|
Class Actions
The
class action format of litigation was created by the Ohio State Legislature in
the form of Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. A similar rule exists
in the Federal Court System with essentially the same provisions. A class action
lawsuit allows individual plaintiffs to group together to pursue common rights.
In order for a case to be pursued as a class action, the
trial court must find that seven (7) requirements have been met. Essentially,
the court must find that the legal and factual issues that are common to the
class members dominate over individual questions. The court must believe that a
class action is a more efficient and just form of litigation than the pursuit of
countless individual lawsuits. If the case proceeds as a class action, the trial
court will approve one or more plaintiffs to act as representatives of the
class. These people, with the advice of their attorneys, are the decision
makers. Their claims must be typical and consistent with those of the other
class members.
Advantages of a class action can be significant. The
sharing of costs between many plaintiffs can make expensive litigation
economically feasible. The combination of resources of several different law
firms that group together to pursue the rights of an entire class of individuals
results in a greater level of resources being allocated to reaching a result
that will benefit many. The class action can level the playing field,
particularly when the defendant is a large corporation with limitless resources.
A misconception concerning class actions is that whatever
money is obtained will be divided equally among class members. Such a division
would undoubtedly lead to inequity when individual members have suffered
different degrees of injury or damage. In the vast majority of class actions,
the division of settlement proceeds is done with consideration for the
individual nature and degree of damage suffered by each plaintiff. Formulas,
damage criteria or trials relating to damages only are just some of the
procedures that have been utilized to give consideration to the individual
nature of damages.
Another misconception is that a person has no choice as to
whether to pursue his or her case individually or to be a member of a class
action. Except for very specific circumstances, this is untrue. The vast
majority of class actions have what is known as a "opt out" period.
This is a period of time within which a member of the class has the right to
decide that they would rather pursue their case individually and not participate
as a class member.
The 1990's saw Weisman, Goldberg & Weisman devote
considerable time and resources to class action and mass tort litigation. The
firm found that the concept of bonding together large numbers of similarly
wronged persons could be of great advantage to the individuals involved. The
firm started into mass tort litigation by successfully representing over 50
clients who had been injured by an over-the-counter drug called L-Tryptophan.
Injuries ranged from death and paralysis to excessive fatigue.
1992 saw the beginning of the national breast implant
litigation. The firm's leadership role began when it was chosen to sit on the
National Settlement Committee and act as Liaison Counsel for the state of Ohio.
It's lawyers spoke at national seminars and played a significant role in the
discovery process. Over 700 clients were represented by Weisman, Goldberg &
Weisman.
The firm was next chosen by the Federal Court to act as
liaison counsel between the Court and all injured victims in the U.S. Air plane
crash at LaGuardia Airport.
At about this same time, a world-wide class action was
filed against Telectronics and its Australian parent for the improper design of
a heart pacemaker lead. Weisman, Goldberg & Weisman was chosen as a member
of the Lead Counsel Committee. In 1997, the firm acted as trial counsel in a
summary jury trial that resulted in a verdict of $265 million against
Telectronics. The firm was thereafter part of the negotiating team that settled
the case on a national level for $95 million. By that time, Telectronics was out
of business and had limited assets.
With so much time devoted to the pacemaker case, Weisman,
Goldberg & Weisman participated, but to a lesser degree, in the surgical
screw litigation that had been consolidated in Philadelphia.
In May 2000, the Fen-Phen (diet drug) litigation settled
in the form of a class action. The settlement amount was $4.8 billion. Weisman,
Goldberg & Weisman was chosen to act as legal counsel for the sub-class of
people who had sustained the most significant injuries. The firm's lawyers were
instrumental in the development of the case on a national level and continue to
represent some of the more significantly injured individuals in the case.
In the area of commercial and security fraud litigation,
the lawyers of Weisman, Goldberg & Weisman have been very active. The firm
has acted as lead or class counsel in successfully litigating cases against Blue
Cross Blue Shield (insurance fraud), Community Mutual of Ohio (insurance fraud),
Valley Systems (security fraud), Meadowbrook Industries (security fraud), Figgie
International (security fraud).
|
|
