Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

RadNet Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Casey Geery Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP and Federman & Sherwood, reached a settlement in the RadNet data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Noreen Pfeiffer et al. v. RadNet, Inc., filed in the United States District Court Central District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-09553-RGK. The settlement resulted in a $2,600,000 settlement fund.

The Honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on August 18, 2021. The hearing for final approval will be held on February 7, 2022.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Identity Guard’s Identity Restoration Services for a period of 5 years, up to $15,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 5 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $25 per hour, and $75 for Class Members who are California residents This settlement is an excellent result, especially for California residents because of the violations of California’s new Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150, also known as the CCPA. (California Class Members can choose out-of-pocket losses or $75, whichever is greater).

History of the data breach: On November 11, 2020, The Arnold Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California entitled Donna Horowitz et al. v. RadNet, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-1032B. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) breach of confidence; (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (5) violation of California’s Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150.

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

KATHRYN CAIN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. LESLIE, SR., Plaintiffs, vs. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., doing business in California; J.B. HUNT LOGISTICS, INC.; NARINDER S. MAHAL

CCTLA board member John Stralen, and CCTLA member Gina Bowden, from the Arnold Law Firm, recently obtained final judgment, following the San Joaquin County Superior Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on her breach of contract action, which arose out of the Defendant’s failure to pay settlement funds.

The Underlying Personal Injury Case

The case stems from a May 9, 2016, multi-vehicle collision on Highway 4, in Stockton, when a loaded big rig rear-ended Mr. William Leslie’s car and caused a chain-reaction collision to occur between Mr. Leslie’s pickup and two other vehicles. At the time, Mr. Leslie was a 73-year-old, retired lumber mill worker.

The collision caused Mr. Leslie to suffer vertebral fractures, requiring a two-level fusion surgery and post-surgery physical therapy. Medicare had paid approximately $105,000.00 for his medical care related to his injuries. Since he was retired, no wage loss claim was made.

The Parties Settle Mr. Leslie’s Personal Injury Case

In August of 2017, defense counsel sent a written settlement offer, which expressly conditioned settlement upon “a complete release (including a confidentiality provision) and dismissal of the case with each party to bear their own fees and costs.”  Thereafter, on November 1, 2017, the parties attended mediation, at which Plaintiff’s counsel made a counter demand.

On November 10, 2017, Defendants’ insurer’s claims specialist called Mr. Leslie’s counsel directly and left a voicemail message in which he discussed Mr. Leslie’s most recent demand to settle the case and stated, “I’m the money guy calling you directly,” “you can call me directly,” and “you don’t need to go through my defense counsel.”  He further stated, “deal with me directly on negotiations, and we can take out the middleman.”

As trial approached, Mr. Leslie’s health declined, due to issues unrelated to his injuries. Mr. Leslie provided authority to settle his case for $1,100,000.00.  Following Mr. Leslie’s grant of authority to settle, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke to Defendants’ insurer’s claim specialist three times, on December 19, 2017. During the third call a verbal settlement of the case was reached where Defendants (and their insurer) would pay $1,150,000 to settle the case in exchange for a release and dismissal. During the call, the claims specialist deferred to defense counsel regarding to whom the check would be addressed.

The next day, on December 20, 2017, defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel to express his understanding that settlement had been reached and the parties discussed to whom the check would be made payable.

A written memorialization of the settlement (a release) would be sent by defense counsel for Mr. Leslie to sign. Shortly thereafter, on December 20, 2017, an Arnold Law Firm staff member emailed defense counsel a W-9. Plaintiff’s counsel called Mr. Leslie and informed him that the case had settled and sent an email to law firm staff, stating the case was settled and to stop any pending vendor orders.

Early in the morning, on December 21, 2017, Mr. Leslie’s attorney sent an email to defense counsel (and cc’ed counsel for the other parties in the consolidated cases) providing notification of the settlement between Mr. Leslie and Defendants.

Mr. Leslie Passes Away, And Defendants Refuse To Honor The Oral Settlement

Unfortunately, Mr. Leslie unexpectedly passed away, on December 21, 2017, without having had an opportunity to sign the written memorialization of the settlement. Upon learning of Mr. Leslie’s death, Defendants refused to honor the settlement agreement, claiming that Mr. Leslie’s personal injury case was now, at best, limited to the $105,000.00 in medical expenses that were paid by Medicare, because pre-death pain and suffering damages were no longer recoverable.

A probate was opened, and the Court appointed private fiduciary, Kathryn Cain, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Leslie. The Probate Court granted Ms. Cain special powers to sign and maintain representation with the Arnold Law Firm and to proceed with finalizing the settlement or pursuing additional litigation, if necessary.

The Estate of William Leslie Files Suit And Prevails On Summary Judgment

Meanwhile, Defendants continued to refuse to honor the settlement. In May of 2018, The Arnold Law Firm filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Defendants, on behalf of the Estate of William Leslie. The Hon. Robert Hight (Ret) was appointed as special master to govern discovery proceedings. The Arnold Law Firm brought in associate counsel, Hansen, Kohls, Sommer & Jacob, LLP, to assist in the prosecution of the breach of contract case.

Following depositions of Plaintiff’s counsel, Defense Counsel, and the claims specialist, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that, as a matter of law, the undisputed facts prove that Defendants breached the parties’ verbal settlement agreement. Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, in an attempt to dispose of the Breach of Contract action.

The court ruled on the motions for summary judgment in June 2021. It denied Defendants’ motion and agreed with Plaintiff that the undisputed facts proved that an oral settlement agreement had been reached in the amount of $1,150,000.00. It further ruled that Defendants breached that agreement by failing to perform.

The court later granted Plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgement interest, in the amount of $361,068.44, and added that amount to the $1,150,000.00 for breach of contract damages. In August of 2021, final judgment was entered for a total amount of 1,511,068.44.

ADAM J. HARMONING, ARAZ PARSEGHIAN, AND DARLENE DRAVIS, individually, and on behalf those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, vs. HOMESTREET BANK, a Washington corporation, Defendant.

CCTLA board member John Stralen from the Arnold Law Firm, CCTLA member Darren Guez, from the Law Offices of Darren Guez, and Douglas Han and Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh from the Justice Law Corporation, together acting as co-lead counsel, obtained final court approval of a $3,500,000.00 settlement on behalf of a class of current and former mortgage officers employed by Homestreet Bank.

Plaintiffs alleged overtime violations and failure to reimburse business-related expenses on behalf of a putative California class of current and former Homestreet Bank mortgage officers who were classified as exempt outside sales representatives. Plaintiffs also sought “PAGA” penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Plaintiffs’ allegations included claims that the class of employees were designated as exempt outside sales representatives whose job descriptions required them to spend more than 50% of their work hours outside of the office, as a required to maintain their exempt status. However, despite this requirement, Homestreet Bank had paid little or no money to class members for expense reimbursement.

This case involved three separate lawsuits. One was filed by attorneys John Stralen and Darren Guez on behalf of Plaintiff Adam Harmoning in Sacramento County Superior Court. The other two were filed by attorneys from the Justice Law Corporation, one in Los Angeles County Superior Court and the other in Alameda County Superior Court. After the cases were resolved at mediation, they were consolidated with the Harmoning action filed in Sacramento where final approval of the settlement was obtained.

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

On November 8, 2018, Anna* and her family fled their home in response to the Camp Fire mandatory evacuation. The massive fire destroyed more than 18,000 homes, displacing 50,000 residents in the town of Paradise, California, and surrounding areas.

They didn’t have friends or relatives in neighboring cities to stay with and soon discovered that nearby refugee camps were unable to accommodate Anna’s special health and mobility needs. Anna had previously suffered a spinal cord injury that rendered her an incomplete paraplegic, requiring the use of a wheelchair.

Anna, along with her husband and 5-year-old autistic son, continued to drive further in search of lodging, but failed to find a wheelchair-accessible vacancy until they reached a town that was 90-miles from home.

Just a few days later, Anna and other refugees met with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) personnel in the motel parking lot to learn about emergency benefits available through the government.

On the way back to her room, Anna encountered an elderly woman using a walker, who asked if she could pass in front of Anna into the motel laundry room. Naturally, Anna agreed and moved her wheelchair back a few inches to allow the other woman space to proceed across safely.

As Anna started to wheel backwards, her right wheel rolled into an open sewage drain along the laundry room wall, tipping her chair over. Anna fell hard into the 4.5-foot-long ditch, causing injuries that further impacted her mobility and exposed her to contaminated drainage water that resulted in a dangerous infection.

Being a place of public accommodation, motels have a duty to provide a safe environment for their guests as defined by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The drainage ditch that caused Anna’s fall was not in compliance with applicable regulations that define the dimensions of ground surface openings and their direction related to the dominant direction of travel.

The motel has since installed a high-visibility safety cover over the drain.

Despite the clear violation of ADA requirements and damages the fall had on Anna’s physical and mental health, the motel was reluctant to take responsibility for the incident and offered an initial settlement of just $25,000.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm fought back, proving how her injuries were caused by the property owner’s negligence and unsafe conditions at the property. Anna’s final settlement was $275,000 – more than ten times the motel’s original offer.

*name changed for confidentiality

On a warm August evening, Ray G. and his family were driving home from a school sporting event. As his Ford F250 pickup traveled through an intersection on Washington Blvd in Roseville, California, a Toyota Corolla compact sedan ran the red light and slammed into the driver’s side of Ray’s truck.

The driver of the sedan failed to brake at all prior to the collision. The impact of the Corolla caused the heavier, larger truck to spin until it struck a curb.

The Corolla driver appeared to have been using her mobile phone at the time of the accident and admitted that she was not paying attention while driving. Law enforcement found her to be solely at fault for the accident.

Both cars sustained major damage had to be towed from the scene. Ray’s truck sustained over $10,000 in damage, including shearing of the rear axle shaft, and took nearly three months to repair.

Ray suffered persistent pain in his neck that traveled down to the center of his back, as well as lower back pain that radiated down his left leg, causing muscle spasms.

Despite constant pain, Ray continued to work. As a FedEx driver, he wasn’t able to take an hour or two off for treatment – for each appointment, regardless of length, he had to take an entire day off. Delivery drivers can’t interrupt or shorten the scheduled full-day route.

Ray had already exhausted his medical leave from a previous injury and didn’t want to lose his job. A few months before the accident with the Toyota Corolla, he had been in another collision that had also injured his back. Ray had recently completed treatment for the previous accident and had been cleared to return to work.

Increasing pain and discomfort interfered with Ray’s ability to perform his job, where he had to lift heavy objects and drive for long periods of time. He was unable to take pain medication or muscle relaxers while performing his job duties.

After nearly two years of sporadic physical therapy and steroid injections failed to resolve his injury, spinal fusion surgery became Ray’s last option to reduce his pain.

Despite clear liability, the insurance companies used the gaps in Ray’s limited treatment and previous accident to dispute the cause and extent of his injuries. They claimed that his need for surgery was not related to the collision. The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm pushed back, finally settling at policy limits for a combined $300,000.

Kimberly and Brian, both established professionals in Sacramento, were excited about moving into a charming yellow house in one of the best neighborhoods in the area.

They had agreed to a lease-to-own arrangement that allocated $3,500 per month toward rent and an additional $2,000 per month toward a refundable deposit for the potential purchase of the property at the end of the three-year contract. If they decided to buy the house, their $72,000 ($2,000 x 36 months) would be applied toward the purchase price. If they decided not to buy the house, the $72,000 would be returned to them.

At the end of the three-year lease, the house appraised at $895,000, but the property owner wanted Kimberly and Brian to pay $1,000,000 instead. The couple decided not to purchase the house at the inflated price and requested their $72,000 deposit back.

The property owner refused, now stating that the entire monthly payment ($3,500 rent + $2,000 deposit per month) was the rental rate for the house, and none of it was refundable.

After attempting to reason with the property owner directly, Kimberly and Brian finally proceeded with a lawsuit. The property owner filed a cross complaint.

Represented by the Arnold Law Firm in a 10-day trial, Kimberly and Brian were awarded $72,000 in damages, plus over $200,000 in interest, legal costs and attorney fees. The jury found the property owner engaged in fraud and breach of contract.