, and ShannonHopkins in New York.

Kucan v. Advance America; McQuillanv. Check ‘N Go; Hager v. Check IntoCash (NC)These are class actions against paydaylenders who are operating without aproper license in North Carolina and arecharging exorbitant interest. The trialcourt has finally approved a settlement of$18.75 million in Kucan, $14 million inMcQuillan, and $12 million in Hager.The settlements are currently beingadministered, and tens of millions ofdollars have been paid out to the classmembers. Counsel in the case are PublicJustice’s Paul Bland and Leslie Bailey;Jerry Hartzell of Hartzell & Whiteman;Mona Wallace and John Hughes ofWallace and Graham; Mal Maynard ofthe Financial Protection Law Center, allin North Carolina; Carlene McNulty ofthe North Carolina Justice Center; and

Richard Fisher of Cleveland, TN.

Muhammad v. County Bank (NJ)This class action against a payday lenderand a bank is currently being arbitrated.The defendants are asking the arbitra-tor to decertify the class, on the groundthat the arbitrators’ certification of acase is now rendered illegal by theSupreme Court’s Concepcion decision.In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Courthad struck down the defendants’ classaction ban as unconscionable and unen-forceable under New Jersey law. MikeQuirk, formerly a staff attorney at PublicJustice and now with Williams, Cuker &Berezofsky, argued the case in the NewJersey Supreme Court. Quirk and MarkCuker of Williams, Cuker & Berezofskyare lead counsel in the case. Public Justice’sPaul Bland was co-counsel.

Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp. (FL)In this appeal, the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Eleventh Circuit certified to theFlorida Supreme Court four crucial ques-tions about the enforceability of classaction bans: whether Florida courts mustevaluate both procedural and substantiveunconscionability at the same time orwhether the courts may consider themindependently; whether the class actionwaiver provision in Sprint’s contract isprocedurally unconscionable under statelaw; whether the provision is substantive-ly unconscionable under Florida law; andwhether the provision is void under statelaw for any other reason. The FloridaSupreme Court heard oral argument inFebruary from lead appellate counselDoug Eaton of Eaton Wolk in Miami andPublic Justice Senior Attorney Paul Bland.Sprint has subsequently moved for theEleventh Circuit to rescind the order cer-tifying the case to the Florida SupremeCourt, arguing that the Supreme Court’sdecision in the Concepcion case rendersFlorida law irrelevant, and Public Justicehas opposed that motion. Kazan-BuddFellow Matt Wessler is co-counsel.

Schnuerle v. Insight CommunicationsCompany (KY)The plaintiffs in this putative class action,Kentucky consumers who allege that a

cable internet provider breached its con-tract and violated state consumer protec-tion laws, are appealing the trial courtorder enforcing Insight’s class action banand granting the corporation’s motion tocompel individual arbitration. TheKentucky Supreme Court ruled in PublicJustice’s favor in December 2010, butInsight has moved for reconsiderationin light of the Supreme Court’sConcepciondecision. Public Justice’s PaulBland argued the case for plaintiffs. PublicJustice’s brief was drafted by Public Justice’sBrayton-Thornton Attorney MelanieHirsch, Staff Attorney Leslie Bailey, Bland,and co-counsel Phillip Grossman andJennifer Moore in Louisville.

Wallace v. Ganley (OH)This is a putative class action filed onbehalf of car buyers who, in violation of aclear Ohio regulation, were sold cars thathad previously been used as rentals with-out ever being told of the cars’ rental his-tory. The trial court granted the defendantauto dealer’s motion to compel arbitra-tion, and Public Justice represented theplaintiffs on appeal. On June 16, theOhio Court of Appeals affirmed thetrial court’s ruling enforcing the defen-dant’s arbitration clause and classaction ban. Public Justice’s Paul Blandand Claire Prestel were lead counsel on thearbitration issue. Ronald Frederick inCleveland was co-counsel.

TOXIC TORTS

Williams v. McDonnell Douglas (WA)In this case, Public Justice is representing aflight attendant who suffered seriousharms as a result of inhaling toxic byprod-ucts of engine oil and hydraulic fluid. Thecase alleges that the aircraft’s ventilationsystem is defectively designed underWashington law because it allows thesetoxic fumes to enter the cabin air supply;the defendant is arguing that the claim ispreempted by the federal law. On June 27,Brayton-Thornton Attorney MelanieHirsch argued in opposition to thedefendant’s preemption motion. Co-counsel are Alisa Brodkowitz of Seattle,Mike Withey of Seattle, and Public JusticeSenior Attorney Leslie Brueckner.

1 0

Case Updates, Continued from page 9.

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1

t o x i c t o r t s

ix teams of lawyers have beennamed finalists for the 2011Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the

Year Award, to be announced at theannual Gala and Awards Dinner onJuly 12 in New York City.

In alphabetical order by lead coun-sel’s last name, the finalists are below.

In Klein v. O’Neal, Inc., ArtBrender, of the Law Offices of ArtBrender, in Fort Worth, TX, DwainDent and Fred Streck, of the DentLaw Firm, also in Fort Worth, andDavid Nix, of the Nix Law Firm, inWichita Falls, TX, won $110 millionfor the surviving recipients of a drugcalled E-Ferol, which was supposed toprevent vision impairment in prema-ture infants but ultimately killed orinjured hundreds of babies.

In United States ex rel. Eckard v.GlaxoSmithKline, Neil Getnick, LeslieAnn Skillen, Margaret Finerty, andRichard Dircks, of Getnick &Getnick LLP, in New York, NY,Michael Getnick, of Getnick,Livingston Atkinson Gigliotti &Priore, LLP, in Utica, NY, and ScottTucker, of Tucker, Heifetz & Saltzman,LLP, in Boston, MA, argued on behalfof a whistleblower that GSK sold con-taminated drugs to Medicare andMedicaid, securing $750 million forthe government.

In Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v.Pfizer, Thomas Greene, of GreeneLLP, in Boston, MA, Tom Sobol ofHagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP,in Cambridge, MA, Don Barrett ofthe Barrett Law Office P.A., inLexington, MS, Linda Nussbaum ofGrant of Eisenhofer P.A., in New York,NY, Ilyas Rona of Greene LLP, andKristen Johnson Parker of Hagens,Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP, won$142 million for Pfizer’s fraudulentmarketing of an epilepsy drug.

In Koua Fong Lee v. State ofMinnesota, Robert Hilliard, ofHilliard Muñoz Gonzales LLP, inCorpus Christi, TX, and Brent

Schafer, of the Schafer Law Firm, inEagan, MN, fought for the release ofKoua Fong Lee, an immigrant whowas wrongfully imprisoned for a fatalcar accident caused by his ToyotaCamry’s unintended acceleration.

In Lavender v. Skilled HealthcareGroup, Timothy Needham, ofJanssen, Malloy, Needham, Morrison,Reinholtsen, Crowley & Griego, LLP,in Eureka, CA, Michael Thamer, ofthe Law Offices of Michael D.Thamer, in Callahan, CA,Christopher J. Healey, of Luce,Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, inSan Diego, CA, and MichaelCrowley, Patrick Griego, and AmeliaBurroughs, of Janssen, Malloy,Needham, Morrison, Reinholtsen,Crowley & Griego LLP, argued thatSkilled Healthcare Group’s nursinghomes in California had failed to pro-

vide adequate staffing for residents,finally settling for $50 million andinjunctive relief.

In Keepseagle v. Vilsack, a team ofWashington, DC, lawyers – JosephSellers, Christine Webber, and PeterRomer-Friedman, of Cohen MilsteinSellers & Toll PLCC, David Frantz, ofColon, Frantz & Phelan, LLP, PaulSmith, Katherine Fallow, MichaelBrody, Jessica Amunson, and CarrieApfel, of Jenner & Block LLP, AnuragVarma, of Patton Boggs LLP, andPhillip Fraas, of Stinson MorrisonHecker LLP, as well as Sarah Vogel, ofSarah Vogel Law Partners in Bismarck,ND—filed a lawsuit on behalf ofNative American farmers who werediscriminated against by the USDA,ultimately achieving a $760-millionsettlement for thousands of farmersaround the country. �

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 1 1

Finalists Named for 2011 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award

S

illiam R. Gignilliat, a sec-ond year student from theUniversity of Georgia

School of Law, has been named win-ner of the 2011 Hogan/SmogerAccess to Justice Essay Contest. Hiswinning essay is titled, “The Gulf OilSpill: OPA, State Law, and MaritimePreemption.” For his achievement, Gignilliat will

receive a $5,000 cash prize; recogni-tion in the Public Justice newsletterand on the website; publication of theessay in the Vermont Law School’sonline Journal of Environmental Law;and a free Public Justice Foundationmembership for one year.After almost 40 years, the Roscoe

Hogan Environmental Law EssayContest was renamed and its scopebroadened, beginning with the 2011

competition. With additional supportfrom former Public Justice FoundationPresident Gerson Smoger, the con-test is now known as theHogan/Smoger Access to JusticeEssay Contest. The original contestwas established in 1970 by the lateRoscoe B. Hogan of Birmingham, AL,a prominent environmental lawyer. �

Georgia Law Student Wins 2011Hogan/Smoger Essay Contest

W

ublic Justice Foundationleaders and supporters con-verged on Chicago in early

May for the annual SuperThursday Phonathon raising morethan $300,000 in new andupgraded memberships and spe-cial gifts at the day-long event.

Honoring the city’s favorite pas-time, participants were dividedinto two teams named after thetwo professional baseball leagues.

The National League Team,captained by Rob Sachs, ChrisNace and Ingrid Evans, took onthe American League Team, cap-tained by Anne Kearse, Paul Millerand Janet Varnell, to see which

team could recruit the mostFoundation members and moneyby dialing for dollars throughoutthe day.

While all callers made a signifi-cant contribution by raising fundsto support Public Justice’s prece-dent-setting work, the NationalLeague emerged victorious, afterraising the most money. PastFoundation President Al Braytontook home the Silver PhoneAward for recruiting the most newand lapsed members during thePhonathon.

The Public Justice Foundationthanks all of the following SuperThursday Phonathon participants:

s u m m e r 2 0 1 11 2

Kathryn R. Bayless (Upgrade)Michael W. Bien (Upgrade)Michael BogdanowArthur J. Brender (Upgrade)Dwain Dent (Upgrade)Neil V. Getnick (Upgrade)Richard S. Gordon (Upgrade)Laurel Halbany (Upgrade) – Michael ArmitageWilliam E. Hopkins – Rhon JonesCarl E. Hostler – Troy GiatrasArnold Levin (Upgrade)Christina E. Mancuso (Upgrade)

– Christina MancusoVirginia Adams Marentette (Upgrade)Gary E. Mason (Upgrade)David A. Rosen (Upgrade) – Al BraytonSan Francisco Trial Lawyers Association

(Upgrade)Justin Swartz (Upgrade)Adam G. Taub (Upgrade)Jeanmarie Whalen (Upgrade) – Rob SachsJohn D. Winer (Upgrade)Kirk Jerome Wolden

Member ($300)Andrew A. Agard – Wayne ParsonsRobert Barrow – Al BraytonRobert Bennett – Vince MoccioPhilip C. BourdetteDaria D. Carlson – Fred SchwartzChristopher Casper – Ted LeopoldChristopher Coffin – Andrew LemmonVincent DeSimoneMichelle Douek – Gary Gold-Moritz

he following Public Justice Foundation members joinedus or upgraded their annual membership dues betweenFebruary 16 and June 13. Members who recruited new

members or upgrades are listed in italics. We are grateful fortheir support and extend a heartfelt thanks to them all.

TPatron ($12,000)Leonard A. Bennett (Upgrade) – Janet VarnellWolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &

Herz, LLP – Roger Mandel

Benefactor ($6,000)Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Strauss, LLC

(Upgrade)Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer

(Upgrade)Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC (Upgrade)Mary Alexander & Associates, PCPitt, McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden,

PC (Upgrade)Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio

(Upgrade) – Brad MooreThe Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm, LLP

(Upgrade)Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC (Upgrade)

Sustaining Member ($1,200)Patrick M. Ardis (Upgrade)Howard C. Coker (Upgrade) –Wayne HoganJohn T. Donovan – Rob SachsJ. Kent Emison (Upgrade) – Stuart OllanikRobert Langdon (Upgrade) – Stuart OllanikTimothy W. Monsees (Upgrade)Wayne D. Parsons (Upgrade) – Maggie BarrRobert L. Pottroff (Upgrade)Edward Zebersky – Harry Deitzler

Supporting Member ($600)Jason AdkinsBrent Barton (Upgrade)

Jordan EliasCory S. FeinVicki L. GilliamElliott A. Glicksman – Stan MarksJohn Gsanger – Stuart OllanikThomas L. Hamlin – Vince MoccioGenie HarrisonDavid E. Haynes – Christopher NaceBrian D. Holmberg (Upgrade) – Al BraytonRichard Honaker – Jeff EisenbergJoy Howell – Joan ClaybrookFranklin Julian – Fred SchultzDaniel M. KopfmanScott G. LeonardArmand LeoneGerald MarcusDavid Markun – Jeff FazioScott Marshall – Stuart OllanikWallace B. McCall – Ted LeopoldScott A. McGee (Upgrade)Heather M. McKeonMelissa Meeker HarnettLarry G. Moore – Jeff EisenbergSimon MorrisonEdwin H. Pancake – Harry DeitzlerBryan A. Pfleeger – Michael HingleAlfred Ricciardi – Stan MarksLinda Fermoyle RiceStewart E. RichlinStephen RochePeter RukinBen Salango – Troy GiatrasRavi K. Sangisetty – Christina MancusoRobert L. Seegers – Christina MancusoAmy SemmelFranklin SolomonRod SquiresKevin SturtevantBruce E. ThompsonJason Tucker – Rob SachsCourtney A. Van WinkleJarom A. Whitehead – Jeff Eisenberg

Spring Phonathon Teams Score Home Runs in ChicagoMichael Armitage Al BraytonArthur BryantJoan ClaybrookEric CramerHarry DeitzlerTom DempseyJeff EisenbergIngrid EvansTroy GiatrasJeff GoldbergGary Gold-MoritzWilliam E.

Hopkins, Jr.Jack LandskronerTed LeopoldChristina Mancuso

Stan MarksDavid MarshallVince MoccioBrad MooreChris NaceStuart OllanikTony RomanucciFred SchwartzTara SuttonRichard Webster

ParticipatedRemotely:Vicky NiRob SachsRhon JonesSteve Fineman

New and Upgraded Memberships Boost FoundationJohn A. Yanchunis – Andy FriedmanKil Huh & Jenny R. Yang – Vicky Ni

Associate Member ($120)Lisa Watts Baskin – Jeff EisenbergSarah Bendon – Al BraytonJustin Berger – Vicky NiNelson Boyle – Jim LeventhalGilbert Bradshaw – Darrin ZabriskieCharley Gee (Upgrade)Michael D. Levinson – Al BraytonChristopher R. Light – Al BraytonPhyra McCandless – Al BraytonBriana McCarthy – Al BraytonKimberly Meyer – Al BraytonMichael Miller – Al BraytonEmma Nelson-Munson – Al BraytonNegar Pirzadeh – Al BraytonFranta Siechao – Al BraytonMona Tashroudian – Al Brayton

Public Interest Lawyer ($60)Arthur BryantBenjamin G. KelsenVictoria NiAmy Radon

Consumer ($60)Michelle Freudenberger – Esther BerezofskyRobin GiangrandeHarvey and Gail Gold – Gary Gold-MoritzMichael Gold – Gary Gold-MoritzJennifer Gotti – Al BraytonLori Longo-Mianulli – Injury BoardRisa H. LowerJohn ScrantonLeslie B. Tate – Christina Mancuso

Student ($25)Stephen HyltonDavid Kurtz – Brad MooreCory Morris – Adele KimmelJohn Nicodemo – Adele Kimmel

ublic Justice Foundationleaders and supporters con-verged on Chicago in early

May for the annual SuperThursday Phonathon raisingmore than $300,000 in new andupgraded memberships and spe-cial gifts at the day-long event.

Honoring the city’s favorite pas-time, participants were dividedinto two teams named after thetwo professional baseball leagues.

The National League Team,captained by Rob Sachs, ChrisNace and Ingrid Evans, took onthe American League Team, cap-tained by Anne Kearse, Paul Millerand Janet Varnell, to see which

team could recruit the mostFoundation members and moneyby dialing for dollars throughoutthe day.

While all callers made a signifi-cant contribution by raising fundsto support Public Justice’s prece-dent-setting work, the NationalLeague emerged victorious, afterraising the most money. PastFoundation President Al Braytontook home the Silver PhoneAward for recruiting the most newand lapsed members during thePhonathon.

The Public Justice Foundationthanks all of the following SuperThursday Phonathon participants:

P

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 1 3

$10,000 Edith M. Kallas (CAPP)

$5,000 Alfred M. Rotondaro (AJC)

$2,500 Kenneth Klapacz (AJC)Jeffrey Krinsk (CAPP)Vince J. Moccio (AJC)

$1,000 David J. Marshall (AJC)Thomas M. Sobol (AJC)Tara D. Sutton (AJC)

Other MediVisuals, Inc. (AJC)David Paris (AJC)Joseph Shlaferman and Judith Zins (AJC)Carl E. Hostler (AJC)Michael L. Armitage (AJC)Owen Solomon (AJC)Gary E. Cantor (CAPP)Cathy Lesser Mansfield (AJC)Mark Baller (AJC)John N. Ukegbu (CAPP)

Key:AJC = Access to Justice CampaignCAPP = Class Action Preservation Project

ublic Justice and the Public Justice Foundation thank generous sup-porters below, who made special gift contributions since lastOctober and on or before June 13. Their willingness to support our

various projects makes a huge difference in our work. P

Special Gifts Help Fill Critical Needsin Key Practice Areas, FellowshipProgram and Foundation Projects

ast year was a banner year in cy presawards to the Public JusticeFoundation, and 2011 is on the

fast track toward another fruitful year.By June 15, the Foundation hadreceived $852,053 in cy pres awards.

By furthering the public interestwork of Public Justice, these cy pres dis-tributions will support the Foundation’scritical work in keeping the courthousedoors open to all.

Thanks to Board member MonaLisa Wallace of Wallace & Graham, thePublic Justice Foundation received a cypres award of $499,935 in Mills v.

Hendrick Automotive Group, Inc. For a cy pres of $330,000 in Bachow

v. Swank Energy Income Advisors, wethank Mark C. Rifkin and Board mem-ber Roger Mandel. Rifkin is with Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &Herz, LLP and Mandel is with LackeyHersham, LLP.

John W. Barrett and Board memberBen Bailey, both of Bailey & Glasser,were responsible for the Public JusticeFoundation receiving $12,000 of a cypres fund in Shonk Land Company v.SG Sales Company, Inc.

Most recently, thanks to David L.

Grubb of The Grubb Law Group, wewere awarded a $10,000 cy pres inSpartan Class.

Our heart-felt thanks go to all theseattorneys. If you would like to find outmore, please visit www.publicjustice.netand click on the button that reads “Cy Pres Awards,” located on the rightside of the page. If you are interested indesignating the Public JusticeFoundation as a cy pres award recipient,please contact Development DirectorKevin Sturtevant at (202) 797-8600 orvia e-mail at ksturtevant@publicjus-tice.net. �

LCy PresAwards to Public Justice FoundationSupport KeyWork

John W. BarrettRoger MandelMark C. RifkinMona Lisa Wallace David L. GrubbBen Bailey

bequest is the simplest andmost common form ofplanned giving. It’s easy to

include the Public JusticeFoundation in your will. No matterthe amount, you can trust that yourlegacy will generate futureincome—sustaining the work of thePublic Justice Foundation and con-tinuing the fight for justice for allgenerations. Other planned givingalternatives are also available. Formore information, contact KevinSturtevant at (202) 797-8600 orksturtevant@publicjustice.net. �

A

Make a PlannedGift to thePublic JusticeFoundation

s u m m e r 2 0 1 11 4

State Coordinators Facilitate Involvement, Outreachost states have a Public JusticeFoundation State Coordinatorwho serves as a liaison to the

national board and staff. State Coordi-nators help us develop and seek out poten-tial cases, recruit and involve Foundationmembers, and educate the public interestcommunity about our work.

AlabamaR. Edwin Lamberth - (251)471-6191rel@cunninghambounds.com

ArizonaStanley J. Marks - (602)254-6071sjmarkslaw@aol.com

ArkansasHank Bates - (501)312-8500hbates@carneywilliams.com

California Jennie Lee Anderson - (415)986-1400jennie@andrusanderson.com

ColoradoPaul Komyatte - (303)431-1111pkomyatte@auto-law.com

ConnecticutErnest F. Teitell - (203)428-4171eteitell@sgtlaw.com

DelawareJoseph Weik - (302)655-4040Jweik@attys4u.com

District of ColumbiaChristopher T. Nace - (202)463-1999 ctnace@paulsonandnace.com

FloridaJames L. Ferraro - (305)375-0111jlf@ferrarolaw.com

Brian Warwick - (352)753-8600bwwarwick@aol.com

GeorgiaAlbert M. Pearson III - (404)261-0016Apearson@mkpglaw.com

HawaiiTeresa Tico - (808)826-4200tico@aloha.net

IdahoJarom A. Whitehead - (208)734-2552jwhitehead@pedersen-law.com

IllinoisDave Cates - (618)277-3644dcates@cateslaw.com

Antonio M. Romanucci - (312)253-8600amr@rblaw.net

IndianaMatthew J. Schad - (812)945-4555mschad@schadlaw.com

IowaJohn Riccolo - (319)365-9200jriccolo@riccololaw.com

KansasJohn M. Parisi - (816) 474-0004jparisi@sjblaw.com

KentuckyMartha Marie Eastman - (502)456-1331eastman@eastmanlawoffice.com

LouisianaStephen J. Herman - (504)581-4892sherman@hhkc.com

Andrew A. Lemmon - (985) 783-6789andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

MaineJohn E. Sedgewick - (207)784-3576Jsedgewick@bermansimmons.com

MassachusettsJames Swartz - (617)742-1900jswartz@swartzlaw.com

MichiganMichael Pitt - (248)398-9800mpitt@pittlawpc.com

MinnesotaTara D. Sutton - (612)349-8577tdsutton@rkmc.com

MississippiRebecca McRae Langston - (601)969-1356 rebecca@langstonlawyers.com

MissouriJohn E. Campbell - (314)241-2929jcampbell@simonlawpc.com

MontanaWilliam A. Rossbach - (406)543-5156Bill@rossbachlaw.com

NevadaBill O. Bradley, Jr. - (775)335-9999billobradleyjr@yahoo.com

New JerseyEsther Berezofsky - (856)667-0500eberezofsky@wcblegal.com

New YorkJoseph P. Awad - (516)832-7777jawad@ask4sam.net

North CarolinaMona Lisa Wallace - (704)633-5244mwallace@wallacegraham.com

OhioJack Landskroner - (216)522-9000jack@landskronerlaw.com

OklahomaJames E. Frasier - (918)584-4724frasier@tulsa.com

OntarioPaul S. Miller - (416)360-1194pmiller@willbarristers.com

OregonMark E. Griffin - (503)224-2348Mark@markgriffin.com

Rhode IslandFidelma Fitzpatrick - (401)457-7728ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com

South CarolinaAnne McGinness Kearse - (843)216-9140akearse@motleyrice.com

TennesseeLisa June Cox - (731)664-9550lisacox@tennesseeinjurylaw.com

Mary A. Parker - (615)244-2445mparkerlaw@aol.com

TexasChristina E. Mancuso - (214)435-1950christinamancuso@sbcglobal.net

Ronald Rodriguez - (956)796-1000ronlaw@bizlaredo.rr.com

UtahJeffrey D. Eisenberg - (801)366-9100jeisenberg@braytonlaw.com

VermontJerome F. O’Neill - (802)865-4700joneill@vtrialaw.com

Virgin IslandsLee J. Rohn - (340)778-8855Lee@rohnlaw.com

VirginiaBernard J. DiMuro - (703)684-4333bdimuro@dimuro.com

WashingtonBrad Moore - (206)448-1777brad@stritmatter.com

Jeffrey L. Needle - (206)447-1560Jneedlel@wolfenet.com

West VirginiaTroy Giatras - (304)343-2900troy@thewvlawfirm.com

WisconsinJohn C. Peterson - (920)831-0300jpeterson@pbclaw.com

WyomingRichard Honaker - (307)362-5800rhonaker@honakerlaw.com

M

Mary Alexander Benjamin L. Bailey Raymond P. Boucher Russell W. Budd Joan B. Claybrook Linda M. CorreiaEric L. Cramer Conal Doyle Lewis S. "Mike" Eidson Jeffrey D. Eisenberg Ingrid M. Evans Andrew S. Friedman Stephen J. HermanJames F. Humphreys Neville L. Johnson Rhon E. Jones Rosalind FuchsbergKaufman

Taras KickAndrew A. Lemmon Christina E. Mancuso Roger L. Mandel Virginia AdamsMarentette

Stanley J. MarksDavid J. Marshall Paul Miller Brad J. Moore Christopher T. Nace Stuart A. Ollanik Michael L. PittLee J. Rohn Antonio M. Romanucci William A. Rossbach Frederick S. Schwartz Christopher A. Seeger Donald H. Slavik Bernard W. Smalley, Sr. Stephen M. Smith Todd A. Smith Kenneth A. Suggs Scott Summy Tara D. Sutton James F. Szaller

Ernest F. TeitellMichael P. Thornton Stephen M. TilleryJanet R. Varnell C. Andrew Waters Mikal C. Watts Perry WeitzSteven N. Williams

Honorary BoardJack H. Olender Leonard W. Schroeter

Former PresidentsThe TLPJ Foundation* Frederick M. Baron Alan R. Brayton** Robert E. Cartwright, Sr. Joseph W. Cotchett Anthony W. Cunningham Thomas M. Dempsey Jeffrey P. Foote Jeffrey M. Goldberg J. Gary Gwilliam J.D.Lee Salvador A. Liccardo Mary A. Parker Eugene I. Pavalon Peter PerlmanJoseph A. Power, Jr. Leonard M. Ring Dean A. RobbSandra H. Robinson** Susan Vogel Saladoff Nicole Schultheis George W. Shadoan Gerson H. Smoger,Ph.D.**

William E. Snead Paul L. Stritmatter Daniel F. Sullivan William A. Trine Mona Lisa Wallace** Ted M. Warshafsky Michael E. Withey

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1

Public Justice is published three times per year by the Public Justice Foundation. Articles maybe reprinted without charge or special permission, but please credit the Public JusticeFoundation and send us a copy.

National Headquarters1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20006Phone: (202) 797-8600Fax: (202) 232-7203

West Coast Office555 Twelfth Street, Suite 1620Oakland, CA 94607-3693Phone: (510) 622-8150Fax: (510) 622-8155

E-mail: publicjustice@publicjustice.netWeb Site: www.publicjustice.net

Public Justice Foundation Board of Directors 2010-2011

Harry G. Deitzler, President Steven E. Fineman, President-Elect Jack Landskroner, Vice President Theodore J. Leopold, Treasurer Esther E. Berezofsky, Secretary

Alan R. Brayton, Executive Committee MemberJeffrey M. Goldberg, Executive Committee Member Wayne Hogan, Executive Committee Member Anne McGinness Kearse, Executive Committee

Member Robert L. Sachs, Jr., Executive Committee MemberMona Lisa Wallace, Immediate Past President

*All former presidents are ex officio membersof the Public Justice Foundation Board**The Public Justice Foundation

s u m m e r 2 0 1 1 1 5

National Headquarters Staff/Public Justice

Adele Kimmel, Managing Attorney

Paul Bland, Senior Attorney

Claire Prestel, Staff Attorney

Jim Hecker, Environmental EnforcementDirector

Richard Webster, Power-Cotchett Attorney

Melanie Hirsch, Brayton-Thornton Attorney

Matt Wessler, Budd-Kazan Attorney

Norma Sapp, Office Manager

Paula Athey, Legal Assistant

Yvonne Stewart, Legal Assistant

Lynette Hutton, Receptionist

The Public Justice Foundation

Gary Gold-Moritz, Chief Operating Officer

Deborah Mathis, Communications Director

Kevin Sturtevant, Development Director

Susan Gombert, CMP, Meetings & EventsManager

Cassandra Goings, Outreach Coordinator Maggie Barr, Membership Coordinator Avi Kramer, Communications Coordinator Tonia Allison, Development ProcessingAssistant

Margo Sanabria, Clerk

West Coast Office StaffArthur H. Bryant, Executive Director Leslie Brueckner, Senior Attorney Victoria Ni, Senior Attorney Leslie Bailey, Staff AttorneyAmy Radon, Goldberg Attorney Shoshana Finacom, OfficeManager/Executive Assistant

Mary Kidwell, Legal Assistant

Public Justice is edited by Deborah Mathisand designed by Barbara Raab Sgouros.

Public Justice/Public Justice Foundation StaffArthur H. Bryant, Executive Director

evin Sturtevant joined thePublic Justice Foundation asDevelopment Director at the

end of March. Kevin is an experi-enced manager and strategist in thedevelopmentarena. Prior tocoming toPublic Justice,he was VicePresident ofDevelopmentat the WorldFood ProgramUSA. Beforethat, Kevin wasSenior VicePresident at Ketchum, Inc., one ofthe country’s top development con-sulting firms.

Filling a new position at PublicJustice, Norma Sapp began work asOffice Manager in the DC headquar-ters. Norma has spent much of hercareer managing office operations for

both non-profit organizations and for-profit companies in the Washington,D.C. area.

Legal Assistant Yvonne Stewartjoined the Public Justice staff on

March 1, bringing more than 25years of legal experience to bear uponthe law firm’s docket. Previously,Yvonne worked for Williams &Connolly, the United Mine WorksHealth & Retirement Funds, and as alegal secretary at the recently dis-solved Howrey, LLP. �

KStaff Updates

Kevin Sturtevant Norma Sapp Yvonne Stewart

s u m m e r 2 0 1 11 6

Public Justice Foundation1825 K Street, NWSuite 200Washington, DC 20006Phone: (202) 797-8600Fax: (202) 232-7203

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDWashington, DCPermit No. 4109

Start or Renew My Membership with thePublic Justice Foundation

2011 Access to Justice Campaign

Enroll or renew my 100% tax-deductible membership atthe following level:

� Student: $25 (Year of Graduation: )� Consumer (non-lawyer): $5/mo. or $60/yr.� Public Interest Lawyer: $5/mo. or $60/yr.� Associate Member: $10/mo. or $120/yr.

Lawyer in practice for fewer than 5 years, law professor or government lawyer.

� Member: $25/mo. or $300/yr.� Supporting Member: $50/mo. or $600/yr.� Sustaining Member: $100/mo. or $1,200/yr.� Advocate: $250/mo. or $3,000/yr.� *Benefactor: $500/mo. or $6,000/yr.� *Patron: $1,000/mo. or $12,000/yr.� *Champion: $2,000/mo. or $24,000/yr.� *Guardian: $2,500/mo. or $30,000/yr.� *Visionary: $5,000/mo. or $60,000/yr.

*Individuals may join at all levels. Firms and organizations may join at theselevels and also receive 3-30 individual memberships, depending on level.

Yes, I want to support the 2011 Access to JusticeCampaign and help expose, fight and defeat the frontalassault on the people’s right to a day in court.

I am making a 100% tax-deductible Special Gift of:

�$5,000 �$10,000 �$15,000 �$20,000 �$25,000 � $50,000 �Other $

Please allocate my Special Gift as follows:

� All Access to Justice Campaign Projects $

� Class Action Preservation Project $

� Federal Preemption Project $

� Mandatory Arbitration Abuse Prevention Project $

SUPPORT PUBLIC JUSTICE

JOIN • RENEW MEMBERSHIP

Name

Firm/Organization

Address

City State Zip

Phone Fax

Email

Referred by

� Charge My Credit Card

For my Special Gift � Visa � MasterCard � American Express

Account #

Exp. Date Security Code

Signature

For my Membership or Renewal

� Visa � MasterCard � American Express� Monthly* � One Time for Annual Membership

Account #

Exp. Date Security Code

Signature

* By submitting this form you are authorizing an automatic charge to your credit card by the Public Justice Foundation on a monthly basis. This charge will be repeated unless and until you change your membership level or cancel. You may do either at any time.

� My Check is Enclosed

Mail or Fax this form to: Public Justice Foundation • 1825 K Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20006 Fax: (202) 232-7203 Attn: Kevin Sturtevant