TPMR LAWYERS WIN SIGNIFICANT VICTORY IN U.S COURT OF APPEALS TO PROTECT LOCAL BUSINESS
On November 10, 2011, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision in the case of Daniel Pilgrim, et al. v. Universal Health Card, LLC, et al., upholding dismissal of a multi-million dollar class action suit against a Stark County business, Universal Health Card, LLC. TPMR attorneys Gary Corroto, Lee Plakas, Edmond Mack and Maria Klutinoty secured this victory by utilizing an aggressive and innovative legal strategy to protect Universal from the potentially crippling effects of this litigation. Mr. Corroto argued the case before a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on October 6, 2011. The case represents a significant victory for a local business and protects local jobs.
By taking an aggressive and innovate approach to the case, TPMR was able to secure a dismissal of the case at the earliest possible stage of the litigation saving Universal hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and expenses to the benefit of Universal and its Stark County employees.
The case was brought in the Federal District Court in Akron, Ohio under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which grants federal court jurisdiction in cases where the amount at issue exceeds $5 million, by a New York City area class action law firm on behalf of two class representatives from Pennsylvania and Mississippi seeking to bring claims against Stark County based Universal on behalf of tens of thousands of individuals located in more that twenty-five states. The TPMR legal team employed an innovative strategy in approaching these claims - claims that, if successful, would have driven Universal out of business causing the loss of a significant number of local jobs. Recognizing the potential cost of the litigation, and the crippling effect that it would have on its client, rather than taking the traditional approach of conducting expensive class action discovery and waiting to address the issue of class certification until after the completion of time consuming and costly discovery, TPMR lawyers analyzed the case at its earliest stages recognizing critical flaws in the Plaintiffs’ case and devising a legal strategy to attack those flaws at the earliest possible time. TPMR employed seldom utilized provisions of Federal Civil Rules 12 and 23 to file a motion to strike the class allegations in the Plaintiffs’ complaint requesting the Court dismiss the case before class discovery could even begin. The District Court agreed with TPMR’s position that the Plaintiffs’ claims were fatally flawed and that dismissal of those claims was appropriate before discovery. The Federal Sixth Circuit Court agreed and upheld the dismissal. The Courts adopted TPMR’s arguments that Plaintiffs could not maintain a class action against Universal because the class, as asserted, would include thousands of satisfied Universal customers who had no claim and would require the Court to apply the laws of each state where each individual claimant resided. As a result, Plaintiffs could not satisfy their burden to demonstrate that common issues of law and fact predominated the class such that class action treatment of the claims was warranted. Once the Court reached this conclusion, dismissal of the case was proper.
