Karr Tuttle Campbell has served as counsel in class actions in which the number of class members or proposed class members has ranged from more than one hundred to several thousand. Moreover, litigators from the firm have spoken at continuing education seminars for other professionals and written about class action legal issues.
Medical Related. U.S. District Court of Western Washington. Karr Tuttle Campbell is defending a class action suit in which plaintiffs alleged a violation of the Washington State Mental Health Parity Act.
Zipfizz adv. Young. Superior Court of the State of California in and for Los Angeles County. Lead trial counsel for Zipfizz. Case involves a class action lawsuit against defendant for violating wage order and labor laws in the State of California. Favorable settlement for Zipfizz.
Banking and distressed subprime asset-related. King County Superior Court and U.S. District Court. Karr Tuttle Campbell represented the FDIC in class actions in its capacity as receiver of Washington Mutual, Inc., (WaMu) and arising out of billions of dollars of mortgage securitizations.
Medical related. Pierce County Superior Court. Karr Tuttle Campbell was lead defense counsel related to a class action on behalf of a putative class composed of several hundred patients who claimed that they received inappropriate medical treatment from a doctor. Among other things, the lawsuit asserted claims of assault, battery, and a violation of the State Consumer Protection Act.
Labor related. King County Superior Court. A case was brought as a class action on behalf of several hundred putative class members who contended they had not been paid in accordance with a state-approved pay plan.
Foodmaker, Inc., E. coli litigation. Karr Tuttle Campbell represented Foodmaker, Inc., parent company of the Jack-in-the-Box fast food chain, as national counsel related to individual and class actions involving well more than a thousand individuals, arising out of an outbreak of E. coli traced to contaminated meat obtained from a supplier.
Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation, King County Superior Court. A class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of nearly 1,000 current and former employees who contended they had not been paid overtime on bonuses paid to them following the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement.
West, et. al. v. Group Health Cooperative, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Stone v. Group Health Cooperative, King County Superior Court. These lawsuits were filed as class actions on behalf of thousands of individuals who claimed they had been denied access to certain types of alternative medical care and that the State Consumer Protection Act had been violated.
Ratty, et al. v. University of Washington, King County Superior Court. We represented the University of Washington in a class action lawsuit brought by independent contractors who claimed that they should have been classified as state employees and accorded the pay and benefits normally provided to civil service employees.
Meads v. Shuttle Express, King County Superior Court. This class action was brought by several hundred current and former shuttle van drivers.
Hale, et al. v. Republic Airlines, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Lea, et al. v. Republic Airlines, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. We represented Republic Airlines in two lawsuits involving the alleged failure of the company to enhance retirement benefits for pilots. Summary judgement was obtained in both cases. The Lea case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the district court’s decision was affirmed. The Hale case included several hundred named plaintiffs.
Agnello v. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Richardson v. The Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Both of these lawsuits arose out of Bethlehem Steel’s sale of its Seattle steel plant. In the Richardson case, approximately 200 former union-represented employees sued the company, contending that they had been improperly denied “shut down” benefits under the company’s pension plan. A summary judgement was granted. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially reversed the district court’s decision, it subsequently granted a rehearing after which it affirmed the district court’s decision. Our firm represented Bethlehem and its pension plan during the litigation and appeal. The Agnello lawsuit involved approximately 150 former non-union employees of Bethlehem whose claims were similar to those of the plaintiffs in the Richardson case. Karr Tuttle Campbell represented Bethlehem and its pension plan in Blank v. Bethlehem in federal court in Florida. The Blank case involved issues similar to those in Agnello. We obtained a summary judgement, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, and cert., was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Santa Rosa, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corporation, et al.( IBC), King County Superior Court. We represented IBC, a major national baking company, in a class action brought against it by current and former route sales employees.
Waters v. Gai’s Seattle French Baking Company, King County Superior Court: We represented Gai’s in a class action lawsuit similar to the one brought against IBC (see above). In this case, however, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied, resulting in a favorable settlement.
Whitson v. Langendorf Baking Co. of Seattle, King County Superior Court. This was also a class action for unpaid overtime, brought by current and former route sales employees of the company. The class certification motion was denied, and the case was settled.
Boursee, et al. v. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., and Consolidated Personnel Corporation (CPC), U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. This case was brought as a class action by current and former drivers of CPC. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and a settlement was then reached with the named plaintiffs.
United Food and Commercial Workers, et al. v. Smith, et al., King County Superior Court. We represented the former CEO of Ernst Home Centers. Plaintiffs commenced a class action against the former CEO and another Ernst executive.
Sex discrimination issues. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. We handled a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against a regional telecommunications firm. The EEOC represented several thousand current and former female employees of the company. The principal allegations were that the company had excluded women from higher-paying, traditionally male-dominated jobs. The litigation lasted approximately eight years and involved a variety of complex issues, including the question of whether or not there should be comparable pay for jobs of comparable worth, even if the jobs are not similar.
