![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Press ReleasesJurors Don’t Buy Antitrust Claim Against Macy’sAfter deliberating for only five hours, a federal civil jury found insufficient evidence to prove a price-fixing conspiracy by the owner of Macy’s department stores in the high-end tableware market.
Northern District of California Judge Vaughn Walker certified the matter as a class action, thus exposing the remaining defendants to potential treble damages of over $41 million. Even before the consumer plaintiffs filed their civil suit in 2004, the New York state attorney general had completed a probe of the alleged price-fixing scheme, reaping almost $3 million in civil penalties from Federated, May, Wedgewood Waterford and Lenox.
Following the defense verdict, jurors indicated that this lack of direct evidence had been fatal to the plaintiffs’ case.
Jury Awards Millions in Corruption TrialIn one of the largest public corruption verdicts in California history, a jury deliberated only three hours before returning a unanimous verdict in favor of the City of Compton, awarding the city nearly $22.5 million on its cross-complaint against Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. and its owner, Michael Aloyan. Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City of Compton, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 323801. The case involved allegations of bribery and political corruption in the award of a $100 million municipal waste hauling contract. The City of Compton terminated the 15-year, no-bid franchise agreement after discovering that the franchisee had made hundreds of thousands of dollars in unreported "political campaign contributions" to three of the city councilpersons who voted to award the lucrative contract, and after the franchisee was convicted of bribing an official in a neighboring city. The franchisee sued, and the city counter-claimed to establish that the contract was void pursuant to a statute making it illegal for a public official to have a financial interest in a public contract made by him in his official capacity. In the first phase of the trial, the city successfully established that the individual cross-defendant was the alter ego of the corporate franchisee. Later, the trial court granted the city partial summary judgment, eliminating at least $10 million of potential damages exposure. The court ruled as a matter of law that the city legally terminated the franchise agreement in September 2004, based on the franchisee's bribery conviction. Then, in the final phase of the trial, the jury decided that the franchise agreement was obtained in violation of a state law making it illegal for any city official to have a financial interest in a public contract, and awarded damages of nearly $22.5 million to the City of Compton. Working with the city's trial team led by Gary Goodstein of Goodstein & Berman LLP, Think Twice provided courtroom graphics consulting and production services for the trial. Two Trials, Two Victories for Wal-Mart EmployeesWal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, must pay at least $78.5 million for violating Pennsylvania labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks and off the clock, a Philadelphia jury found recently.
This victory for Wal-Mart's Pennsylvania employees follows a similar triumph last year in California, where an Alameda County jury awarded $172 million to employees in that state for meal break and rest break violations by the world’s largest employer. In both the Pennsylvania and California trials, Think Twice provided on-going visual consultation, demonstrative exhibit production and video editing services to the plaintiffs' attorneys beginning before trial, and continuing throughout. Persuasive graphics included illustrations of Wal-Mart's labor cost policies, timekeeping system, audit history, pay records, understaffing, knowledge of violations, and damages. Think Twice also performed extensive editing and preparation of numerous video depositions, particularly of senior Wal-Mart executives.
The Pennsylvania class-action suit involves 187,000 current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs from March 1998 through May of this year. The jury found that Wal-Mart broke its contract, thereby violating state labor laws.
Eleven months earlier, after a three-month trial in Alameda County, California, a jury found that Wal-Mart illegally prevented thousands of its workers from taking meal breaks. The jury in Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. awarded $57.3 million in compensatory damages and $115 million in punitive damages to a class of about 116,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees.
Similar suits against Wal-Mart are pending in a number of jurisdictions around the country. Lawyer Franklin D. Azar of Aurora, Colorado, who worked on the California case and an earlier suit in Colorado that was settled by the parties, believes these verdicts have "set a benchmark for what the rest of these cases are worth." Links: Think Twice Supports Quinn Emanuel in Two High-Stakes Insurance Disputes
Think Twice designed a comprehensive, animated PowerPoint presentation, as well as multiple still graphics, for use in the trial to help the jury understand that the plaintiff’s 'claims' were without merit, helping them argue that the clean-up was not reasonable and necessary for the defense of the lawsuits, but was instead necessitated by the EPA's orders. After just a few weeks of trial, and based on the strength of the opening arguments and supporting graphics, the plaintiff quickly moved to settle the case and Quinn Emanuel obtained a very favorable settlement on behalf of the defendant. |
![]() |
What's HotObiter Dictum
|
![]() |