September 30, 2004 - Arthritis drug Vioxx was pulled from the market by Merck & Company after a study found the popular drug doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
KPA is currently litigating hundreds of claims in the $4.85 billion Vioxx Settlement, and is in the process of filing settlement claims for individual disbursements.
Many consumers have been faced with "low ink" or "change toner" warnings issued by their printers, even though they may be able to print hundreds of pages more. Some printers even refuse to complete print jobs until the low ink cartridge is replaced - even though it may still have ink remaining!
If you have been forced to replace your ink or toner cartridge earlier than necessary-- and wasting precious money buying new cartridges--you need to read more about the unneccessary replacement of faulty ink and toner cartridges.
On September 28th the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification in Cohen v. Direct TV, Inc. The Court's Opinion, which is unpublished, concluded that the trial court correctly denied class certification of a class action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) because the proposed class included persons who had not viewed alleged deceptive promotions by Direct TV.
However, this decision conflicts with the California Supreme Court’s analysis in In Re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), which recently rejected the argument that a UCL class action could not be certified absent a showing that all class members relied on an alleged deceptive promotion to their detriment. Under settled California law, the public is entitled to broad protections under the UCL regardless of whether absent class members sustained a direct injury as the result of alleged deceptive advertising.
A detailed discussion of the issues presented by Cohen is addressed at the Bailey Class Action Daily.
In March 2007, Caremark Rx, Inc. completed its merger with CVS Corporation. This union has had a significant negative impact on patients’ access to the pharmacy of their choice as Caremark Rx, Inc. has been forcing its insured to get their prescriptions from out-of-state mail order warehouses and away from their local community pharmacist. In addition, CVS pharmacy benefit managers have steered patients to their own drugstores by raising co-pays for drugs bought elsewhere or by requiring that they be purchased at CVS. This has particularly been difficult for some patients who have been with the same pharmacy for literally decades.
Eight members of Congress — four Democrats and four Republicans — have asked the Federal Trade Commission in a letter to reopen its investigation into the 2007 merger, citing concerns about competition and consumer privacy. In a letter signed by Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.; Marion Berry, D-Ark.; John Boozman, R-Ark.; Michael Acuri, D-N.Y.; Mike Rogers, R-Mich.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Robert Aderholt, R-Ala.; and Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, the lawmakers said the merger created opportunities for the company to enrich itself at the expense of competition and consumers.
Among the company’s practices have been putting consumers on a “maintenance choice” program, under which they can only get their prescriptions by mail or at CVS pharmacies, without their permission; charging lower co-pays to members who fill their prescriptions at CVS pharmacies; misusing information collected by Caremark to find out if customers are using non-CVS pharmacies, and then advising them not to; and co-branding its prescription drug card in a way that falsely suggests it can only be used at CVS pharmacies, the letter said.
While the FTC is looking into the issues revolving around the merger, privately owned pharmacies continue to lose their patients and long time customers thanks to the company’s practices. We can assist these pharmacies in protecting their rights against such practices.
Subscribe to KPA senior associate Matt Bailey's blog today to get your daily dose of class action legal updates.
Bailey Class Action Daily is the newest source of news and discussion on cutting edge class action issues across the US!
A recent study based on workers in Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago found that low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage. In addition, at least 68% of workers interviewed had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous workweek. This study, the most comprehensive examination of wage-law violations in a decade, demonstrates how important California’s wage and hour laws are.
Of particular note, the study revealed that women were far more likely to suffer minimum wage violations than men, with female illegal immigrants suffering the most. Among American-born workers, African Americans had a violation rate nearly triple that for whites.
According to the study, employees are losing $51 a week, of the average weekly earnings of $339. That is a great deal of money to someone living at or below the poverty level, and demonstrates how important it is that workers know their rights. For example, how many workers know they are entitled to time and a half if they work over 8 hours in one day or 40 hours in one week? And if they work off the clock, do they know they are entitled to pay for that time worked, or do they think it is just another “policy” that they have to endure?
This study demonstrates that workers need advocates to stop hold employers liable for wage and overtime violations.
In my relatively new legal career I have only had one opportunity to argue in front of a federal court judge and I remember the experience vividly. That being said, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that when I saw his picture in the news recently it grabbed my attention. However, after reading the article I realized that the first time I had argued in front of Judge Stephen G. Larson would also be my last. Judge Larson has announced that he will be stepping down on November 2, 2009 to enter the private practice.
The reason for this move…the $169,000 salary.
Judge Larson is one of a number of judges from the Central District of California to step down for financial reasons. From 1998 to August 2009, seven federal district court judges have stepped down for higher pay.Some even stepping down to state judicial positions, which apparently consist of a higher salary.
Although his salary may seem pretty high compared to what the average Californian makes, in the legal world, not so much. I have friends and colleagues who were getting paid the same if not more than that in their first and second years out of law school. Some, ironically, from firms like O’Melveny & Myers, where Judge Larson started his legal career at.
It seems that the prestige and honor that comes with being appointed a District Court judge sometimes fades when the reality of the monetary value put on that appointment kicks in. It seems to beg the question of whether this would deter people who otherwise would be wonderful assets to the bench from ending up there, or in the alternative, remaining there.
Check out the KPA October 2009 Newsletter which includes articles by associates Katie McSweeney, Abi Gnanadesigan and Deborah Khantamour.
.jpg)
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a decision rendered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Talamantes v. Leyva. . Plaintiff, formerly a jail inmate, sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Central District of California which dismissed his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action against defendant Los Angeles County, the sheriff’s department, and other employees and officials, on the grounds that the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (hereinafter PRLA) under U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Plaintiff had been held in the county jail for eight weeks. He alleged that certain events violated his constitutional rights, and he filed a complaint more than one year after his release from the county jail. The district court held that Plaintiff was required to exhaust his remedies under U.S.C.S. §1997e (a) even though he was no longer in custody.
The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the plain and unambiguous language of the statute made it clear that the exhaustion requirement applied only to “prisoners.” “It is well settled that in a statutory construction case, analysis must begin with the language of the statute itself; when the statute is clear, ‘judicial inquiry into [its] meaning, in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, is finished.” United States v. Carter, 421, F.3d 9-09, 911 (9th Cir. 2005), quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., (1992) 505 U.S. 469, 475, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 120 L.Ed.2d 379. The PLRA provides that: "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C.1997e(a). The Court joined its sister circuits and held that only individuals who were prisoners as defined by §1997e (h) at the time the lawsuit is filed were required to comply with the exhaustion requirement of U.S.C.S. §1997e (a).
At least for individuals on parole, the often daunting provisions of the PRLA as to exhaustion of internal grievance remedies are now sidelined by the ruling of the Ninth Circuit. Prisoners complained of grievance complaints being lost, destroyed or ignored during the grievance and appeals procedures of the prison and were frustrated leading them to give up on the process. Parolees no longer have to deal with the bureaucratic process, unless Congress decides to change the rules.
...you learn something new every day! Yesterdays post included lessons one and two, today's post will continue with lessons three and four:
Lesson 3: Demonstrative evidence is very important. This case involved dry testimony about appraised values, “comparable sales” and square footage. The homeowner’s appraiser testified purely from a report without the assistance of demonstrative evidence. It fell flat for most jurors. On the other hand, the LAUSD appraiser’s testimony was presented with photos of the homes that were used in her appraisal report and colorful charts and maps, all of which kept our attention when she testified late in the day and which we frequently referred to in the jury room. Even the more rudimentary demonstrative evidence was helpful. Both attorneys made handwritten charts on butcher paper that helped clarify the testimony. These charts were posted on the bulletin board in the jury room.
Lesson 4: Most in the jury reached a conclusion early, largely on a gut reaction. We started our deliberations by asking everyone to provide “pros and cons” about the two witnesses. (It was obvious that virtually all jurors had paid close attention during the trial.) After that, as the end of the first day neared, one juror observed that there was one property common to both appraisals as a “comparable sale” and that if we used the square footage sale price for that property multiplied by the square footage of the Plaintiff’s home that the value was $400,000. Eight of the jurors quickly announced that this was their verdict. One juror almost provided the ninth vote which would have resulted in a verdict after only 2 hours of deliberations. I sensed that almost all jurors were critical of both appraisal reports but found the LAUSD appraiser to be more credible and were searching for a formula or rationale to reach a number in between the two appraisals but more in line with the LASUSD number. We agreed to break for the day and explore this methodology and others in the morning. The next day we tried other more complex formulas that involved throwing out some of the “suspect” sales from both reports and running our own numbers based on the “good” comparable sales. It turned out that no matter what formula we used we came out at a value that hovered around $400,000, which ultimately was our non-unanimous verdict (11-1). ($400,000 was $20,000 more than the LAUSD appraisal and $35,000 less than the homeowner’s appraisal).
I came away from my experience on the jury with a renewed faith in the jury system and impressed with how seriously jurors took their job and the careful consideration given by most. I highly recommend that the next time you see your jury summons that you don’t be so quick to begin thinking up excuses as to why you can’t serve. From the perspective of a trial lawyer, I found the experience invaluable.
A few weeks ago, I was called for jury service at the Los Angeles County Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles. I had every reason to believe that I would not be selected to serve because in my prior experiences with jury service I was not- chosen because one of the attorneys was afraid to have an attorney on the jury, especially one that does exclusively plaintiff’s work. Much to my surprise I was selected this time. (In voir dire , I told counsel that I was an attorney but was never questioned about the nature of my practice). At first I panicked thinking of upcoming deadlines and time spent from the office. Fortunately for my schedule, the case was expected to last 2 days and the single jury question was to determine fair market value of a home taken by the Los Angeles County School District (LAUSD) in 2007 in an eminent domain proceeding. As a trial attorney my experience “inside the box” was extremely interesting and informative. Here’s what I learned:
Lesson 1: You can’t judge a book by its cover. One juror who was selected was a young woman in her late 20s who proudly announced that she was an artist (dancer, actor and painter) and when asked to disclose her marital status sang out that she was “single and available”. She joked at breaks in the trial that her drink container held vodka and after making those announcements literally fell over backwards in her chair twice during the trial, much to the amusement of all in the courtroom. Prior to the case beginning, the judge informed the jury that if they had a question that was not being asked by the attorneys that we could write our question on a piece of paper and submit it to the court. Shortly after the second fall from her chair this juror wrote a question to and passed it to the court clerk. Many of us in the jury “rolled our eyes” imagining the question. The question turned out to be an astute observation that exposed an inconsistency in an expert’s report that the judge, attorneys and everyone else in the jury had missed. This juror went on to serve as our foreperson and provided important insights that helped us reach our verdict.
Lesson 2: What’s important to trial attorney often isn’t important to jury members. The LAUSD expert was an appraiser who made her living being hired by attorneys representing governmental agencies and developers who were taking or purchasing homes for large construction projects. I saw her as a biased “hired gun” who had not surprisingly appraised the property lower than the homeowner’s appraiser. However, the appraiser’s client list didn’t matter to most on the jury and they were impressed by her slick presentation and ability to deflect cross examination .
...Class dissmissed! Lessons three and four will continue with tomorrow's post...
KPA attorneys and support staff came together to collect backpacks and school supplies to benefit almost 50 students at the Los Angeles Boys & Girls Club this year. A small group of employees had the chance to met with the students and learn more about how they spent their time after school at the club. KPA founding partner, Shawn Khorrami, addressed the students and shared the importance of staying in school and being active in the communities we live in.
Matt C. Bailey's article, titled The Scope of Class Restitution in the Wake of In Re Tobacco II Cases was published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Class Actions yesterday. Matt is a senior associate at KPA and serves as co-chair of the firm's Class Action Practice Group.
In California, you can legally drive a Chevy Suburban, but state law only requires you to carry $15,000/$30,000 liability insurance. Where is the sense in that? Your vehicle is capable of wreaking havoc in even the most minor of accidents. Moreover, if you cause a serious injury because of your negligence, and are “judgment proof,” as many people driving on California roads are, there is a very low likelihood that the person you hit is going to be adequately compensated from your minimal insurance policy. Put the shoe on the other foot. What if you are walking to dinner, and struck in a cross-walk by an inattentive person driving their brand new Cadillac Escalade carrying the minimum insurance required by law, and you sustain a broken femur. Is $15K going to adequately compensate you for the months of physical therapy you will have to undergo to rehabilitate from that injury? What if you have to take of months of work? You would be seeking your loss of earnings from that same $15,000 policy.
One of the more frustrating (and sometimes heartbreaking) things that I often come across representing catastrophically injured parties is either the total lack of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage or totally inadequate limits, such as a $15,000/$30,000 UM policy. I think back to a recent wrongful death case where the plaintiff’s decedent was struck by an underinsured SUV that ran a stoplight, and the family had only a $15,000.00 insurance policy to chase. They ended up losing their home because there simply was not a viable defendant to pursue for that loss.
What is even more frustrating to me is that consumers are unaware of the relatively low cost to “up your coverage.” Oftentimes, for less than another$60- $100/year in premiums, you can purchase 100K/100K UM coverage or even higher. I actually recommend carrying at least 500/500 UM coverage if you drive in California. There are many uninsured drivers out there. Remember, it is your responsibility to protect yourself in advance. Think about what kind of money you would need to tide your life over while you recover from a major injury if the person who injures you is uninsured/underinsured. Even the most aggressive personal injury plaintiffs’ lawyer will not be able to extract blood from a turnip if there are inadequate assets to pay a judgment.
On September 4, 2009, New York District Court Judge, Hon. Roslynn R. Mauskopf, rejected efforts by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") to disavow the existence of the New York State regulation empowering its hourly paid employees to receive overtime compensation. (Andrade v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80836 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2009)). Chase’s argument, which sought to set employee rights back 100 years to the era of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), asserted that hourly employees in New York could claim overtime compensation under New York State law only if the employee had personally negotiated such a right with financial behemoth Chase by way of contract. The Lochner decision – which invalidated early efforts by the States to regulate sweatshop-like working conditions during the industrial revolution – reduced employee protections solely to the right of contract under a pro-business judicial philosophy that was subsequently abandoned in the post Depression era. In modern times, however, Chase’s claim insisting that New York does not have a mandatory overtime law is an extreme, if not outrageous, proposition. This fact was underscored by Judge Mauskopf, who reasoned that “the cases recognizing the validity of New York's overtime regulation are legion.” See Andrade, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80836, at 5-7, n.1. Thus, the Andrade decision reflects a victory for New York hourly employees who are entitled by law to receive overtime compensation for going the extra mile to generate profits for their corporate employers.
On Tuesday, ABC News reporter Terry Moran posted a message to his Twitter account that President Obama had called Kanye West a “jackass” for interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday. The problem was that the comment was made during an off-the-record discussion between Obama and a correspondent for CNBC. Although Moran removed the message within an hour, with over one million followers, the news quickly spread on Twitter.
The bigger story has not been Obama’s comment about Kanye West, but rather, journalistic standards and the use of social networking sites. During a meeting on Tuesday, ABC News President David Westin reminded staff to follow editorial standards before sharing information on social networking sites. An ABC spokesman said, “One of the lessons learned here is that when somebody who is well-known to the news audience tweets something, even on a private Twitter account, it has the same impact almost as ABCNews.com publishing it.”
Whether “well-known” or not, when an employee writes something on a social networking site, that message can have repercussions at work.
A study released in September 2008 showed that more than one in five employers use social networking sites in screening job applicants. One-third of those employers had rejected a candidate based on what they found on a social networking site.
Additionally, many companies are adopting written policies regarding social networking sites for their employees and may take disciplinary action against those whose postings cast the company in a negative light. Thus, employees must be aware that they may be held accountable at work for what they say and do on social networking sites – even if it is done on their own time and on their own computers.
Matt Bailey was published on Friday, September 3 in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He provided readers with a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the professional class action objector. As co-head of KPA's class action team, Matt handles all class actions within the firm and has several years of experience, and success, with this type of complex litigation.
Deborah Gutierrez was published today, September 14, on LawDragon.com. Her article "Limiting the Preemption Doctrine" provides an update to the 2009 Wyeth v. Levine decision, and it's affect on consumer's over the past few months. This is one of several articles Deborah has had published on this topic.
For some time a proposition has been bandied about the California class action community concerning whether counsel in a wage and hour class action litigation should assert PAGA (“Private Attorney General Act of 2004”) penalty claims on behalf of the class as a matter of course. Proponents of this position have maintained that litigation of the underlying wage violation itself bars subsequent litigation of PAGA claims under principles of res judicata, and as such, the named plaintiff in wage and hour class litigation should affirmatively plead and prosecute PAGA penalty claims on behalf of the class to preserve the right to recover penalties.
This view was seemingly gaining traction earlier this year when the Second District Court of Appeal held that PAGA penalty claims may be barred on res judicata grounds, even if not pled in the prior litigation. (Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, 170 Cal. App. 4th 519, 531 (2008), rev. granted by Deleon v. Verizon, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 (Cal., May 13, 2009)). As reasoned by the Deleon Court, a PAGA penalty claim is not an action on behalf of the State, and as such, may be waived by an employee if not affirmatively pled and litigated.
However, Deleon’s analysis seems to have taken a major hit in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009). While the Arias Court concluded that actual litigation of a PAGA claim is binding on all interested parties (including both employees and the State), the Arias Court seemingly knocked out the fundamental premise of the Deleon Court’s holding by concluding that “an action to recover civil penalties ‘is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties.’” (Arias, 46 Cal. 4th at 986). This conclusion – which is supported by the fact an employee plaintiff may bring the action only after giving written notice to the Workforce Development Agency – draws into doubt whether a PAGA action and the underlying wage violation involve the same “primary right.” If this is the case, then it logically follows that a PAGA claim would not be subsequently barred if not asserted on behalf of the class in the complaint.
Putting this issue aside, however, the premise that PAGA penalty claims will increase overall recovery to class members is currently a dubious proposition. For example, in the context of a class settlement, the requirement that 75% of PAGA penalties recovered be paid to the State paradoxically places pressure on class counsel to minimize the amounts apportioned to a PAGA claim to fulfill his or her fiduciary duty of maximizing recovery to the class. As no definitive standards currently exist to evaluate the subsequent apportionment of settlement funds between compensation for PAGA penalties and wages paid to the class for the underlying wage violations (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)), counsel in many cases have successfully obtained approval of settlements allocating only a nominal fraction of the overall recovery to a PAGA claim. Were a mechanical pro-rata apportionment between the value of the penalty claims and the value of the underlying wage claims at issue applied, inclusion of a PAGA claim in many cases could stand as a losing proposition for members of the class – especially in settlements where only limited funds are on the table to resolve all claims. Under such circumstances, it is conceivable that the class may benefit more by not mixing PAGA claims with claims to recover wages.
In sum, even if the Deleon Court’s res judicata analysis can survive Arias – which seems unlikely – the ultimate impact of including a PAGA claim in light of the statue’s vague enabling provisions presents more questions than answers. As such, the issue of whether inclusion of a PAGA claim will ultimately benefit the class in the long run remains an open question.
In the largest settlement in United States Justice Department history, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle claims of misbranding and off-label marketing of a number of its pharmaceutical products. While the settlement covered 13 different drugs manufactured by Pfizer and its various subsidiaries including Pharmacia & Upjohn, the primary focus was on the conduct related to the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra, which was withdrawn from the market in 2005 amid reports of increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and Stevens Johnson Syndrome, a potentially fatal skin disease.
The investigation of Pfizer and its questionable marketing practices was initiated as the result of whistleblowers inside the company. Sales representatives drew the line at attempts to increase profits when those sales meant risking the lives of the drug consumers. One would hope that a settlement of this magnitude would cause a major philosophical change in the way the drug companies do business in the future, but that prospect is unlikely because of the sheer profits to be made in this industry. Pfizer reported revenues of $48.3 billion in its latest annual review and had reserved funds to cover this settlement in 2008.
An ‘agreement’ to plead guilty to a felony charge and pay $2.3 billion ($1.3 billion in fines, and an additional $1 billion to state and federal authorities to resolve civil allegations of fraud) might present a public relations nightmare, but Pfizer did not blink. Citing their dedication to healing and better health, a Pfizer spokesperson stated they were proud of the actions they have taken to strengthen their internal controls to comply with state and federal laws regulating their practices. Pfizer also stated that corporate integrity is a top priority for the company and the conclusion of this matter allows Pfizer to focus on what they do best.
What they do best according to Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, is blatantly disregard the law. While negotiating yet another agreement to resolve criminal conduct of Warner-Lambert, its newly acquired subsidiary, Pfizer was itself violating the same laws. Attributing unproven beneficial aspects to certain products while concealing potentially fatal risks, and bribing doctors are criminal activities, yet no one went to jail. There is no personal accountability here, which is why we will see this type of behavior repeated by other pharmaceutical companies.
These days we hear a constant refrain from media pundits and politicians that there can be no meaningful health care reform without tort reform. They maintain that the way to save real health care dollars in the process of revamping the health care delivery system is to include provisions in the legislation that would put an end to “frivolous” lawsuits. The argument is that “frivolous” law suits drive up the cost of health care by causing doctors and hospitals to charge more for the care they deliver and these costs get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher insurance premiums and medical bills. For the most part, this argument goes unchallenged. Because there is little media or public debate over the issue, it is largely accepted as true that nearly all medical malpractice lawsuits are frivolous and should be markedly curtailed. But who would be the real losers and winners if patients lost the right to sue for medical negligence?
The term “frivolous lawsuit” refers to a silly or trivial case with no sound basis in fact or law. Put it another way, it is a case that is a waste of the litigants time and money. The most common example voiced by prospective jurors when the inevitable issue of “too many lawsuits” or “frivolous lawsuits” comes up during jury selection is the McDonald’s case. Advocates of tort reform have made a convincing argument, believed by most people that the case was simply silly and did not belong in the court system. The real facts are virtually unknown. In at least one case of which I am aware, the judge interrupted voir dire to accurately explain the facts to prospective jurors. He explained that the 79 year old plaintiff sustained third degree burns to her genital area when she spilled scalding hot coffee purchased at McDonald’s. McDonald’s ordered it franchisees to sell their coffee at 190 degrees F (water boils at 212 degrees) and refused to change their policy even though they had settled over 700 coffee burn claims. The plaintiff was hospitalized for 7 days and underwent surgical skin grafting. McDonalds offered her $800 to settle her claim. The jury awarded her $160,000 in damages and punitive damages equal to two days profits earned by McDonald on its coffee sales. Because of the media barrage surrounding frivolous suits, the uninformed continue to equate medical malpractice lawsuits to the McDonalds case.
Continue Reading...
We look forward to meeting YOU at the CAALA 27th Annual Las Vegas Convention, September 3rd - 6th.
New opportunities and challenges shaping our profession this year will give us a lot to talk about. Please join us to share ideas and explore how partnering with KPA could contribute to your success. Find us in the Palazzo Ballroom - booth 41 - and join the conversation.
Also, don't forget to catch KPA founding partner, Shawn Khorrami's presentation during the Class Actions & Complex Cases Section Friday afternoon.
On Wednesday, August 26th, Khorrami Pollard & Abir LLP hosted a luncheon fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer in support of her 2010 re-election campaign. During her time in the KPA office she addressed the entire staff, touching on the importance of the work KPA does as a firm. Her motivating words were refreshing for a staff that has been working diligently to protect consumer’s rights.
A forceful advocate for families, children, consumers, the environment, and her State of California, Barbara Boxer became a United States Senator in January 1993 after 10 years of service in the House of Representatives. Elected to a third term in 2004, she received more than 6.9 million votes, the highest total for any Senate candidate in American history.
A national leader on environmental protection, Senator Boxer is the first woman to Chair the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). On the Committee, she advocates forcefully for clean air and water, with a particular focus on the fight against global warming. She also Chairs EPW’s Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection.
In addition to her Chairmanship of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Boxer also serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Commerce Committee, is the Democratic Chief Deputy Whip, and serves on the Democratic Policy Committee’s Committee on Oversight and Investigations.
Enter keywords:
