Kardonick v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 467

Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Chase's Motion for a Show Cause Order by Chase Bank USA, N.A. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Campbell, Dennis)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORiDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Case No. l:1O-c’-23235/HOEVELER

DAViD KARDONICK. JOHN DAVID, and
MICHAEL CLEMINS. individually’ and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and the
general public,
Plaintiffs,
V.

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and CHASE
BANK USA, N.A.
Defendants.

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF
CHASE’S MOTION FOR A SHOW CAUSE ORDER (DE 456)

Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”) respectfully submits this notice to bring to
the Court’s attention the newly-issued decision in Esslinger v. HSBC Bank Nevada, NA., No. 103213 (ED. Pa. Nov. 20, 2012) (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

The context and procedural

posture of the decision were described in advance at page 5 and footnote 4 of Chase’s Reply
Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Show Cause Order (DE 464). The relevant portion of
the opinion is as follows:
Because they are not Class members. the AGs may continue to
bring claims belonging to their respective states. such as state
criminal and regulatory actions. However, the AGs are precluded
from bringing claims in a de facto or de jure representative
capacity on behalf of the plaintiffs” in this class action, because

doing so would allow Class members to double recover. See In re
Baldwin United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 341 (2d Cir. 1985); cf EEOC
v. US. Steel Corp.. 921 F.2d 489, 496-97 (3d Cir. 1990) (“Private
litigation in which the EEOC is not a party cannot preclude the
EEOC from maintaining its own action because private litigants
are not vested with the authority to represent the EEOC
But
when the EEOC seeks to represent grievants by attempting to
obtain private benefits on their behalf, the doctrine of
representative claim preclusion must be applied.”). Class members
were adequately represented and given an opportunity to opt out of
the settlement. Allowing the Class members to recover under both
this settlement and future AG-driven litigations on the basis of the
same facts would run counter to well-established class action
principles and would discourage settlements, which are strongly
favored. Warfarin, 391 F.3d at 535 (“[T]here is an overriding
public interest in settling class action litigation, and it should
therefore be encouraged.”).
.

.

See Exhibit A, Slip Op. at 12 n.2 (emphasis added).

Dated: November 27, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
Robert D. Wick (admitted pro hac vice)
Andrew Soukup (admitted pro hac vice)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
1201 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: rwick icov.com
E-mail: se1ktco\.com
Dennis M. Campbell
CAMPBELL LAW FIRM. PLLC
Attorney for Defendants
95 Merrick Way, Suite 514
Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: dcampheildcampbelIIaw1irrn.net
s/Dennis M. Campbell
Dennis M. Campbell
Florida Bar No. 271527

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 27th day of November, 2012, 1 electronically filed
Chase’s Notice of Supplemental Authority using the ECF system, which will send a notification
of such filing to the counsel of record who have entered appearances in this action. In addition, 1
served a true and correct copy of Chas& s Notice of Supplemental Authority via e-mail on the
following individuals:
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
E-mail: rgolomhdgolombhonik.coni
E-mail:

Laura Baughman, Esq.
Thomas M. Sims, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
E-mail: 1bauhmanrãTharonbudd.corn
E-mail:

J. Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
9015 Bluebonnet Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
E-mail: Nehlanchhucom

M. C am bell
Dennis M. Campbell
386908/452-412