Representative Matters
Represented plaintiffs in a nationwide class action product defects lawsuit against Viking Group, Inc. in a suit alleging a defect in the Viking VK457 sprinkler system. The suit settled on favorable terms for the class. The case is Jackson, et al. v. Viking Group, Inc., et al., No. 8:18-cv-02356-PJM (D. Md.).
Served as defense counsel in a bilateral class action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County involving violations of the Maryland Towing Act and related claims. After a successful mediation in 2017, a settlement resolving a substantial number of the claims at issue was approved by the Court. In 2018 and 2019, motions for summary judgment were briefed and the parties engaged in a second mediation. Ultimately the class requested, and the court approved, a significantly reduced settlement demand to individual class members.
Represented shareholders of a now-defunct medical software company against certain directors and officers to recoup the shareholders' significant investments. In addition to the complaint filed on behalf of the investor group, also represented the bankruptcy trustee of the company as the plaintiff in a related case. In the parallel lawsuits in D.C. Superior Court, the Kramon & Graham team withstood a personal jurisdiction challenge and conducted national discovery, and obtained a settlement that was ultimately approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
In a major victory for a law firm client, prevailed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in challenging the appropriateness of a “filter team” of the U.S. Attorney's Office to review files and emails confiscated from the client's office. The Fourth Circuit agreed, summarily reversing the District Court only two days after argument and granting all relief requested by the client. The case is In re: Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019. Click here for the published opinion.
Prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of noted anti-trust attorney Joseph Saveri and his firm - the Joseph Saveri Law Firm - in a legal dispute stemming from a price fixing case that settled in 2013 for $163.5 million. The case was on appeal following Kramon & Graham's success in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland where the firm persuaded the Court to reject a claim by the Florida law firm Criden & Love that the Saveri firm owed a referral fee to Criden for referring a plaintiff in multidistrict litigation. The Court awarded Saveri $10 million in attorney's fees. Criden then claimed a referral fee. The Court agreed with Saveri that no fee was due under the circumstances. The Fourth Circuit upheld the lower Court's ruling in the Saveri firm's favor, rejecting Criden's bid for additional fees from the underlying case. It was a widely reported case, including 4th Circ. Hands Saveri Firm Win In $1.2M Legal Fees Battle (January 15, 2019).
Arguing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, served as local counsel and presented the damages case in Paice LLC v Hyundai Motor Co. Working with patent specialists Fish & Richardson, Kramon & Graham presented a compelling claim that Defendants Hyundai and Kia should pay between $200 and $250 per car for their infringement of the Plaintiffs' patents. After a full day of deliberations, the jury returned a $28.9 million verdict against the automakers, which equated to $200 per car.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment obtained by Jim Ulwick and Jean Lewis on behalf of a law firm sued for legal malpractice. The plaintiff alleged 13 separate acts of malpractice and sought $17 million in damages. Jim and Jean successfully moved to have the case withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and obtained summary judgment on all counts in the district court.
In a major victory for Kramon & Graham's client, the City of Baltimore, the Court of Appeals of Maryland upheld local governments' rights to make reasonable prospective changes to their pension plans. Kramon & Graham represented the City continuously since it reformed the public safety unions' pension plan in 2010. At that time, the City faced dire financial circumstances that threatened its ability to provide core services to its citizens, and all relevant actors agreed the pension plan was actuarially unsound. Among other things, the changes involved increased length of service and contribution requirements for active employees and a new, guaranteed Cost of Living Adjustment formula to provide raises for retirees that replaced a variable benefit formula that was endangering the plan's ability to provide basic benefits. The unions filed suit in 2010 in federal court to challenge the reforms. After a federal appellate court held in 2014 that the changes did not constitute impairments under the federal Constitution's Contract Clause, the public safety unions brought a state law breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The circuit court determined that Maryland law permitted the City to make prospective changes for active members of the pension plan, and that these changes were reasonable; consequently, there was no breach of contract as to these members. The court also rejected the unions' experts' damages assumptions and instead accepted the damages model the City's expert developed, concluding that retirees and retirement-eligible plan members experienced approximately $30 million in damages from the change in plan. This amount was a small fraction of the damages the unions claimed, and the court ruled that many retirees and retirement-eligible members were not damaged by the changes but actually fared the same or better under the new tiered COLA than the variable benefit it replaced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's determination in all respects. Click here for the Court of Appeals opinion in Robert F. Cherry et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City.
Successfully defended a law firm and its management against claims by a former partner of fraud and breach of contract. The arbitrator found no fraud and awarded the claimant less than 10% of his claimed contractual damages.
Obtained an acquittal for a former Eastern Correctional Institution correctional officer criminally charged in a case involving the largest number of individuals ever indicted in a single criminal matter filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Following a three-week trial, successfully persuaded a jury to acquit the firm's client of racketeering, bribery, and narcotics distribution charges. In the indictment in which the firm's client was charged, federal prosecutors charged 41 people with bribery and smuggling-related crimes: 40 were convicted, the firm's client was acquitted.
Successfully defended allegations of securities fraud made by the former CEO of a public, technology company against the company's majority shareholders and members of its board and management. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered summary judgment for the defendants, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal. The case was important in light of the nature of the allegations and the relief sought -- approximately $50 million.
