Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy: Filings

Lawsuit Filed for Tesla Plane Crash
On August 17, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court against Air Unique, Inc. and Douglas Bourn for an airplane crash that occurred on February 17, 2010 in East Palo Alto. The Cessna 310R aircraft took off from the Palo Alto Municipal Airport and collided with power lines, then crashed into multiple homes, narrowly missing a day care center. The plane broke apart after clipping the power lines, with one wing falling onto a house and the rest of the plane striking a retaining wall of another home down the street. All three people killed in the plane crash were Tesla engineers..

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 213K
Lawsuit Filed Regarding Confiscated Armenian Lands
On July 29, 2010, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy along with Los Angeles attorneys, Mark Geragos, Brian Kabatek and Berj Boyajian, filed a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit in the Central District of California against the Republic of Turkey on behalf of Armenians seeking compensation for confiscated properties and belongings as a result of the Genocide of 1915-1923. The lawsuit targets the Central Bank of Turkey and the Ziraat Bank as financial instruments of the Turkish Government. The complaint charges the Republic of Turkey and its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, of confiscating, selling and deriving income from real estate and personal property that was owned by hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were killed during the Genocide.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 2.3MB
Lawsuit Filed Against Caltrans to Protect Ancient Redwoods
On June 17, 2010, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy along with Sharon Duggan and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against Caltrans in San Francisco Superior Court. The lawsuit is challenging Caltrans' approval of a controversial highway widening and realignment project. According to the lawsuit, Caltrans violated the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the project, which poses unacceptable risks to Richardson Grove State Park, its ancient redwoods, endangered species, and the rural region behind the fabled "redwood curtain."

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.

Click here to view the press release. PDF, 57K

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 1MB
Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of WWII Filipino Veterans
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and the Tancinco Law Offices filed a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Northern District of California in San Francisco. For over 60 years, Filipino veterans have fought to get official recognition of their honorable U.S. military service during World War II and to be declared eligible to receive full veterans benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.

Click here to view the press release. PDF, 53K

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 4.7MB
Toyota
On March 12, 2010, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation and its U.S. sales and marketing arms, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, Inc., in the Central District of California. The case was filed in the Orange County courthouse, the location of one of Toyota's largest regional headquarters. Toyota's U.S.-based operations are all based in the Central District of California.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.
Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 4.7MB
Wells Fargo's Sham Tax Schemes
A shareholder complaint was filed today against executives and directors of Wells Fargo, the banking giant. The complaint alleges that certain executives and directors with oversight of Wells Fargo's management, turned a blind eye and allowed Wells Fargo to participate in dubious tax shelters that have long been questioned by Congress, the IRS, and have now been found to be illegal tax shelters. One federal court referred to a similar scheme as "abusive tax shelters" that are "rotten to the core."

The tax shelters involving Wells Fargo include dozens of lease transactions through which Wells Fargo sought to avoid paying millions of dollars in federal income taxes. Through a "sale in, lease out"or SILO tax shelter, the bank entered into a paper transaction to "purchase" rail cars, buses, or other equipment from a tax-exempt public agency, "leased" the property back to the agency, and then took all of the deductions on its corporate federal income taxes. The SILO transactions were only on paper and Wells Fargo never took possession of any rail cars, buses, or equipment. The IRS disallowed Wells Fargo's tax deductions, and imposed substantial tax penalties. Wells Fargo sued the United States for the refunds.

According to Nanci Nishimura, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who filed the suit, "the complaint alleges that the defendants allowed Wells Fargo to engage in another form of ripping-off the public." The complaint alleges that the executives and directors breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in mismanagement and corporate abuse by allowing Wells Fargo to continue using SILO transactions to avoid taxes, especially when it had long been known that Congress and the IRS prohibited tax deductions under the SILO predecessor, called a "lease-in, lease-out" or LILO tax shelter, and had efforts in the works to prohibit SILOs. In 2005, the IRS formally disallowed SILOs as legitimate tax shelters, but the defendants still allowed Wells Fargo to file tax refund lawsuits against the United States in 2006 and 2009.

The Federal Court of Claims recently rejected one of Wells Fargo's tax refund lawsuits against the United States, on the ground that the SILO transactions were shams from the get-go. In its decision, the Court stated emphatically that:

If the Court were to approve of these SILO schemes, the big losers would be the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), deprived of millions of taxes rightfully due from a financial giant, and the taxpaying public, forced to bear the burden of the taxes avoided by Wells Fargo... A cadre of company executives, in concert with a team of well known legal and accounting firms and other consultants, regularly constructed and participated in these tax schemes for Wells Fargo, apparently blind to professional standards of care.

Wells Fargo shareholders are represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, with offices in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Washington, DC, and New York.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.
Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 2.4MB
Summary of Humboldt Creamery Litigation
CPM is representing the Liquidating Trustee of Humboldt Creamery, LLC in a lawsuit filed in Humboldt County Superior Court against the company's former Chief Executive Officer, Richard Ghilarducci, its Chief Financial Officer, Ralph A. (Tony) Titus and its independent auditor, Frank X. Gloeggler alleging financial fraud. Humboldt Creamery was one of Humboldt County's main employers for 80 years, and a company upon which many families relied for their livelihood. The Creamery was well known and highly regarded throughout the country as one of the largest successful organic milk processors.

The complaint alleges that under Ghilarducci's control, the Creamery appeared to expand, adding facilities and increasing production, leading to what appeared to be substantial profits.

Yet the profitability of the Creamery was a facade masked for many years, the complaint alleges, by the actions of Ghilarducci and the breach of duties by Titus and Gloeggler. The end of this venerable institution came crashing down in February of 2009, when Ghilarducci abruptly resigned and warned of inaccuracies in the Creamery's financial statements. Ghiladucci's resignation was only the beginning of the stunning revelations about the Creamery. The complaint alleges that Ghilarducci had manipulated financial data by creating different sets of financial statements for different purposes and inflating revenue. Even more shocking was the fact, as alleged in the complaint, that most of the inventory represented on the financial statements never existed. The rows and rows of inventory that were certified by Titus and Gloeggler were hollow in the middle and hence grossly overstated. Likewise, revenue was inflated and debts which the financial statements represented had been paid were in fact unpaid. In short, rather than being a profitable and growing company, the Creamery was financially insolvent and had been for years.

The company was forced into bankruptcy as a result of this fraud, devastating the local community and injuring the Creamery. CPM's lawsuit seeks to hold those who created and allowed this fraud to flourish responsible for this loss.
St. Anthony's Claims $2 Million in Stock Fraud
The financial scams of recent years have found their way into every corner of society and they do not discriminate based upon race or religion. St. Anthony Foundation provides meals for almost 2500 of the most vulnerable people in San Francisco per day. This mission has been greatly affected when nearly $2 million of St. Anthony's funds were put into auction rate securities that failed. The money was intended for the new building fund as they were told the securities were as "good as cash."

As alleged in the complaint, St. Anthony's financial advisor, SCM Advisors, LLC ("SCM") invested nearly $2 million in troublesome auction rate securities from Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. ("Citigroup"). In August, 2008, Citigroup entered into a settlement with the SEC in which it agreed to buy back these auction rate securities from certain investors, but Citigroup refused to offer similar relief to St. Anthony.

According to the lawsuit, St. Anthony was put into auction rate securities underwritten by Citigroup in October of 2007, and both SCM and Citigroup knew by that time that the auction markets were in serious trouble and likely to collapse. An August 30, 2007 internal Citigroup e-mail stated, "Make sure you don't leave any stones unturned today. We are currently at our extended limit. Hit all bids....Times like these, we need to do whatever is necessary. Just make sure all hands are on deck and paper is sold." Auction rate securities became infamous in 2008 after widespread auction failures caused by Wall Street firms cost innocent investors, such as St. Anthony.

The lawsuit was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, by Joseph W. Cotchett, Aron K. Liang and Jordanna G. Thigpen of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.
Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 2.4MB
Napa Ponzi Scheme
Investors who lost millions in a Madoff-style scam filed a class action lawsuit today against national bank JP Morgan, the successor to Washington Mutual, for its role in the Millennium Ponzi scheme. The Millenium scheme was operated out of Napa, California by William A. Wise and the Hoegel mother-daughter team, Jacqueline and Kristi. Through an Internet website, Millennium misled investors, promising them very high interest rates on their Certificates of Deposit. Millennium claimed it could provide these high interests rates because it was, "the benefactor of Swiss banking" and had access to a "vast global investment network."

On March 26, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed an action against Millennium Bank, William Wise, Jacqueline Hoegel, Kristi Hoegel, and others, alleging that they operated an over $150 million Ponzi scheme. The assets of these individuals and entities have been frozen, including a Napa home purchased by the Hoegels with the money from investors in the Millennium Ponzi scheme.

According to the lawsuits, Washington Mutual and its successor company, JP Morgan provided substantial assistance to the Millennium Ponzi scheme. According to the lawsuit, Washington Mutual's Napa branch managers not only assisted in depositing millions from innocent investors and helping wire millions to offshore banking havens, Washington Mutual "provided to Millennium a remote banking platform that it could use to transfer and launder money faster and with less oversight, all in violation of the law."

"This case can be summarized in one word – greed" said Niall McCarthy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. "It is a Bay Area Madoff." The lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California, by Niall P. McCarthy, Anne Marie Murphy and Aron K. Liang of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Steven Berk of Washington, D.C., and Keith Miller of Boston.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.
Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 1MB
Madoff Litigation
Based on an in depth investigation, including a visit with Bernard Madoff in Federal Butner Correctional Complex just outside of Raleigh, North Carolina, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a new expansive complaint in New York Supreme Court naming new individuals and entities who are alleged in the complaint to be liable in the $65 billion Ponzi Scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff. As Madoff has admitted, for at least 20 years, he did not buy a single security for his investors. This complaint expands allegations against those who knowingly assisted Madoff in the fraud.

The complaint alleges Bernard Madoff's fraud "was not accomplished in isolation." The sheer size and scope of the fraud make it impossible for Madoff to have acted alone. The complaint alleges JP Morgan and the Bank of New York as well as powerhouse accounting firm KPMG LLP and their international counterparts, KPMG UK and KPMG International were primary players responsible for the fraud.

JP Morgan and The Bank of New York were the custodians of the key Madoff bank accounts. JP Morgan held billions of dollars for Madoff, yet discouraged its customers directly from investing with him. Instead, the complaint alleges JP Morgan indirectly encouraged investments in Madoff through selling Madoff-linked structured notes to investors. Bank of New York also acted as the administrator of feeder funds, charged with the responsibility of independently determining the value of the Madoff funds, the complaint alleges, a duty it failed to perform since the securities never existed. The banks allegedly also helped with the laundering of billions of dollars so that Madoff and his family and friends could purchase a yacht, expensive automobiles and other luxuries.

The London office of Bernie Madoff played a key role in his Ponzi scheme. Madoff used his London office as the vehicle to make it appear that securities were being traded — using smoke and mirrors which, the complaint alleges, should have been discovered by KPMG UK, the auditor for Madoff's London based operation, Madoff Securities International Ltd. Instead, KMPG UK never raised any red flags that investors' money was used by Madoff as his personal piggy bank.

The allegations are set forth in the complaint.
Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 2.9MB
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Medical Capital Trustees
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a class action complaint in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of over 20,000 investors in Medical Capital, a Tustin, California based company that purchased accounts receivables from physicians and hospitals. The suit names Wells Fargo and Bank of New York Mellon, which served as the Trustees of the accounts holding the investor funds. The suit alleges that the Trustees, instead of protecting investor funds and ensuring that they were appropriately maintained and disbursed for Medical Capital loans, instead allowed Medical Capital executives to use the accounts as their personal piggy bank and approved "administrative fees" of nearly $325 million to purchase lavish personal perquisites including a multi-million dollar, 118-foot yacht. The suit also notes that the federal court recently appointed a Receiver for Medical Capital, who reported that of approximately $625 million of medical accounts receivable on the books, just $80 million is verifiable, and the remaining accounts — totaling $542 million — "no longer exist." The suit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of California's Business & Professions Code. The class action follows a suit filed by the Securities Exchange Commission against Medical Capital and its executives, alleging securities fraud.

Click here to view Medical Capital complaint. PDF, 245K
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy files action on behalf of homeless former Stanford Medical Student defrauded by American National Insurance Company
On August 28, 2009, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a complaint against American National Insurance Company on behalf of Dr. J. Wayne Bennett, a former surgical resident at Stanford University School of Medicine, who is now homeless and suffering from severe mental illness. The lawsuit alleges that the Texas-based company issued a fraudulent insurance policy that has prevented him from securing government assistance and access to health care. The lawsuit alleges that American National Insurance Company and Petaluma-based Legacy Marketing Group made the plaintiff – Dr. J. Wayne Bennett – the co-owner of a life insurance policy without Dr. Bennett's consent, using forged signatures.

When he became homeless due to mental illness and attempted to apply for government benefits, Dr. Bennett was denied on the grounds that he had valuable assets as the co-owner of the insurance policy. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Bennett informed the Defendants that his status as a co-owner of the insurance policy was preventing him from obtaining benefits. Nonetheless, the Defendants refused to rescind the insurance policy.

Justin T. Berger of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, stated: "This insurance company threw him under the bus." He continued: "Defendants left this man in an impossible situation: homeless and destitute, but prohibited from obtaining government assistance due to ownership of a life insurance policy which was set up with forged signatures."

"Without access to benefits, Dr. Bennett has spent months at a time living in homeless shelters, living out of cars, and living on the streets. His lack of access to basic necessities has caused both his mental and physical health to deteriorate. As a result, he has been in and out of hospitals, emergency rooms, and psych wards, and — without medical benefits — has accumulated medical bills well in excess of one million dollars," said Mr. Berger.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 192K
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against HL Leasing, Inc. for Ponzi Scheme
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a class action complaint in Fresno Superior Court on behalf of over 1,200 investors, mostly from California, against HL Leasing, Inc. for losing in excess of $138 million in a Ponzi Scheme. The lawsuit has been filed against the estate of John W. Otto, Heritage Pacific Leasing, Dan Ramirez, Norma Lewis and Andy Fernandez. Investors in HL Leasing, Inc. were obtaining returns, not from the leasing business it was purportedly involved in, but by taking monies from new investors to pay the original investors. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy has been investigating the Ponzi Scheme ever since an April 28, 2009 letter went out to HL Leasing, Inc. investors by John Otto saying that the monthly payments would not be made pursuant to investors' respective loan agreements. As alleged in the complaint, Otto claimed that he had "entered into an agreement with another company (because of confidentiality agreement, cannot disclose) to sell HL Leasing." The letter further states that the sale transaction would close "approximately May 8th."

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 312K
Lawsuit Against AIG Directors for Corporate Waste of Bonuses
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with co-counsel, filed a complaint in Los Angelels Superior Court on behalf of a retired California Judge, shareholder of American International Group ("AIG"), relating to retention bonuses paid to company executives and employees in the financial products unit by AIG. The decision to pay these bonuses has cost AIG, as well as United States taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars. On March 16, 2009, President Obama announced that he had asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to "pursue every single avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

AIG received more than $170 billion in bailout money from the United States Government to keep it in business. AIG awarded $165 million in bonuses to executives and employees who were in part responsible for the insurance company's near collapse. AIG claims that it was contractually obligated to make the payments. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is investigating whether there was any business justification for AIG's decision to pay the bonuses to retain their employees, particularly when the only reason that AIG even exists today and has money to meet payroll is because of the US taxpayer bailout.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 1.2MB
Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1913 (N.D. Cal.)
Date Filed: August 5, 2009
Amended Complaint Filed in Transpacific Air Passenger Price Fixing Case. On August 5, 2009 Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and its co-counsel filed an amended complaint in the international class action In re Transpacific Air Passenger Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1913. The amended complaint sets forth extensive details of the operation of a cartel that fixed the prices which passengers paid for air transportation between the United States and Asian/Oceania destinations including Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands. The alleged conspiracy began January 1, 2000 and continues to the present.

Documents
Amended Complaint PDF, 484K
Medical Laboratories Medi-Cal Fraud Case
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy represents whistleblowers Chris Riedel and Hunter Laboratories in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the State of California, seeking the return of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money illegally charged to California's Medi-Cal system by clinical medical laboratories. The defendants include the two largest medical labs in the State - Quest Diagnostics, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America ("LabCorp") - as well as five other labs. The defendants are required by California law to bill Medi-Cal the lowest prices they charge to any other purchaser under comparable circumstances. Instead, the lawsuit alleges that since at least 1995, defendants have systematically billed Medi-Cal the highest prices possible, resulting in overpayments totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In some cases, the labs charged Medi-Cal rates for exams that were 500% higher than what they charged others. For example, one lab company billed Medi-Cal $8.59 to perform a blood test. It charged a person with private insurance $1.43 for the same test, amounting to a 501% rate increase.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' overbilling of Medi-Cal is part of a broader scheme, by which they offer deep discounts to doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers, in exchange for those providers' referral of Medi-Cal patients to the labs. The defendants then bill Medi-Cal rates grossly exceeding the discounted rates they charge others. By doing so, the defendants increase their client base, and their profits, at the expense of taxpayers.

The California Attorney General's office has intervened in the lawsuit, and is working with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to recover the overcharges to the State. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy's client, whistleblower and qui tam plaintiff Hunter Laboratories, is a Bay Area-based laboratory that processes blood tests.

If you have knowledge of this or other Medi-Cal billing frauds, please contact Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 432K

Click here to watch KTVU interview with Niall P. McCarthy.
Monterey County / WaMu
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with co-counsel, represents Monterey County relating to its investment losses in Washington Mutual. Monterey's suit names various WaMu executives, as well as its accountants Deloitte & Touche, and alleges claims for fraud, deceit and misleading accounting practices. The Monterey County Investment Pool has a long history of maintaining high quality investment portfolios. According to the lawsuit, WaMu began to promote riskier loan products to both prime borrowers and subprime borrowers, while reducing the share of traditional, fixed rate loans it originated. WaMu and its senior officers, assisted by Deloitte & Touche, allegedly touted a number of risk management processes, and some of the highest underwriting standards in the industry to minimize the credit risk involved in lending sums to borrowers. WaMu also reassured investors that it was taking appropriate allowances for loan losses, based on highly developed statistical forecasting models. However, contrary to WaMu's disclosures, WaMu senior management are alleged to have secretly decided to increase its portfolio of risky loans. As a result, WaMu's allowances were under reported by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 548K
San Mateo County / Monterey County / Auburn / San Buenaventura / Burbank / Zenith Insurance Company // Lehman Brothers Executives
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with co-counsel, represents San Mateo County, Monterey County, Auburn, San Buenaventura, Burbank, and Zenith Insurance Company, relating to their investment losses in Lehman Brothers. Lehman declared bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. Prior to declaring bankruptcy, Lehman executives allegedly made public statements about the company's financial strength while privately scrambling to save it from collapse. The lawsuits name Lehman executives and its auditor, Ernst & Young. According to the lawsuit, as Lehman publicly hid the company's exposure to mortgage-related losses, it reported record profits and gave lucrative bonuses to its executives. The company also raised more than $30 billion from investors based on statements about the company's financial health. The lawsuit alleges that Lehman was a major participant in all aspects of the mortgage and real estate markets, including originating residential and commercial mortgages and securitizing loans and investment directly in real estate. As property values declined and mortgage defaults rose in 2006 and 2007, Lehman expanded its real estate and mortgage portfolio despite the fact that other investment banks booked enormous losses.

Click here to view the San Mateo County complaint. PDF, 312K
Bank of America Class Action Lawsuit
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy represents persons and entities who owned Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America") stock on October 10, 2008 and were eligible to vote on the proposed merger between Bank of America and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), and persons and entities who purchased Bank of America common stock between October 16, 2008 and January 20, 2009.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, names as defendants Bank of America, Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis, and former Merrill Lynch CEO John A. Thain ("Thain"), and alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information regarding Merrill Lynch's business and record financial losses, including in an October 31, 2008 Proxy Statement. Among other things, defendants allegedly concealed Bank of America's failure to properly value certain troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, collaterized debt obligations and related derivative positions. Moreover, Bank of America allegedly failed to meet due diligence obligations to its shareholders to provide full transparency regarding the acquisition and acquisition price of Merrill Lynch. On December 5, 2008, as a result of defendants' alleged misrepresentations, Bank of America shareholders approved the merger with Merrill Lynch, which closed on January 1, 2009.

On January 16, 2009, Bank of America announced Merrill Lynch's 2008 fourth quarter losses of $15.3 billion, a record loss in Merrill Lynch's 94 year history. The announcement included that the U.S. Treasury would invest $20 billion in Bank of America, and provide additional guarantees against losses on approximately $118 billion in assets, 75% of which were owned by Merrill Lynch. At the same time, news reports emerged that Bank of America had authorized Thain to hand out $4 billion in bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives and employees. The public shareholders are now asked to bear the costs of the bonuses.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 448K
Satyam Computer Services Class Action Lawsuit
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy represents persons who purchased American Depository Receipts ("ADR") of Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam") between January 1, 2004 and January 6, 2009. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy has been investigating the largest corporate fraud in Indian history and the damages to investors in Satyam ADR. On January 7, 2009, the Chairman of Satyam, Ramilinga Raju, admitted that he and Satyam had intentionally committed accounting fraud over the last few years and that over 90% of Satyam's earnings and assets were fictitious.

Satyam was one of the largest Indian consulting, information technology and computer outsourcing companies in the world, supposedly worth over $3 billion USD. Satyam's primary office in the United States is located in Santa Clara, California. A significant portion of Satyam's business is with major technology companies, most of them based in the United States, and California is at the heart of Satyam's business in the United States.

In a letter written to the Board of Directors of Satyam, Chairman Raju announced that Satyam's balance sheet was inflated by at least INR71 billion (Indian rupees), equal to approximately $1.4 billion USD. In that same letter, he claimed that the fraud was orchestrated by himself and his younger brother, Rama Raju, the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Satyam. Satyam, ironically means "truth" in Sanskrit. The day prior to its collapse, Satyam was listed as having a market capitalization of $3.15 billion USD. That value evaporated overnight as a result of the fraud.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India has announced it has launched an investigation into Satyam's finances and the activities of its senior officers and directors, and regulators termed the financial wrong-doing at Satyam as being of "horrifying magnitude".

The class action lawsuit names Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., Ramalinga Raju, Rama Raju, Srinivas Vadlamanui, the Chief Financial Officer of Satyam and Price Waterhouse Coopers, Satyam's outside auditor, and alleges violation of federal securities laws

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 1.5MB
FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with co-counsel, represents investors who were encouraged to buy preferred shares in Fannie Mae before the government takeover. On September 7, 2008, the U.S. government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a “conservatorship” to be overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the conservatorship, the government would temporarily run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until they can get on stronger footing. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with co-counsel, on behalf of a class of individuals, filed suit in the Southern District of New York accusing the underwriters of its preferred stock offerings, namely – Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, and Wachovia Capital Markets LLC – of (a) overstating Fannie Mae's capitalization, (b) failing to disclose the serious risk that current account changes under consideration by the FASB could force the Company to bring over $2 trillion of currently off-balance-sheet obligations onto its financial statements, depleting its capital surplus even further, and (c) falsely asserting that the securities offerings would be adequate to see the Company through the end of the year. As a result of Defendants' acts, the Class suffered substantial damage in connection with their ownership of Fannie Mae's preferred stocks.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 312K
Municipal Bond Insurance Antitrust Litigation
CPM, along with co-counsel, represents Los Angeles and numerous public entities who issued tax-exempt municipal bonds to raise funds to finance public works projects and were compelled to purchase insurance for those bond issuances. When a public entity issues bonds, its credit rating determines the interest it will pay to bond holders. To reduce the interest rate, public entities have had to purchase bond insurance to improve their credit worthiness (despite an historical default rate of less than 0.1 percent). CPM’s investigation has uncovered and the complaints allege that the bond insurance companies violated antitrust law and common law by conspiring to maintain a dual credit rating system that discriminates against public entities (versus private corporations), causing public entities to pay unusually high premiums to purchase unnecessary bond insurance, and failure of the bond insurance companies to disclose they made risky investments in the subprime market that has led to the downgrading of the bond insurers’ own credit ratings.
Class Action Suit Alleges Price-Fixing Conspiracy in the Ocean Shipping Industry
On April 17, 2008, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division raided the offices of a number of major ocean shipping companies, including Defendants Horizon and Crowley. Others received subpoenas for documents from the federal government. The subject of the federal investigation related to a pervasive conspiracy in the ocean shipping industry to artificially raise the price of shipping goods between the continental United States and its territories, primarily Puerto Rico, Guam and Hawaii. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, on behalf of a class of individuals and entities, filed suit in the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of California, accusing the major ocean shipping companies of violating federal antitrust laws and seeks the recovery of treble damages for the losses suffered by consumers. This conspiracy has enriched the Defendants while harming the American economy and American businesses. The suit accuses the Defendants of: (1) conspiring to fix fuel surcharges on domestic shipping rates, (2) conspiracy to decrease and stabilize shipping capacity, (3) conspiracy to fix domestic intermodal rates to shippers, and (4) a concerted and coordinated refusal to deal with freight forwarders. By conspiring to fix prices, the ocean shipping industry has deprived consumers of the right to free and fair competition.
Los Angeles Times / Zell
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy represents current and former journalists of the Los Angeles Times in a lawsuit against Sam Zell, the Tribune Company and others. In 2007, Zell orchestrated a “go-private” transaction in which he took control of Tribune in a deal that left the company heavily encumbered in debt and owned entirely by an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Filed in Los Angeles federal court as a proposed class action, the lawsuit alleges that Sam Zell and his accessories breached their fiduciary duties and violated ERISA during and after the 2007 transaction. The complaint alleges that Tribune Company employees, who technically own the company through the Tribune ESOP, have been and continue to be damaged by the go-private transaction and by the subsequent mismanagement and self-dealings of Tribune executives, including Sam Zell, the result of which has been to diminish the value and the products of the employee-owned company. Wrongdoing alleged in the complaint includes improper valuation and misuse of employee pension fund assets and conflicts of interest, including the improper rental of Tribune Tower space to Sam Zell’s family. Plaintiffs seek the removal of Sam Zell and his board of directors from their fiduciary positions, an accounting of employees’ pension fund, and disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits.
Credit Counseling Industry Suit names Chase, Money Management International and Others
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is continuing its investigation into fraudulent “debt counseling” and debt collections in the subprime credit industry.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and co-counsel, named JP Morgan Chase & Co., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, Money Management International (MMI), also known as Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS), and Money Management By Mail Inc.

The suit and investigation arise out of the relatively new sub-prime credit counseling industry. The industry was created by the nation’s leading creditors (including leading credit card companies) to use third party, allegedly non-profit “credit counseling” organizations, to secretly facilitate their collections from unsuspecting customers who were in financial distress and had turned to what they thought were non-profits for financial help.

The complaint alleges that Management International Inc. (MMI) and others advertised and promoted themselves as non-profit credit counseling organizations whose main purpose was to act on behalf of the consumer. These companies were in fact operating as agents of the consumers’ creditors, including Chase, according to the complaint. These agencies claimed in their advertisements that they would “negotiate” on behalf of consumers with Chase and other credit card companies to whom consumers owed money – however, as alleged in the Complaint, there was no real “negotiation” – instead there were back room deals between the creditors and the “counseling” agencies designed to collect as much money as possible from unsuspecting consumers. The complaint alleges:

MMI and others were nothing more than debt collectors that, even according to Chase’s own documents, “partnered” with Chase to collect its accounts under the guise of “rescuing” consumers drowning in debt.

The agencies, in reality, operated as for-profit organizations, distributing monthly payments they collected from consumers to Chase, while keeping a share for themselves – effectively a payment by Chase that was kept hidden from the consumers.

The agencies also failed to provide comprehensive financial counseling that communicated all options open to indebted consumers. For example, the agencies as a matter of practice failed to discuss bankruptcy as an option since that would cut off the flow of money to the creditors.

The lawsuit seeks to recover monies wrongfully obtained from consumers (including Chase credit card holders) who were indebted to Chase and/or who contracted for credit repair and debt management plan services from MMI or credit counseling agencies that MMI has taken over.

If you feel you have been victimized by subprime credit “counseling,” please contact us at TAKE ACTION to explore your legal rights.

Click here to view the complaint. PDF, 4.4 MB
Pay By Touch Litigation
Case No. CGC-08-481229 (San Francisco Superior Court)
Date filed: October 23, 2008
Case No. CGC-09-489463 (San Francisco Superior Court)
Date filed: June 30, 2009
Case No. CGC-07-467069 (San Francisco Superior Court)
Date filed: September 11, 2007

On August 30, 2009, the Hon. John E. Munter overruled defendant UBS’s demurrers to Plaintiffs’ claims arising from the massive Pay By Touch fraud. UBS had touted Pay By Touch to investors and helped it to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in investments. Plaintiffs allege that UBS withheld and failed to disclose material information about Pay By Touch, and that had this information been disclosed Plaintiffs would not have invested in Pay By Touch. The information which was not disclosed included federal investigations of Pay By Touch, management problems, and criminal misconduct by Pay By Touch’s founder. UBS argued in briefs filed with the Court that there was no basis upon which the Plaintiffs could state a claim. The Court rejected these arguments. Philip L. Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, counsel for Plaintiffs, said "We are gratified that the Court is protecting our client’s right to their day in court. Investment banks like UBS must understand that they have duties to investors, and cannot walk away from their responsibilities and leave investors holding the bag after the companies that they tout and raise money on behalf of turn out to be shams."

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with co-counsel, represents investors, including the Getty family trusts, against UBS Securities and former executives of Pay By Touch alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation. According to the lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court, UBS Securities touted the Company (Pay By Touch) to investors as providing secure, convenient electronic transaction solutions for businesses and consumers through biometric authentication services and payment processing services. Investors were told that its new unique payment system would reduce payment transaction times, strengthen customer loyalty programs, and increase sales volume. To fund the Company's enormous capital requirements, UBS raised money for Pay By Touch through private offerings from prominent hedge funds, venture capitalists, and private investors. At least $300 million was invested in Pay By Touch during its short history. UBS received millions of dollars in placement fees.

The complaint alleges that Defendants falsely represented that they had disclosed all material risks to investors. Curiously, the offering documents also include a statement from UBS that they had not investigated the truth of their representations. The intent of the scheme was to induce Plaintiffs to rely on the misrepresentations and omissions and to invest in Pay By Touch. The suit also alleges that the founder of Pay By Touch, John Rogers, had material legal troubles in his past, including criminal misconduct, tax liens and civil judgments. Rogers also was arrested for domestic assault and had restraining orders on him. Rogers had spent time in jail. The complaint asserts that these serious legal troubles were not disclosed to potential investors.

The suit also states that the former executives of Pay By Touch and UBS attempted to withhold from investors, the findings of a confidential Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) report. The FDIC investigated the payment processing facility of Pay By Touch and concluded that its management had allowed serious problems to persist. Despite knowing about these findings, the former executives of Pay By Touch and UBS continued to hide the investigation from investors and instead suggested that no investigation had ever occurred. Incredibly, Defendants told investors that they could be subject to investigation by a regulatory body regarding its payment processing facility, but decided not to reveal that they had been investigated or been told that they might not be able to process payments with federally-insured institutions.

Click here to view the "Getty" complaint filed on June 30, 2009
PDF, 3.4MB
Webkinz Litigation
Nuts for Candy v. Ganz Inc., et al.
CV 08 2873 (Northern District of California)
Date filed: June 09, 2008
Complaint for Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act
CPM has file a complaint on behalf of a proposed class of persons or entities in the United States who ordered Webkinz from Ganz Inc. on the condition that they also order products from Ganz’s "core line" of products. The complaint alleges that Ganz conditions the purchase of its popular Webkinz plush line toy with the a minimum $1,000 purchase of non-Webkinz "core" line products in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Recent Activity
Interim Lead Counsel Motion PDF, 550K

Documents
Class Complaint PDF, 730K
SRAM (Static Random Access Memory) Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.)
Date Filed October 17, 2006
CPM is the court-appointed Lead Counsel on behalf of the class of direct purchasers in this multidistrict class action against the major manufacturers of SRAM (Static Random Access Memory), including Samsung, Toshiba, Renesas, Hynix, Cypress, and Micron. Plaintiff alleges that from November 1996 through December 2005 the Defendant companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain the prices of SRAM, a memory chip used in a wide variety of computer and consumer electronics products, ranging from cell phones to high-end network servers. In 2005 alone, the Defendants’ worldwide SRAM sales were in excess of $2 billion. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class’ claims are based on Defendants’ alleged violation of the U.S. federal antitrust laws (15 U.S.C. § 1). The case is currently pending before Judge Claudia Wilken in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Recent Activity

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlements – Granted: On March 19, 2010, Judge Wilken granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Preliminarily Approve Settlements totaling $37,372,476.99. The Settlements are with the following Defendants: Micron, Renesas-Hitachi-Mitsubishi, Hynix, NEC, Etron, ISSI, Toshiba. Plaintiff is still pursuing class claims against the two remaining Defendants, Samsung and Cypress. A hearing on final approval of the Settlements is set for July 1, 2010.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification – Granted: On September 29, 2008, Judge Wilken granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify a Class of Direct Purchasers of SRAM, and appointed CPM as Lead Counsel for the class of direct purchasers. In her Class Certification Order, Judge Wilken said: "[T]he court finds that common issues predominate as to the element of antitrust violation," and that "Plaintiff has advanced a plausible methodology that demonstrates that antitrust injury can be proved on a class-wide basis."

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss – Denied: On February 14, 2008, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs defeated 11 of the 12 motions to dismiss that the Defendant SRAM manufacturers filed. In her order denying the Defendants’ motions, Judge Wilkin said: "the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts plausibly to suggest a § 1 price-fixing conspiracy."

Documents:

Consolidated Complaint PDF, 1.4 MB
Order denying motions to dismiss PDF, 150K
Motion for class certification PDF, 150K
Order granting motion for class certification PDF, 124K

NAND Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 07-0086 (N.D. Cal.)
Date Filed: January 5, 2007
CPM, together with Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, is the court-appointed Lead Counsel on behalf of the proposed class of indirect purchasers in this class action against the major manufacturers of NAND Flash Memory, such as Samsung, Toshiba, Renesas, Hynix, and SanDisk. Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1999 the Defendant companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain the prices of NAND Flash Memory. In the past few years, this type of memory chip has become one of the most widely popularized memory chips, and it is used in a whole host of computer and consume electronics products, including Apple's iPhone and the removable memory cards for digital cameras and video game consoles. In 2006 alone, the Defendants' worldwide NAND Flash Memory sales were in excess of $10 billion. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on Defendants' alleged violation of the various state antitrust laws, such as California, Florida, New York, and Minnesota. The cases are currently pending before Judge Saundra Armstrong in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Recent Activity:
On April 22, 2008, CPM and Zelle Hofmann filed an Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss filed by each of the Defendant NAND Flash Memory manufacturers. Judge Armstrong has taken the matter under submission.

Documents:
Consolidated Complaint PDF, 1.2MB
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1793 (N.D. Cal.)
Date Filed: October 27, 2006
CPM, together Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, is the court-appointed lead counsel for classes of direct purchasers in the U.S. and the United Kingdom of long-haul passenger air transportation to and from the United Kingdom. Plaintiffs allege that the major airlines which dominate that market conspired to fix the price of such flights, including associated fuel surcharges. On April 25, 2008, Judge Charles R. Breyer granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlements with Defendants Virgin Atlantic Airways, LTD and British Airways Plc worth approximately $204 million. If given final approval, the settlement will resolve the claims of purchasers in both the United States and the United Kingdom based on U.S. federal antitrust laws (1 U.S.C. § 1) and the antitrust laws of the United Kingdom and European Union. The proposed settlements provide for the refund of 33.3 % of fuel surcharges paid by purchasers of qualifying flights from Virgin Atlantic and British Airways. For information regarding the proposed settlements, please visit https://www.airpassengerrefund.com or https://www.airpassengerrefund.co.uk.

Recent Activity
On April 25, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlements and associated notice programs. In the associated hearings, the Court strongly praised both the terms of the proposed settlements and associated notice program. The hearing on final approval of the proposed settlements will take place on September 26, 2008. For more information, please see the websites above.

Documents
Consolidated Complaint PDF, 916K
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlements
PDF, 92K
Pacific Noncontiguous Ocean Shipping Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1972 (district assignment pending)
Date Filed: May 9, 2008
CPM, with co-counsel, have filed two complaints on behalf of proposed classes of direct purchasers of domestic ocean shipping services between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii (“the Hawaii Trade”) and between the U.S. mainland and Guam (“the Guam Trade”). These complaints-which CPM is seeking to have consolidated along with related complaints brought by other plaintiffs-allege that the two carriers that dominate the Hawaii and Guam Trades, Matson Navigation and Horizon Lines, have conspired to fix the price of domestic ocean shipping in the two trades in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).

Recent Activity
CPM has filed a motion for transfer to the Northern District of California for consolidation of all related cases. The motion will be heard July 31, 2008.

Documents
Guam Trade Complaint PDF, 1.4 MB
Hawaii Trade Complaint PDF, 1.1 MB
Motion for Transfer PDF, 80K
Puerto Rico Ocean Shipping Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1960 (district assignment pending)
Date filed: April 23, 2008
CPM, with co-counsel, have filed a complaint of behalf of proposed class of direct purchasers of domestic ocean shipping services between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (“the Puerto Rico Trade”). The complaint-which CPM is seeking to have consolidated with related complaints brought by other plaintiffs-alleges that the carriers that dominate the Puerto Rico Trade, Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner Services, and Trailer Bridge, have conspired to fix the price of domestic ocean shipping in the Puerto Rico Trade in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).

Recent Activity
CPM has filed a motion for transfer to the Southern District of Florida for consolidation of all related cases. The motion will be heard July 31, 2008.

Documents
Isaac Industries Complaint PDF, 964K
Motion for Transfer PDF, 88K
Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1775 (E.D.N.Y,)
Date Filed: June 27, 2006
CPM, with co-counsel, is the court-appointed lead counsel for a proposed class of U.S. indirect purchasers of international air freight services. The case alleges that the providers of international air freight services conspired to fix the prices of such services, including fuel surcharges. The case names almost forty international air freight carriers as defendants. The claims of the United States indirect purchasers is brought under the antitrust laws and consumer protection laws of various U.S. states. On April 4, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement worth over $85 million with defendants Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss International Air Lines, Ltd. For information regarding the proposed settlement, please visit http://www.aircargosettlement.com.

Recent Activity
On April 4, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and associated notice program. The hearing on final approval of the proposed settlements will take place on December 12, 2008. For more information, please see the website above.

Documents
Consolidated Complaint PDF, 328K
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement
PDF, 36K
Freight Forwarders Antitrust Litigation
No. CV 08-0042 (E.D.N.Y.)
Date Filed: January 3, 2008
CPM, with co-counsel, have filed a complaint on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of freight forwarding services in the United States. “Freight forwarding services” includes services relating to the organization of transportation of items via air, ship, rail, and truck, both nationally and internationally. The complaint alleges that the major providers of freight forwarding services conspired to fix the prices of such services in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).

Documents
Precision Associates Complaint PDF, 950K
LTL Shipping Service Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1895 (N.D. Ga.)
Date filed: October 18, 2007
CPM, with co-counsel, represent a proposed class of direct purchasers of less-than-truckload (“LTL”) freight shipping services. The case alleges that all the national and regional trucking freight carrier conglomerates conspired to fix fuel surcharges in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).

Documents
Consolidated Complaint PDF, 404K
Hip And Knee Implant Marketing Litigation
MDL No. 1973 (district assignment pending)
Date filed: March 24, 2008
CPM, with co-counsel, has filed two complaints on behalf of proposed classes of persons who underwent hip or knee implant surgery. The complaints allege that the major manufacturers of hip and knee implants have engaged in a pervasive kickback scheme, using phony consulting agreements with orthopaedic surgeons, to improperly funnel money to doctors and hospitals in return for choosing the manufacturer’s device during surgeries. This scheme artificially raised the costs of hip or knee implants paid for by members of the proposed class in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

Recent Activity
CPM has made a motion to transfer all related cases to the Northern District of California for consolidation. The motion will be heard on July 31, 2008.

Documents
Stryker Complaint PDF, 1MB
Zimmer Complaint PDF, 1MB
Motion for Transfer PDF, 1MB
Tarantino et al. v. Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., et al.
No. CGC-07-469379 (San Francisco Cnty. Sup. Crt.)
Date filed: November 20, 2007
CPM has filed a complaint on behalf of a proposed class of commercial fishermen injured by the San Francisco Bay oil spill of November 7, 2007, caused when the Cosco Busan allided with the Bay Bridge. The complaint alleges violations of the California state Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Prevention and Response Act (Gov’t Code §§ 8670, et seq.) and various other provisions of statutory and common law against the Hong Kong-based owner of the ship Regal Stone, Ltd., the Hong Kong-based operator of the ship Fleet Management, Ltd., the South Korea-based charterer of the ship Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., and the ship’s pilot John Cota. The suit seeks compensatory damages reflecting past and future losses of affected fishermen, punitive damages, and the establishment of an environmental monitoring fund to ensure the public as to the long-term health and safety of fish caught in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Documents
First Amended Complaint PDF, 1MB
Merrill Lynch Accused of Hiding Subprime Losses
Acting on behalf of former First Republic Bank shareholders, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed suit against Merrill Lynch & Co., accusing the Wall Street investment bank of hiding billions of dollars of losses related to subprime mortgages while the companies' merger was pending. The class-action complaint was filed in January 2008 in U.S. District Court in New York. It accuses Merrill and several executives and directors, including former Chief Executive Stanley O'Neal, of misleading First Republic shareholders about its finances as they considered Merrill's $1.8 billion takeover of the company. "Merrill Lynch effectively hid its subprime exposure right up until the close of the merger," said Mark Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. Molumphy said former First Republic shareholders lost about $250 million because Merrill's share price declined in the weeks following the merger on September 21, 2007. Merrill disclosed a $5.5 billion write-down on October 5 and then on October 24, increased the write-down to $8.4 billion. Merrill had agreed in January 2006 to buy San Francisco-based First Republic, which specialized in serving wealthier customers. First Republic shareholders approved the transaction in July.
Suit Alleges Nursing Home Put Profits Above Care
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, acting on behalf of San Mateo County, filed suit against a Redwood City, California nursing home alleging it put profits above care in the near scalding death of a 51-year-old disabled woman. The victim, Theresa Rodriguez, a conservatee of the San Mateo County Public Guardian, currently is in an acute care unit at a hospital. She cannot communicate nor eat and is being kept alive on a feeding tube. The suit was filed by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and the San Mateo County Counsel's Office for the San Mateo Public Guardian. It seeks to recover damages for Ms. Rodriguez' near fatal injuries allegedly caused by ResCare, a corporation that operates homes for developmentally disabled persons and others in 34 states. The suit also seeks punitive damages and funding for future care. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Rodriguez suffered second and third degree burns on her genitals, thighs, stomach and lower back when she was put in a shower for 20 minutes with scalding, 130 to 135-degree temperature water on May 5, 2004 at the ResCare California Inc. facility on McGarvey Avenue in Redwood City. The injuries were compounded by staff who put her in a bed and left her alone for three and one-half hours before calling 911, the suit said. Following the 911 call, she was airlifted to a hospital burn unit where she was on a life support system for two months. The suit, filed in San Mateo County Superior Court in January 2006, also alleges a new water heater had been installed at the facility only days before the incident, that employees knew it was malfunctioning – producing 130 to 135-degree hot water -- and did nothing to remedy the problem. The suit said the staffer who put Ms. Rodriguez into the shower "was untrained and unqualified to work" with the victim. "This is a heartbreaking situation that would never have happened if proper staffing and training had been maintained," said Niall P. McCarthy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. "Unfortunately, this case is only the tip of the iceberg of abuse in nursing and care homes." In addition to damages, the suit seeks an injunction prohibiting ResCare from assigning untrained and unqualified staff to care for vulnerable clients.
Merck & Co. Sued by Several Plaintiffs
Several lawsuits have been filed by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and the Law Office of Donald L. Galine on behalf of the users of VIOXX. The suits accuse the maker of VIOXX, the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., of keeping the arthritis and acute pain medication on the market when it knew it was dangerous. Merck & Co. has since announced a worldwide withdrawal of the anti-inflammatory drug following government reports that people taking VIOXX are three times more likely to have heart attacks and strokes than people who take similar drugs.
Class Action Suit Filed Over Hidden Wireless Telephone Fees
AT&T Wireless, Sprint and Cingular Wireless have illegally charged subscribers for services, including "local number portability" fees, even though the services are not available, according to a class action lawsuit. The suit was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City, California, by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. The suit also accuses the carriers of including the fees "in obscurely worded line items on customers' bills such as Regulatory Program Fees or Regulatory Cost Recovery Fees which deceives customers." The suit said "local number portability" or LNP fees were being charged by the carriers despite the fact that the service did not go into effect until late 2003. At the same time, the suit said, the wireless carriers "have banded together to prevent implementation of the LNP program, and in effect, are charging customers to support their fight to keep in place barriers which make it more difficult for these customers to change companies." The federally-ordered LPN program allows wireless subscribers to change from one carrier to another and keep the same number. The case went to the Court of Appeal and is now back in the Superior Court.
Lawsuit Filed to Protect Northern California Salmon
A group of Klamath River tribal leaders, commercial fishermen and recreational business owners filed suit against Pacific Corp., contending two of its dams in Northern California are the cause of toxic algae that is decimating the salmon fishery and is a potential health hazard to humans. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in May 2007 by Joseph W. Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of Kennedy & Madonna of Hurley, New York. One of the main claims of the suit is that the "ceremonies and substance fishing for Yurok and Karuk tribes are under siege because of the deadly toxins created by PacifiCorp's dams," said Cotchett. The suit contends the reservoirs behind the Iron Gate and Copco dams near the Oregon border are a toxic nuisance and that Portland-based PacifiCorp should be enjoined from operating them in a way that causes an annual toxic bloom of algae because of improper intake and release of water. The suit said that for at least the last six years, PacifiCorp., whose hydroelectric operations provide power to customers in Oregon and California, has been aware of the toxic algae blooms but has failed to correct the situation.

Legal notice

This web site contains attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The choice of a law firm is extremely important and should not be based on advertisements. A potential client should look at the prior history of our firm and its role in society and the community, and our commitment to the cases we take. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of our firm. This site contains general information and not legal advice.