We have represented plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of class action cases. Our experience includes:
- St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States
05-1119 (Fed. Cl.). We represent New Orleans residents of the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish in a takings claim against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction, operation, maintenance, and dredging of 76-mile long navigational channel connecting Gulf of Mexico and Port of New Orleans caused severe flooding on our clients’ properties during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and further water damage thereafter for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation.
- Clark v. United States
No. 00-644 C (Fed. Cl. 2001). We represented a class of National Guardsmen who have been improperly denied compensation for correspondence courses they were required to complete. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case, but the Federal Circuit reversed and reinstated the claims. Seventeen Senators have urged the Department of Justice to settle, but the government has filed a summary judgment motion.
- Jung v. Association of American College of Medicine
No. 02-0873 (D.C. Cir. 2004). We represented a nationwide class of medical residents who have sued their employers for setting salaries at below market wages. The district court agreed that the National Residency Match Program, which assigns residents to a specific hospital, violated the Sherman Act. Congress then amended the antitrust laws and sanctioned the Match Program. The district court did not allow plaintiffs to amend the complaint to press price fixing claims. The case is pending on appeal before the D.C. Circuit. We also represent the class of plaintiffs in a similar case alleging violations of both federal and state law in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Thomas Bolin, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
231 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2000). We represented a group of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Sears, challenging Sears’ bankruptcy collection procedures as contrary to numerous federal laws. After a remand from the Fifth Circuit, the case settled.