kirtland & packard llp michael louis kelly - state bar no ... · firm’s resume. see exhibit...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP

Michael Louis Kelly - State Bar No. 82063

[email protected]

Behram V. Parekh - State Bar No. 180361

[email protected]

Joshua A. Fields - State Bar No. 242938

[email protected]

2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor

El Segundo, California 90245

Telephone: (310) 536-1000

Facsimile: (310) 536-1001

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAQUEL RUBIO, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, et al.

Defendant.

Case No.: CV 07-06766 ABC (CWx)

Assigned to the Hon. Audrey B. Collins

DECLARATION OF BEHRAM V.

PAREKH IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES,

COSTS, AND SERVICE PAYMENT

Date: April 1, 2013

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 680 Roybal

Case 2:07-cv-06766-ABC-CW Document 114-2 Filed 02/22/13 of 10 Page ID #:1536

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF BEHRAM V. PAREKH

I, BEHRAM V. PAREKH, declare as follows:

1. I am of counsel to the firm of Kirtland & Packard, LLP (“K&P”). I

am submitting this declaration in support of my firm’s request for an award of

attorneys’ fees, expenses, and a service award to the named plaintiff and class

representative Raquel Rubio in connection with services rendered in the above-

entitled action.

2. The Firm is counsel of record for named plaintiff Raquel Rubio, and

was appointed to represent the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(g) by order dated November 29, 2012.

3. The identification and background of my firm and its partners is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. K&P is a full service law firm founded in 1932 specializing in

complex litigation, class action, and mass tort. The lead attorneys from the firm on

this matter, Michael Louis Kelly and myself, personally brought a wealth of class

action litigation experience to this matter. Mr. Kelly is a senior partner with K&P.

Mr. Kelly has practiced with the firm for his entire legal career spanning over 30

years, and has concentrated his trial practice in product liability, consumer class

actions and business litigation. He has tried many types of cases to successful jury

verdict, including obtaining a record setting individual discrimination verdict of

$63.9 million dollars in the PrivatAir case in 2005. He has worked tirelessly to

expand consumer protections. In the Indochina International case, Mr. Kelly

obtained a multi-million dollar verdict against several insurance companies when

they conspired to provide their insured a defense, but then wrongfully filed a

declaratory relief action against their insured, to attempt to reduce the money they

paid to injured third parties. This case created a new form of insurer liability to

insureds.


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. I am of counsel to K&P and have been litigating complex securities

and consumer class actions for my entire 17 year career. I have acted as lead or

co-lead counsel in numerous complex class action and mass tort cases, including

taking complex litigation through trial and appeal. I am also a graduate of the

Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution’s Alternative Dispute Resolution program,

which gives me a considerable advantage in effectively advocating the interests of

my clients and putative classes in arbitrations and mediations, as well as

understanding the dynamics of mediations, and how to use the mediation process

to effectively settle complex cases.

6. Along with Mr. Kelly and myself, K&P also has a full-fledged trial

and appellate practice, with countless verdicts and over 180 published opinions to

its credit since the Firm’s founding in 1932, a list of which is included in the

Firm’s resume. See Exhibit A. K&P has extensive experience in complex multi-

party and multi-district litigation, and has litigated, or is currently involved in

litigating, numerous complex JCCP and MDL proceedings, beginning with MDL-

13 in 1967.

7. K&P has acted as lead counsel in multiple successfully concluded

consumer class actions. Further, both Mr. Kelly and myself have litigated class

action, complex litigation, and mass tort claims for most of our legal careers and

have been appointed as lead counsel or a member of a lead counsel committee in

numerous complex class action cases, including currently serving as a member of

the lead counsel committee in In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration

Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2151 in the

Central District of California before Judge Selna, as co-lead counsel in In re: Apple

iPhone 4 Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2188 in the Northern District of

California before Judge Whyte, and as sole lead counsel in In re: Pom Wonderful

LLC Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL-2199, in the Central District

of California before Judge Pregerson, and in In re: Oreck Corporation Halo


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Vacuum Air Purifiers Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL-2317, in the

Central District of California before Judge Snyder.

8. Members of Kirtland & Packard have successfully served as lead or

co-lead counsel in countless complex, class action, and mass tort cases involving

products liability, securities, and employment issues, resulting in settlements or

verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. A partial list of such matters

includes:

$150,000,000 Drug liability litigation [parties confidential]

$63,900,000 Baker v. PrivatAir [age discrimination claim]

$18,500,000 Business litigation [parties confidential]

$12,200,000 Opperman v. Verizon [cellular class action claim]

$12,000,000 Great Escape Promotion Cases JCCP Proceeding [class action

claim]

$10,000,000 In re Mastec Inc. Securities Litigation [class action claim]

$7,000,000 Juvenile detention claim [Amande v. Los Angeles County]

$6,000,000 Defective roadway design [Meyers v. CalTrans]

$4,344,000 SUV design defect case [parties confidential]

$2,600,000 Insurance bad faith [Indochina v. Stratford Insurance Company]

9. I strongly support approval of the proposed settlement and believe that

the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Class.

10. I am informed and believe that, as of February 20, 2013, based upon

the claims administrator’s records, 99.4 percent of class members had received

individual direct notice of the settlement. Additionally, I am informed and believe

that, as of that date, the claims administrator was still attempting to reach the

additional 0.6 percent.

11. I am informed and believe that, as of February 20, 2013, based upon

the claims administrator’s records, only 24 individuals had opted out, representing

just a 0.01 percent opt-out rate.


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. K&P began investigating named plaintiff Raquel Rubio’s claims

against defendant Capital One in August 2007. Plaintiff’s original class action

complaint was filed on November 11, 2007 alleging causes of action for Breach of

Contract and violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200. K&P prepared

and filed a First Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. Capital One moved to

dismiss the Breach of Contract Claim, which this Court eventually granted, with

prejudice.

13. K&P researched and prepared a Second Amended Complaint which

was filed on April 10, 2008. Capital One filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint and to Strike Certain Remedies Sought on May 19,

2008. K&P researched and prepared an opposition to this motion to dismiss,

appearing in Court to argue the matter on August 11, 2008. The Court granted

Capital One’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety,

dismissing with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims.

14. On September 17, 2008, K&P filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s

Order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint. K&P then researched and

prepared Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opening Brief, filing it in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals on March 3, 2009. Later, after Capital One filed its own opposing brief,

K&P reviewed and researched the issues raised therein, and prepared Plaintiff-

Appellant’s Reply Brief, which was filed on March 18, 2009. On February 3,

2010, I appeared before the Ninth Circuit for oral argument on the appeal.

15. On July 21, 2010 the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Rubio v.

Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 131 S. Ct.

1817 (U.S. 2011), affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to this Court

for further proceedings. In response, Capital One filed a Petition for Panel

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc on September 1, 2010. K&P researched issues

related to opposing the Petition for Rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied on

September 29, 2010. Thereafter, Capital One filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on January 27, 2011. K&P reviewed and analyzed the Writ Petition and prepared

and filed an Opposition to the Writ Petition on March 2, 2011. On April 4, 2011,

the United States Supreme Court denied the Writ Petition.

16. On April 5, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued its Mandate to the trial

court. Thereafter, K&P prepared and served Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures on June

15, 2011. K&P then conferred with Capital One’s counsel and prepared and filed a

Joint Proposed Revised Scheduling Order on August 26, 2011.

17. Thereafter, the parties engaged in months of substantive and class

discovery, in preparation for Plaintiff’s filing of her Motion for Class Certification.

As part of the discovery process, K&P served and responded to significant written

discovery, reviewed well over 130,000 pages of responsive documents produced

by Capital One, conducted significant investigation of the underlying claims, and

worked with Plaintiff to prepare and serve voluminous and comprehensive

responses to Defendant’s document requests. K&P also prepared for and defended

Plaintiff at her full-day deposition by Capital One’s counsel.

18. K&P also engaged in numerous, lengthy, and highly contentious meet

and confer discussions with Capital One’s counsel regarding the discovery

propounded by both sides, and responses thereto. The meet and confer process

required numerous, lengthy conferences, as well as drafting of a substantial

number of extensive meet and confer letters. Additionally, due to filing deadlines,

the parties also drafted and exchanged completed Joint Stipulations on numerous

discovery issues in compliance with Local Rule 37-2, regarding the parties’

disputes over various written discovery items, in preparation for filing motions to

compel. However, these documents were ultimately not filed with the Court

because the discovery disputes were resolved at the eleventh hour.

19. After this lengthy and extensive discovery process, and the related

discovery disputes, K&P prepared and filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

Certification, and supporting documents, on January 23, 2012. Capital One filed a


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

substantial Opposition and K&P prepared and filed Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in

Support of Motion for Class Certification, and supporting documents, on April 9,

2012. On May 5, 2012, Capital One filed a further Response, which was, in effect,

a Sur-Reply, and K&P had to prepare and file an Objection thereto. K&P then

prepared for the expected hearing, scheduled for May 14, 2012.

20. In or about February 2012, while in the process of briefing class

certification, Plaintiff and Capital One agreed to mediate the issues set forth in the

operative Second Amended Complaint before the Honorable Steven R. Stone

(Ret.). The Parties proceeded with preliminary discussions related to contested

legal issues prior to the mediation, which included numerous telephone calls and

the submission of extensive mediation briefs, ultimately leading to an in-person

mediation with Justice Stone on March 20, 2012. The in-person mediation, while

making some progress, was ultimately unsuccessful. Justice Stone, however,

continued to be heavily engaged in ongoing heated and contentious negotiations,

and, just days prior to the hearing on class certification, on May 9, 2012, the

Parties, with substantial prodding from Justice Stone, finally agreed to preliminary

settlement terms. Ultimately, after months of further negotiation on the detailed

terms of the settlement, the Parties finalized the Settlement Agreement, which was

executed in full on August 23, 2012.

21. During discovery, K&P determined that there are 130,864 members of

the proposed Settlement Class representing 131,246 accounts, and that a

calculation of restitutionary damages for the entire proposed Settlement Class, i.e.

the excess of any finance charges assessed at the revised APR(s) over finance

charges calculated using the original fixed APR(s) for all affected customers in

California as of January 31, 2012, excluding any finance charges assessed at the

default annual percentage rate (“APR”) or credited (“Incremental Finance

Charges”) totals $26,268,335.


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. The total benefit obtained of $10 million on behalf of the Class

represents thirty-eight percent of the total class-wide restitutionary damages of

approximately $26 million.

23. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, each Settlement Class

Member receives a payment in the Benefit Amount: the amount of the Settlement

Class Member’s Incremental Finance Charges multiplied by the ratio of the Merits

Amount [the entire Settlement Payment of $10,000,000 less Court-approved

attorney’s fees and costs and the Service Payment (one-time payment to the Class

Representative)] divided by the total Incremental Finance Charges of the

Settlement Class, which are $26,268,335. Assuming the Court grants Plaintiff’s

requests as to fees, costs, and service payment, the pro-rata payment to each class

member is estimated to be at least 28 percent of the restitutionary damages suffered

by each class member.

24. Because K&P was able to negotiate a non-reversionary, non-claims-

made settlement, the amount of each Class Member’s damages are readily

calculable, and the identity and contact information for virtually all Class Members

is known, virtually one-hundred-percent of the recovery (minus fees and costs

awarded by this Court) will go directly to Class Members, without the class

members needing to even file a claim form.

25. The following information regarding the firm’s time and expenses is

taken from time and expense printouts prepared and maintained by the firm in the

ordinary course of business. I believe that the time reflected in the firm’s lodestar

calculation and the expenses for which payment is sought are reasonable in amount

and were necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the

litigation.

26. The total number of hours spent on this litigation by my firm to date is

3,581. The total lodestar for attorney time based on the firm’s current rates is


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

$2,203,762.50. The hourly rates shown below are the usual and customary rates

charged for each individual. A breakdown of the lodestar is as follows:

Lodestar from Inception to January 31, 2013

NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR

Fields, Joshua (SA) 1,991.75 525.00 1,045,668.75

Peterson, Heather (A) 8.50 425.00 3,612.50

Benakote, Amir (A) 7.50 425.00 3,187.50

Benakote, Amy (A) 50.75 425.00 21,568.75

Parekh, Behram (OC) 1,137.00 725.00 824,325.00

Kelly, Michael Louis (P) 361.50 800.00 289,200.00

Churella, Robert (P) 24.00 675.00 16,200.00

TOTAL 3,581.00 $2,203,762.50

(P) Partner

(SA) Senior Associate

(A) Associate

(OC) Of Counsel

27. I estimate K&P will spend at least 100 more hours to see this case

through its final resolution, including the drafting of briefing in support of final

approval, responding to further inquiries from Class Members, responding to any

objections that may be received, and attending the final approval hearing.

28. My firm seeks an award of $14,225.64 in expenses which were

reasonably and necessarily committed to the prosecution of the litigation. They are

broken down as follows:

Expenses from Inception to January 31, 2013

EXPENSE CATEGORY TOTAL

Mediation Fee $4,275.00

Photocopies ($0.25 per page) $2,035.25


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXPENSE CATEGORY TOTAL

Postage/Fedex/Courier/Records Retrieval $2,014.52

Filing Fees/Transcripts/Printing Fees $2,811.72

Expert Fees $1,618.75

Travel/Parking/Mileage/Meals $1,470.00

TOTAL $ 14,225.64

29. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the

Declaration of Raquel Rubio.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

and United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

22d day of February, 2012, at El Segundo, California.

/s/ Behram V. Parekh

BEHRAM V. PAREKH


EXHIBIT A

EX. A - 10

Case 2:07-cv-06766-ABC-CW Document 114-3 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1546

EX. A - 11


-1-

THE FIRM

INTRODUCTION

The law firm of Kirtland & Packardwas founded in 1932. It has grown froma local Los Angeles law office to aninternationally recognized law firm. TheFirm maintains offices in Los Angeles andSan Francisco.

Kirtland & Packard maintains ageneral civil litigation practice withemphasis in the areas of class action, masstort and complex litigation, aviation, auto,and aerospace product liability litigation, lifechanging personal injury litigation, complexbusiness litigation, and employmentlitigation. The firm further maintains abroad based litigation practice, representingclients in areas such as architecture andengineer ing, business planning,construction, employment and labor law,food service and hospitality, generalliability and casualty, health maintenanceorganizations, insurance, intellectualproperty and entertainment, medical mal-practice, professional liability, real estate,securities fraud and derivative actions, andtoxic torts.

The Firm values every clientrelationship. Each client of our firm isunique, and has a unique set of needs,problems, goals and solutions. It is ourmission to help them carefully define theseissues, and supply them with the highestquality of legal services calculated toexactly meet their particular needs. TheFirm takes pride in its over seventy-fiveyears of service to its clients and isconfident that it has the expertise and abilityto serve its diverse clientele with the bestlegal representation possible.

TRIAL PRACTICE

The attorneys of Kirtland & Packardare proud of their ski l ls andaccomplishments, first and foremost, astrial lawyers. The members of the Firmbelieve that only through maintaining astrong trial practice can a civil practice lawfirm provide the credibility necessary toeffectively and efficiently litigate cases onbehalf of its clients.

Partners of the Firm have beenselected for membership and are active inmany prestigious trial lawyer organizationsincluding the American Board of TrialAdvocates (ABOTA).

MAJOR PRACTICE AREAS

Class Action, Mass Tort and ComplexLitigation

Kirtland & Packard is one of theforemost class action and complex litigationfirms in the United States. The firm handlescases nationwide, and has been counsel inclass and mass tort actions involvingconsumer protection, products liability,insurance, breaches of financial andfiduciary obligations, toxic torts,pharmaceuticals, 401(k) losses, and wageand hour claims.

The Firm strives to use the classaction framework to create a real, tangibleand valuable benefit for the class membersthat it represents. Individuals who makethe important commitment to serve as classrepresentatives become an important partof the Firm’s class action claim. They arekept closely informed and involved in the

EX. A - 12


-2-

litigation, are involved in all key decisions,and participate closely in settlementnegotiations if and when they areundertaken. Members of the Firm leveragetheir extensive trial experience to prepareevery case in anticipation of trial, allowingthem to focus their pleadings, motionpractice, and discovery on the issues thatmatter.

Product Liability

The Firm's product liability practice isextensive and varied. The Firm representsboth consumer clients against companies,as well as representing aerospacecompanies, vehicle and componentmanufacturers in defending such cases.The Firm’s experience representing clientson both sides gives the Firm a uniqueperspective in how best to represent eachclient in such disputes and further allowsthe Firm to use its knowledge and expertisegained from prior representations toachieve the best result for each client.Typical clients of the Firm are consumers inclass action litigation, as well as majormanufacturers of wheels and tires, heavy-duty trailers, automobiles, motorcycles,aluminum products, and power tools.

Aviation/Aerospace

The Firm's practice includes allaspects of the field of aviation, includingrepresenting both consumers andcorporations. Kirtland & Packardrepresents consumers; private pilots; gen-era l and commerc ia l a i r f ramemanu fac tu re rs ; a i r c ra f t eng inemanufacturers; major commercial carriers;airports; fixed-base operators; overhaul,maintenance and repair facilities; andagricultural operations. The Firm also hasextensive experience representing itsaviation clients before the Federal Aviation

Administration and various federal andstate regulatory agencies.

The attorneys in the aviation section arebroadly experienced in trial work, and manyof them have extensive flying backgroundsas well as advanced university degrees invarious engineering disciplines.

Business Litigation

Kirtland & Packard has been veryactive in complex business litigationthroughout the Firm's history. Attorneys ofthe Firm have experience and expertise inmatters including contractual disputes,unfair business practices, corporate andpartnership dissolution, and disputesarising from non-competition agreements.The scope of litigation handled by the Firmis as broad and diverse as the businessneeds of its clients.

Employment and Labor Law

Kirtland & Packard represents bothindividuals and business management inevery aspect of employment and labor lawbefore courts and administrative agenciesat the federal, state and local levels. Wehave successfully sued employers for anddefended employers against claims ofwrongful termination, emotional distress,sexual harassment, hostile workenvironment, age, race and sexdiscrimination. The Firm’s ability torepresent clients in both situations gives itsattorneys a unique perspective in tailoringlitigation strategy as well as in the ability tocounsel its clients as to the appropriatevaluation of cases. Corporate clientsfurther receive expert assistance in mattersincluding review and preparation ofpersonnel policies and employmentagreements, review and drafting ofhandbooks on employment practices and

EX. A - 13


-3-

personnel procedures, workplace safetytraining and litigation (often arisingfrom claims of wrongful termination oremployment discrimination), all based onthe Firm’s real-world experience inrepresenting both employers andemployees.

Securities Fraud and Derivative Actions

Attorneys at Kirtland & Packard havesubstantial experience devoted to providingthe investing community with recourseagainst corporate fraud. In good economictimes, and in bad, corporations and theirofficers and directors often mislead theinvesting community into thinking that theirparticular company is financially strong andgrowing. When things are good, greed isusually the motive. When things are bad, itis often a desire to keep a company afloatwhich is the driving force. In eithersituation, the scheme is generallyaccomplished by disseminating false andmisleading information to the publicconcerning a company's current and futurefinancial condition in order to create anartificial demand for its stock. The endresult is often the same, the value of thecompany's securities is artificially inflateduntil the truth is ultimately disclosed. Whenthat happens, the price of the stock fallsdramatically and individual shareholders, aswell as institutions, lose millions and evenbillions of dollars.

To combat this type of fraud, theFirm aggressively uses federal securitieslaws, including the Securities Act of 1933(the "1933 Act") and the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), inthe class action context, to provide anavenue of relief for the investingcommunity. The Firm pursues these typesof actions against corporations, theirofficers and directors, and even other

professionals such as accounting firms andunderwriters when applicable. In additionto being very experienced in this area of thelaw, the Firm also consults withprofessionals in the fields of investigation,accounting and damages.

Another area of practice for the Firmincludes derivative actions. A derivativeaction is based upon a primary right of thecorporation, under state law, which isasserted on the company's behalf by astockholder because the directors of thecompany have failed to protect the interestsof the shareholders. Directors usually failto take the required action because theyhave a conflict of interest which benefitsthem, management, and/or a majorityshareholder, at the expense of otherstockholders. The stockholder usually suesthe directors on behalf of the company fora breach of their fiduciary duties, such asthe duties of loyalty, due care, anddisclosure. These types of breaches mayoccur in many different situations. Someexamples include an unfair buy-out orpurchase price in the merger context, whena public company decides to take thebusiness private at an unfair price, or whenofficers and/or directors engage inself-dealing at the expense of theirshareholders. A successful resolution of aderivative action may include monetaryrelief for the company's shareholders, thedisclosure of important informationconcerning a proposed transaction and/orchanges in corporate governance whichcan benefit current and future shareholdersof the corporation in the long term.

Architects and Engineers/Construction

Kirtland & Packard has substantialexperience and expertise in representingdesign professionals and contractors inconstruction-related litigation. In particular,

EX. A - 14


-4-

the Firm represents architects, civil,mechanical and structural engineers,surveyors, geotechnical personnel andrelated professionals in matters rangingfrom personal injury suits to complex designdefect claims. The Firm's representationincludes the defense of claims allegingdefective design work, cost overruns anddamages, delay disputes over payment andindemnity, and challenges arising out of thesupervision and oversight of projects, aswell as surety and lien defense. Kirtland &Packard is also active in the negotiation ofcontracts and fee agreements and the pre-litigation resolution of potential disputes.

Kirtland & Packard representsdevelopers, general contractors andsubcontractors in commercial andresidential construction litigation. The Firmdefends developers and other clients insuits by individual and corporate ownersand investors, homeowners associations,state and federal governments,municipalities (on projects ranging fromcondominium developments to regional andstate hospitals) prisons and other largefacilities. Due to its substantial experiencein this field, the Firm is fully knowledgeableregarding the specific requirements for suchprojects and the appropriate defensestrategy for litigation. Kirtland & Packardalso advises developers, generalcontractors and subcontractors on variousmatters and provides a variety of pre-litigation services.

Food Service and Hospitality

For decades, Kirtland & Packard hascounseled and defended clients in the foodservice and hospitality fields. Becauseclaims against these clients involve uniqueissues (including risk management issuesso crucial to successful operation), the Firmhas developed sub-specialties in the areas

of security, personnel issues, dram-shoplaw, food safety, premises liability andcontractual indemnity issues. Theattorneys of the Firm have earnednumerous defense verdicts in relatedclaims and continue to develop progressiveand effective loss prevention programs.

General Liability and Casualty

Kirtland & Packard is involved insuch diverse matters as fire loss,construction claims, and premises liability.These and other areas comprise part of theFirm's general liability practice.

Health Maintenance Organizations

Recent years have seen theexplosive growth of HMOs, PPOs and othergroup health care entities. To meet thespecific needs of group health clients,Kirtland & Packard expanded its expertisein HMOs and other health careorganizations. Kirtland & Packard healthcare specialists have tried numerousmedical/dental negligence cases (includingcases involving HMOs) with excellentresults.

Insurance

Kirtland & Packard has developeda highly advanced insurance practice forboth insurance companies and self-insuredclients. The Firm maintains an activeclaims management practice for numerousreinsurer and surplus line underwriters andalso represents major insurance companieson issues of coverage and defense as wellas individual claims.

Kirtland & Packard has representedinsurance companies in many large, multi-party declaratory relief actions pertaining tocoverage for asbestos and other

EX. A - 15


-5-

chemically-related torts. The Firm has alsobuilt a strong specialty in defendinginsurance companies against claims of badfaith.

Premises Liability

Kirtland & Packard has beenassisting clients with premises liabilitydisputes for decades. It is an area of lawaffecting all owners and renters of realproperty. Over the years the Firmhas developed premises liability sub-specialties in the areas of security, ADA,inspection and maintenance procedures,notice, construction/design, and contractualindemnity issues. The attorneys of the Firmhave performed awareness seminars forclients and their employees, consulted withclients to reduce premises liability exposureand earned numerous verdicts on behalf ofclients involved in premises liabilitylitigation.

Professional Liability

The Firm represents professionalsin such distinct fields as law, architecture,real estate, insurance, accounting,telecommunications, design and eng-ineering as well as corporate directors andofficers. The Firm's expertise in technicalfields has proven to be invaluable to itsbroad range of professional clients.

Recent years have seenconsiderable growth in claims againstinsurance and real estate brokers. TheFirm has responded by expanding itsresources in the fields of real estate,finance and agency law. Claimsagainst accountants constitute anothergrowing segment of professional liability.The Firm represents sole practitioners aswell as large national accounting firms.

Real Estate

Representation of real estate agentsand brokers, escrow companies, appraisalservices, building inspectors and relatedprofessionals constitutes another area ofpractice of the Firm. The Firm representsindividuals, professionals and entities incommercial and residential real estatelitigation, including actions allegingprofessional errors and omissions,misrepresentation and breach of contracts,as well as related business disputes.

Risk Management

Members of the Firm are active inthe fields of risk management and lossprevention. They assist many of the Firm'sclients in establishing and reviewinginternal procedures based upon the Firm’slong experience in litigating such claims.

Alternative DisputeResolution/mediation

Kirtland & Packard has developedextensive experience in structuring andconducting arbitrations, mediations, andother ADR processes. The Firmrecognizes that ADR is a concept whichcan be invaluable in the proper case orclaim. The Firm has handled ADR mattersin a variety of fields including consumerfraud, securities, construction, professionalliability, employment litigation, productliability and premises liability.

The Firm’s attorneys includeindividuals who have acted both asarbitrators and mediators themselves aswell as representing their clients in suchsituations, and include attorneys who havegone through the Straus Institute’snationally recognized dispute resolutioncertificate program.

EX. A - 16


-6-

APPELLATE OPINIONS AS OFJANUARY, 2011

2010 Rubio v. Capital One Bank 613 F.3d1195 (9th Cir. 2010)

2010 Verzani v. Costco Wholesale Corp.2010 WL 2838526 (2d Cir. 2010)

2010 Shroyer v. New Cingular WirelessServices, Inc. 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010)

2010 Adams v. Superior Court 2010 WL602515 (Cal. App. 4 Dist.)

2010 Sutton v. Pistone & Wolder LLP 2010WL 46859 (Cal. App. 4 Dist.)

2009 Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services,Inc. 177 Cal. App .4th 1235

2008 Weinstein v. Saturn Corp. 303Fed.Appx. 424 (9th Cir. 2008)

2007 Shroyer v. New Cingular WirelessServices, Inc. 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007)

2004 Dottie Goldstein et al v. RalphsGrocery Company 2004 122 Cal. App. 4th229.

2003 In Re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, NYon November 12, 2001 2003 WL 210320342003 (MDL 1448 (RWS))

2002 Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co.,28 Cal. 4th 222 (2002)

2002 Pedus Building Services, Inc. v. Allen,96 Cal. App. 4th 152 (2002)

1999 APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court,76Cal. App. 4th 176 (1999)

1999 Brockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co.,Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 71 (1999)

1998 Balthazor v. Little League Baseball,Inc.,62 Cal. App. 4th 47 (1998)

1998 Chung v. Tarom, S.A., 990 F. Supp.581 (N.D. Ill. 1998)

1996 Magnin v. Teledyne ContinentalMotors, 91 F. 3d 1424 (11th Cir. 1996)

1996 Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v.Superior Court, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1326(1996)

1996 Armstrong World Industrices, Inc. v.Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 45 Cal. App.4th 1 (1996)

1996 Tate v. Boeing Helicopters,921 F.Supp. 1562 (W.D. Ky. 1996) 55 F. 3d 1150(6th Cir. Ky. 1995)

1995 Pruyn v. Agricultural Ins. Co.,36 Cal.App. 4th 500 (1995)

1995 Mero v. Sadoff,31 Cal. App. 4th 1466(1995)

1994 Viner v. Brockway, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d718 (1994)

1994 Kerins v. Hartley,27 Cal. App. 4th1062 (1994)

1994 Linton v. Airbus Industrie, 30 F. 3d592 (5th Cir. Tex. 1994)

1994 Kern v. Jeppeson Sanderson, Inc.,867 F. Supp. 525 (S.D. Tex. 1994)

1993 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v.Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 26 Cal. Rptr.2d 35 (1993)

1992 Whittaker Corp. v. AllianzUnderwriters, Inc.,11 Cal. App. 4th1236(1992)

EX. A - 17


-7-

1992 Contreras v. Goldrich,10 Cal. App. 4th1431 (1992)

1992 Linton v. Airbus Industrie, 794 F.Supp. 650 (S.D. Tex. 1992)

1991 Williamson v. Teledyne ContinentalMotors Aircraft Products Div., 1991 WL249787 (E.D. Pa. 1991), 1990 WL 99756(E.D. Pa. 1990)

1991 Adams v. Murakami,54 Cal. 3d 105(1991), 228 Cal. App. 3d 885 (1990)

1991 Woods v. Young,53 Cal. 3d 315(1991), 246 Cal. Rptr.768 (1988)

1989 Harris v. Tashma, 258 Cal. Rptr. 20(1989)

1989 Marlene F. v. Affiliated PsychiatricMedical Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d 583 (1989)

1989 Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman MarinaHospital,208 Cal. App. 3d 405 (1989)

1988 Knighten v. Sam's Parking Valet,206Cal. App. 3d 69 (1988)

1988 Getty v. Getty,205 Cal. App. 3d 134(1988)

1988 In Re San Juan Dupont Plaza HotelFire Litigation, 687 F. Supp. 716 (D. PuertoRico 1988) (MDL 1448(RWS))

1988 Stanton v. Continental Cas. Co.,243Cal.Rptr. 147 (1988)

1987 U.S. v. Stringfellow,661 F. Supp. 1053(1987)

1987 Grimm v. Thayer,188 Cal. App. 3d866 (1987)

1986 Graham v.Teledyne-ContinentalMotors, a Div. of Teledyne Industries, Inc.805 F. 2d 1386 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986)

1986 Green v. Travelers Indemnity Co.,185 Cal. App. 3d 544 (1986)

1986 Swett v. Schenk,792 F. 2d 1447 (9thCir. Cal. 1986)

1986 Brimmer v. .California CharterMedical, Inc., 180 Cal. App. 3d 678 (1986)

1986 Covenant Mutual Ins. Co. v.Young,179 Cal. App. 3d 318 (1986)

1986 Budavari v. Barry,176 Cal. App. 3d849 (1986)

1985 Jaffe v. Cranford Ins. Co.,168 Cal.App. 3d 930 (1985)

1985 Iverson v. Superior Court,167 Cal.App. 3d 544 (1985)

1984 Gradus v. Hanson Aviation, Inc., 158Cal. App. 3d 1038 (1984)

1984 County of Los Angeles v. SuperiorCourt, 155 Cal. App. 3d 798 (1984)

1983 Hogen v. Valley Hospital,147 Cal.App. 3d 119 (1983)

1982 Weber Aircraft Corp., a Div. of WalterKidde and Co., Inc. v. U.S., 688 F. 2d 638(9th Cir. Cal. 1982)

1982 Garcia v. Douglas Aircraft Co.,133Cal. App. 3d 890 (1982)

1982 Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. v.McDonnell Douglas Corp., 677 F. 2d 771(9th Cir. Cal. 1982)

EX. A - 18


-8-

1982 S.A. Empressa De ViacaoAerea RioGrandense (Varig Airlines) v. Walter Kidde& Co., Inc.,690 F. 2d 1235 (9th Cir. Cal.1982)

1980 Stoddard v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc.,513 F. Supp. 314 (C.D. Cal. 1980)

1979 Evans v. Hawker-Siddeley Aviation,Ltd.,482 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)

1979 Robinson v. Pediatric AffiliatesMedical Group, Inc.,98 Cal. App. 3d 907(1979)

1979 Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co.,479 F.Supp. 727 (M.D. Pa. 1979)

1979 Baker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,96 Cal.App. 3d 321 (1979)

1979 Scandiavian Airlines System v. UnitedAircraft Corp., 601 F. 2d 425 (9th Cir. Cal.1979)

1979 Segura v. Brundage,91 Cal. App. 3d19 (1979)

1978 Insurance Co. of North America v.Sam Harris Constr. Co., 22 Cal. 3d 409(1978)

1978 Colby v. Schwartz,78 Cal. App. 3d885 (1978)

1977 Barton v. Owen,71 Cal. App. 3d 484(1977)

1977 Saxton v. McDonnell Douglas AircraftCo., 428 F. Supp. 1047 (1977) (MDL 172)

1977 Moncur v. City of Los Angeles,68 Cal.App. 3d 118 (1977)

1977 In Re Paris Air Crash of March 3,1974, 427 F. Supp. 701 (C.D. Cal. 1977)

1977 In Re Paris Air Crash of March 3,1974, 420 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1976),423 F. Supp. 367 (C.D. Cal. 1976)

1977 In Re Paris Air Crash of March 3,1974, 410 F. Supp. 326 (C.D. Cal. 1976),69 F.R.D. 310 (C.D. Cal. 1975)

1977 Flanagan v. McDonnell DouglasCorp.,428 F. Supp. 770 (C.D. Cal. 1977)

1976 Slapin v. Los Angeles InternationalAirport,65 Cal. App. 3d 484 (1976)

1976 Scherer v. Mark,64 Cal. App. 3d 834(1976)

1976 Singelyn v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App. 3d 972 (1976)

1976 Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital,18Cal. 3d 93 (1976)

1976 Beech Aircraft Corp. v. SuperiorCourt,61 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1976)

1976 Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft,420 F.Supp. 661 (1976)

1976 Taylor v. Union Pac. R. Corp.,16 Cal.3d 893 (1976), 50 Cal. App. 3d 271 (1975)

1976 Rousseff v. Western Airlines, Inc.,409F. Supp. 1262 (C.D. Cal. 1976)

1976 Kaiser Steel Corp.v. WestinghouseElec. Corp., 55 Cal. App. 3d 737 (1976)

1976 Aas v. Avemco Ins. Co.,55 Cal. App.3d 312 (1976)

1976 Scherer v. Mark,54 Cal. App. 3d 468(1976)

1976 Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital, 54Cal. App. 3d 270 (1976)

EX. A - 19


-9-

1974 Times Newspapers Ltd. (Of GreatBritain) v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 387F.Supp. 189 (1974)

1974 City of Los Angeles v. Japan Air LinesCo., Ltd., 41 Cal. App. 3d 416 (1974)

1974 Baker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,39 Cal.App. 3d 315 (1974)

1974 Cairl v. Boeing Co.,39 Cal. App. 3d137 (1974)

1974 Mitchell v. National Auto. & CasualtyIns. Co., 38 Cal. App. 3d 599 (1974)

1974 Pease v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,38 Cal.App. 3d 450 (1974)

1974 McCullum v. United Intern. Corp., 493F. 2d 501 (1974)

1974 Klingebiel v. Lockheed AircraftCorp.,494 F. 2d 345 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974)

1973 Arney v. U.S.,479 F. 2d 653 (9th Cir.Cal. 1973)

1973 Wint v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 9 Cal.3d 257 (1973)

1972 Cobbs v. Grant,8 Cal. 3d 229 (1972)

1972 Harbor Ins. co. v. Employers' SurplusLines Ins. Co., 26 Cal. App. 3d 559 (1972)

1972 Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. v. City ofBurbank,457 F. 2d 667 (9th Cir.Cal. 1972)

1971 Klingebiel v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,372 F. Supp. 1086 (N.D. Cal. 1971)

1971 Cal-Medicon v. Los Angeles CountyMedical Assn., 20 Cal. App. 3d 148 (1971)

1971 Citizens Cas. Co. v. Otis Clark &Co.,19 Cal. App. 3d 294 (1971)

1971 McGlenon v. Boeing Co.,437 F. 2d433 (9th Cir. Cal. 1971)

1970 Marincovich v. Oriana, Inc.,13 Cal.App. 3d 146 (1970)

1970 Hiemstra v. Huston, 12 Cal. App. 3d104 (1970)

1970 Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. v. City ofBurbank, 318 F. Supp. 914 (C.D. Cal.1970)

1970 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harris, Kerr,Forster & Co.,10 Cal. App. 3d 1100 (1970)

1970 City of Newport Beach v. Sasse,9Cal. App. 3d 803 (1970)

1970 Egly v. Superior Court,6 Cal. App. 3d476 (1970)

1969 Knox-Seeman Motor Parts, Inc. v.American Ins. Co., 2 Cal. App. 3d 173(1969)

1969 Berkey v. Anderson,1 Cal. App. 3d790 (1969)

1969 Cullum v. Seifer,1 Cal. App. 3d 20(1969)

1969 Rodde v. Trousdale Const. Co., 276Cal. App. 2d 419 (1969)

1969 Western Salt Co. v. City of NewportBeach, 271 Cal. App. 2d 397 (1969)

1968 Employers' Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v.Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 266 Cal. App. 2d183 (1968)

EX. A - 20


-10-

1968 Geddes v.Tri-State Ins. Co.,264 Cal.App. 2d 181 (1968)

1968 Patton v. Royal Industries, Inc.,263Cal. App. 2d 760 (1968)

1968 Dorobek v. Ride-A-White Stables,262Cal. App. 2d 554 (1968)

1968 Cunningham v. Burbank Bd. ofRealtors,262 Cal. App. 2d 211 (1968)

1968 City of Los Angeles v. Standard OilCo. of Cal., 262 Cal. App. 2d 118 (1968)

1968 Storey v. Garrett Corp.,43 F.R.D. 301(C.D. Cal. 1968)

1967 Mixon v. Riverview Hospital,254 Cal.App. 2d 364 (1967)

1967 Marcus v. Palm Harbor Hospital, Inc.,253 Cal. App. 2d 1008 (1967)

1967 Kemmerer Engineering Co. v.Continental Cas. Co.,253 Cal. App. 2d 188(1967)

1967 O'Reilly v. Board of MedicalExaminers,66 Cal. 2d 381 (1967), 55 Cal.Rptr. 152 (1966)

1967 Bledsoe v. Informative Research,257Cal. App. 2d 684 (1967)

1966 Schwartz v. Thiele,242 Cal. App. 2d799 (1966)

1966 Skyways Aircraft Ferrying Service,Inc. v. Stanton,242 Cal. App. 2d 272 (1966)

1966 Dunlap v. Marine,242 Cal. App. 2d162 (1966)

1966 Erickson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,240 Cal. App. 2d 793 (1966)

1965 Mission Ins. Co. v. Brown,63 Cal. 2d508 (1965)

1965 Olsen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 237Cal. App. 2d 737 (1965)

1965 Warren v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc.,352F. 2d 494 (9th Cir. Cal. 1965), 234 F. Supp.223 (S.D. Cal. 1964)

1965 Mission Ins. Co. v. Brown,43 Cal.Rptr. 518 (1965)

1964 Washington v. Blampin,226 Cal. App.2d 604 (1964)

1963 Civil Service Emp. Ins. Co. v. Wilson,222 Cal. App. 2d 519 (1963)

1963 McMahon v. Maddox,221 Cal. App.2d 119 (1963)

1963 Carrasco v. Bankoff,220 Cal. App. 2d230 (1963)

1963 Security-First Nat. Bank of LosAngeles v. Lutz, 322 F. 2d 348 (9th Cir.Cal. 1963)

1963 Myers v. Carter,215 Cal. App. 2d 238(1963)

1963 Dreybus v. Bayless Rents, 213 Cal.App. 2d 506 (1963)

1962 Wilson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,210 Cal. App. 2d 451 (1962)

1962 San Pedro Properties, Inc. v. Sayre &Toso, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 2d 750 (1962)

1962 Farnsworth v. Cote,199 Cal. App. 2d762 (1962)

1961 Cox v. Shepherd,199 F. Supp. 140(S.D. Cal. 1961)

EX. A - 21


-11-

1961 Security-First Nat. Bank of LosAngeles v. Lutz, 297 F. 2d 159 (9th Cir. Cal.1961)

1961 Di Muro v. Matserson Trusafe SteelScaffold Co., 193 Cal. App. 2d 784 (1961)

1961 Maben v. Rankin,55 Cal. 2d 139(1961), 4 Cal. Rptr. 731 (1960)

1960 Pacific Greyhound Lines v.Buerner,187 Cal. App. 2d 190 (1960)

1960 Continental Mfg. Corp. v.Underwriters at Lloyds London, 185 Cal.App. 2d 545 (1960)

1960 Campbell v. Magana,184 Cal. App. 2d751 (1960)

1960 Arvin-Kern Co. v. B.J. Service, Inc.,178 Cal. App. 2d 783 (1960)

1960 Rexall Drug Co. v. Nihill,276 F. 2d637 (1960)

1960 Vinnell Co. v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 52Cal. 2d 411 (1959), 334 P. 2d 139 (1959)

1959 Davis v. Goodrich,171 Cal. App. 2d92 (1959)

1959 McDonald v. Foster MemorialHospital, 170 Cal. App. 2d 85 (1959)

1958 Lewis v. Franklin,161 Cal. App. 2d177 (1958)

1957 Mayers v. Litow,154 Cal. App. 2d 413(1957)

1957 Calvin v. Thayer,150 Cal. App. 2d 610(1957)

1956 Landsberg v. Kolodny, 145 Cal. App.2d 158 (1956)

1956 Alwood v. City of Los Angeles, 139Cal. App. 2d 49 (1956)

1956 Agnew v. City of Compton,239 F. 2d226 (9th Cir. Cal. 1956)

1956 Spencer v. Beatty Safway ScaffoldCo., 141 Cal. App. 2d 875 (1956)

1956 Smith v. National BroadcastingCo.,138 Cal. App. 2d 807 (1956)

1955 Potter v. Richards,132 Cal. App. 2d380 (1955)

1955 Seneris v. Haas,45 Cal. 2d 811(1955)

1955 Dragna v. White,45 Cal. 2d 469(1955)

1955 Anderson v. No-Doz, 134 Cal. App.2d 11 (1955)

1955 Miller v. Glass,44 Cal. 2d 359 (1955),274 P. 2d 669 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 1954)

1955 Potter v. Richards,132 Cal. App. 2d380 (1955)

1955 Seneris v. Haas,281 P. 2d 278 (1955)

1955 Dragna v. White,280 P. 2d 817 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1955)

1953 Bates v. Newman,121 Cal. App. 2d800 (1953)

1953 Curland v. Los Angeles County FairAss'n, 118 Cal. App. 2d 691 (1953)

1953 Farber v. Olkon,40 Cal. 2d 503(1953), 246 P. 2d 710 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.)

1951 Champion v. Bennetts,37 Cal. 2d 815(1951), 231 P. 2d 108 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.)

EX. A - 22


-12-

1951 Huffman v. Lindquist,37 Cal. 2d 465(1951)

1951 Romero v. Eustace,101 Cal. App. 2d253 (1951)

1950 Kritzer v. Citron,101 Cal. .App. 2d 33(1950)

1950 Kleinberg v. Underwriters at Lloyd'sLondon, 98 Cal. App. 2d 119 (1950)

1950 Larsson v. Cedars of LebanonHospital,97 Cal. App. 2d 704 (1950)

1950 McMillen v. Douglas Aircraft Co.,90 F.Supp. 670 (S.D. Cal. 1950)

1950 City of Beverly Hills v. Brady,34 Cal.2d 854 (1950), 205 P. 2d 1088 (Cal. App. 2Dist. 1949)

1950 Sales Affiliates v. Superior Court inand for Los Angeles County, 96 Cal. App.2d 134 (1950)

1949 Moore v. Belt,34 Cal. 2d 525 (1949)

1948 Whitfield v. Jessup, 31 Cal. 2d 826(1948), 183 P. 2d 133 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.)

1947 McCurdy v. Hatfield,30 Cal. 2d 492(1947), 173 P. 2d 670 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.)

1947 Church v. Bloch,80 Cal. App. 2d 542(1947)

1946 Rafter v. Dubrock's Riding Academy,75 Cal. App. 2d 621 (1946)

EX. A - 23


-13-

MEMBERS OF THE FIRM

Michael Louis Kelly (Managing Partner)

Mr. Kelly is recognized as one of the topconsumer trial lawyers in the country. Hisnumerous jury verdicts have set records fornot only verdict size, but have alsoexpanded consumer protections andsafeguards. He serves as senior andmanaging partner of the firm, with which hehas spent his almost 30 years of practice.

Mr. Kelly's most recent recognitions include:

Recognition by LAWYERS WEEKLY USA intheir TOP 10 USA Verdicts for 2005 for his$63.9 million verdict in the employmentdiscrimination case of Baker v. PrivatAir;

Recognition by LAWDRAGON as one of theLeading 500 Plaintiffs' Lawyers in America

Recognition by LAWDRAGON as one of theLeading 500 Lawyers in America

Recognition as one of the SouthernCalifornia Super Lawyers

Recognized by The American Trial LawyersAssociation as one of the Top 100 TrialLawyers in California.

In order to most effectively represent hisdiverse clientele, Mr. Kelly has assembled ateam of talented attorneys whose varyingspecializations combine to provide acomprehensive client resource. They havelitigated cases involving massive productrecalls, catastrophic personal injury andwrongful death, various types of classactions, employment and discriminationclaims, copyright, toxic tort claims, unfaircompetition, trade secrets, mass disastersand other complex litigation claims. His

firm's high profile practice has resulted inrecord setting verdicts and settlements.

Mr. Kelly lives in Hermosa Beach with hiswife, Lindsey, an entertainment attorneyand executive, and daughter Morgan. Heenjoys flying, motorcycle riding andrestoring classic sports cars.

Selected Prior Results:

$ 63,900,000 Verdict in the agediscrimination case of Baker v. PrivatAir

$ 18,500,000 Settlement in investmentbanking fraud case [parties confidential]

$ 12,200,000 Settlement in the classaction case of Opperman v. Verizon

$ 12,047,508 Settlement in the classaction of Seibel v. Ralphs

$ 7,000,000 Settlement in injured minor injuvenile detention case of ‘Minor A’ v. LosAngeles County

$ 6,000,000 Settlement in defectiveroadway design case of Meyers v. AmadorCounty and CalTrans

$ 4,344,000 Settlement in SUV designdefect case [parties confidential]

$ 2,600,000 Verdict in the insurance badfaith case of Indochina v. StratfordInsurance Company

$ 2,300,000 Settlement in commercialproducts claim [parties confidential]

$ 1,600,000 Settlement in private aircraftaccident [parties confidential]

EX. A - 24


-14-

$ 1,200,000 Settlement in a sexual assaultby a celebrity [parties confidential]

$ 1,100,000 Settlement for Insurer's badfaith denial of breast reconstructive surgery[parties confidential]

$ 1,000,000 Settlement in falling death ofminor child in Bae v. Berendo

Born in John Day, Oregon,September 21, 1953; Admitted to bar, 1978,California; 1984, U.S. Trust Territory of thePacific Islands; 1987, Colorado; 1987, U.S.Supreme Court. Further admitted to thebars of various United States Courts ofAppeal and United States District Courts.

Education: Seattle University (B.A., 1975);University of Idaho (J.D., 1978). Member,Idaho Law Review, 1976-1977; Board ofEditors, 1977-1978; Comments Editor, 1977-1978.

Authored: "Negotiation of a SharingAgreement Between an Operator and aManufacturer," Sixth National Instituteon Litigation in Aviation, American BarAssociation, May 1987; "Determining WhoWas Pilot in Command," Litigation News,March 1991; "Hope on the Horizon ThatGeneral Aviation Sales Will Take Flight withProduct Liability Reform," Aviation Journalof the American Bar Association, Volume II,Number I, 1992.

Member, State Bar of California Member, State Bar of Colorado Member, American Bar Association (Vice Chairperson, Committee on AviationLitigation, 1990-1992; Member, Section ofTort and Insurance Practice; Member,Section of Science and Technology)Member, Los Angeles County BarAssociationMember, South Bay Bar Association

Member, Lawyer-Pilot's Bar Association Member, Association of Trial Lawyers ofAmericaMember, Consumer Attorneys of CaliforniaMember, Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt Settlement Programs Member, Association of Business TrialLawyers

AV Rated: Martindale Hubbell [Very Highto Preeminent]

E-mail: [email protected]

Robert A. Muhlbach (Partner)

Born in Los Angeles, California,April 13, 1946; Admitted to bar, 1976,California.

Education: University of California,Berkeley (B.S., Mechanical Engineering,1967); California State University, LongBeach (M.S., Mechanical Engineering,1969); University of Southern California(M.P.A., 1978); Hastings College of Law,University of California (J.D., 1976).Member, Hastings Constitutional LawQuarterly, 1975-1976. Public Defender,Los Angeles County, 1977-1979.

Member of: State Bar of California;American Bar Association; InternationalAssociation of Defense Counsel; AmericanBoard of Trial Advocates; AmericanInstitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics;Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association;Association of Southern California DefenseCounsel. [Capt., Pilot, USAF, 1969-1973.]


EX. A - 25


-15-

Steven M. Maslauski (Partner)

Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, October 9,1959; Admitted to bar, 1985, California.

Education: Northwestern University (B.A.,1981); Pepperdine University (J.D., 1984).

Member of: State Bar of California;American Bar Association (Member, Sectionon Litigation); Association of SouthernCalifornia Defense Counsel; DefenseResearch Institute, American Board of TrialAdvocates.


James T. La Chance (Partner)

Born in Huron, South Dakota, June26, 1957; Admitted to bar, 1982, California.

Education: California State University atLong Beach (B.A., 1979); California StateUniversity at Fullerton; Loyola Law School,Los Angeles (J.D., 1982). Pi Sigma Alpha.

Member of: State Bar of California;American Bar Association.

Languages: French.


Mark E. Goldsmith (Partner)

Born in Chicago, Illinois, January 25,1960; Admitted to bar, 1987, California, U.S.Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and U.S.District court, Northern District of California;1989, U.S. District Court, Central District ofCalifornia; 1991, U.S. District Court,Southern and Eastern Districts of California.

Education: University of Wisconsin,Madison (B.A., 1982); Hastings College ofthe Law, University of California (J.D.,1985).

Member of: State Bar of California; LosAngeles County Bar Association.


Daniel J. Quisenberry (Of Counsel)

Mr. Quisenberry is a litigationattorney with close to twenty years ofexperience litigating cases across theUnited States, as well as trademark,internet and copyright matters worldwide.Mr. Quisenberry began his practice inmusic, business disputes and trademarkmatters, and expanded his practice overthe years to emphasize the litigation ofcomplex business, entertainment andintellectual property issues, including unfaircompetition, directors’ and officers’ liability,and shareholder, partnership, and realestate disputes.

Mr. Quisenberry has alsosuccessfully represented clients (bothplaintiffs and defendants) in litigationregarding commercial lease disputes andreal property purchase, sale, andexchange transactions. In addition, he hasrepresented clients with regard to claimsand adversarial complaints in the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Court and in securitiesarbitrations.

Mr. Quisenberry also consults withand advises businesses on the protectionand expansion of their trademark,marketing, and intellectual property rights.

Admitted to the bar, California. Alsoadmitted to the bars of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;

EX. A - 26


-16-

United States District Courts for the, Central,Eastern and Southern Districts of California

Education: Summa Cum Laude and PhiBeta Kappa from the University of CaliforniaSan Diego in 1990; University of California,Los Angeles School of Law (J.D. 1994)

Member of: State Bar of California;American Bar Association.


Behram V. Parekh (Of Counsel)

Mr. Parekh has represented bothindividuals and institutions in complexlitigation matters. Cases in which Mr. Parekhhas served as plaintiffs' counsel haveresulted in recoveries to plaintiffs and classmembers in excess of 200 million dollars.Mr. Parekh has been appointed as lead orco-lead counsel in numerous cases in thesecurities field, as well as in the litigation ofconsumer fraud, false and misleadingadvertising, unfair competition, and drugliability cases.

Selected Prior Results:

$ 150,000,000 Drug Liability Litigation[parties confidential]

$ 42,000,000 In re Apria Healthcare GroupSecurities Litigation

$ 24,000,000 In re Purchasepro.com Inc.Securities Litigation

$ 18,500,000 Business Litigation [partiesconfidential]

$ 15,000,000 In re Lantronix Inc. SecuritiesLitigation

$ 12,000,000 Great Escape PromotionCases Coordinated Proceeding

$ 10,000,000 In re Mastec Inc. SecuritiesLitigation

$ 7,400,000 In re Resource AmericaSecurities Litigation

$ 5,400,000 In re Ascend CommunicationSecurities Litigation

Born in Bombay, India, March 2,1969; Primary/Secondary Schoolcompleted in Hong Kong. Admitted to bar,1995, California. Also admitted to the barsof the United States Supreme Court;California Supreme Court; United StatesCourts of Appeals for the Second, Ninthand Tenth Circuits; United States DistrictCourts for the Central, Eastern, Northernand Southern Districts of California, Districtof Colorado, Western District of Michigan,and Northern District of Oklahoma.

Education: University of California, Irvine(B.A. 1992); Pepperdine University Schoolof Law (J.D., cum laude, 1995); StrausInstitute for Dispute Resolution, Certificatein Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1995.

Recipient of: American JurisprudenceAward for Wills & Trusts

Recognition: Southern California SuperLawyers

Member of: State Bar of California;American Bar Association; Los AngelesCounty Bar Association; American TrialLawyers Association; Consumer Attorneysof California; Public Justice Foundation.

Languages: Gujrati


EX. A - 27


-17-

Jessica E. Carranza

Born in Santa Ana, El Salvador,March 3, 1978; Admitted to bar, 2004,California; 2004 U.S. District Court, CentralDistrict of California.

Education: Florida International University(B.A. Political Science, cum laude, 2000);Loyola Law School, Los Angeles (J.D.2003).

Member of: State Bar of California,American Bar Association, Los AngelesCounty Bar Association

Languages: Spanish.


Joshua A. Fields

Born in Bronx, NY, 1972; Admitted toBar, 2006, California; United StatesSupreme Court; California Supreme Court;United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit; United States District Courts for theCentral, Eastern, and Southern Districts ofCalifornia.

Education: Harvard University (A.B. CumLaude 1995); Tulane University (J.D.,Environmental Law Certificate, 2005);Managing Editor, The Tulane EnvironmentalLaw Journal; Judicial Intern to the HonorableLouise Gans, New York State SupremeCourt, 2003.

Recognition: S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i aSuperlawyers - Rising Stars

Member of: State Bar of California

Publications: Recent Development: EngineManufacturers Association v. South Coast

Air Quality Management District, 18 Tul.Envtl. L.J. 258 (2004).


Heather M. Baker

Born in Orange, California, 1982;Admitted to bar, 2008, California;California Supreme Court, United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;United States District Courts for theCentral, Eastern, Northern, and SouthernDistricts of California.

Education: University of SouthernCalifornia (B.A., Political Science andPsychology, magna cum laude, 2005);Judicial Clerkship for Honorable KathleenThompson, United States BankruptcyCourt for the Central District (Fall 2006);Pepperdine University School of Law (J.D.,2008); Certificate in Dispute Resolution,Pepperdine University School of Law(2008).

Recognition: S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i aSuperlawyers - Rising Stars

Member of: State Bar of California;American Bar Association; Los AngelesCounty Bar Association


Amir D. Benakote

Born in Los Angeles, California,1982; Admitted to bar, 2011, California;United States District Courts for theCentral and Southern Districts ofCalifornia.

Education: University of California, Los

EX. A - 28


-18-

Angeles (B.A. in Psychology, 2004); LoyolaLaw School (J.D./MBA, 2010)

Member of: State Bar of California

Languages: Spanish, Hebrew


EX. A - 29


EX. B - 30


EX. B - 31


EX. B - 32


EX. B - 33


EX. B - 34


EX. B - 35


kirtland & packard llp michael louis kelly - state bar no ... · firm’s resume. see exhibit...

Documents