IN RE: PET FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Filing 36

AFFIDAVIT in Support re #34 MOTION to Appoint Counsel (of National Plaintiffs) Interim Co-Lead Attorney: William A. Audet, Jay Edelson and Scott A. Kamber. MOTION to Appoint Counsel (of National Plaintiffs) Interim Co-Lead Attorney: William A. Audet, Jay Edelson and Scott A. Kamber. filed by JANICE BONIER, LESLIE BERNDL. (FERRARA, MICHAEL)

IN RE: PET FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Doc. 36

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 1 of 12

Jay Edelson Blim & Edelson, LLC 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1642 Chicago, IL 60604 [phone] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE PET FOODS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

) ) ) )

MDL Docket No. 1850 Master Docket: 3:07 CV 2867 (NLH)(AMD) All Cases

AFFIDAVIT OF JAY EDELSON

Jay Edelson, being first duly sworn on oath, states as follows: 1. I am a partner at Blim & Edelson, LLC ("B&E"). A copy of my firm's resume is

attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2. My firm concentrates its practice on complex high-stakes plaintiffs' class action

litigation. I have had leadership roles in numerous state-wide, national, and international class action cases over the past ten years. 3. Some of the more significant cases in which I have been lead or co-lead include: A. Pulcini v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., No. 05 CH 10649 (Cook County, Ill.) (A global settlement of four class action lawsuits against five defendants provided the class with over $40 million in benefits);

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 2 of 12

B.

Zurakov v. Register.com, No. 01-600703 (N.Y.Cty, New York) (settlement of class action brought on behalf of an international class alleging deceptive practices in registering internet domain names awarded relief with a collective face value in excess of $17 million.)

C

Holloway v. J.C. Penney, No. 97 C 4555, (N.D.Ill.) (one of the primary attorneys in a multi-state class action suit alleging that the defendant illegally denied life insurance benefits to plaintiffs' class. The settlement resulted in a multi-million dollar cash award to the class.)

4.

I have also had significant involvement in mass-tort cases, including: A. Aaron v. Chicago Housing Authority, 99 L 11738, (Cook County, Illinois)

(part of team representing a group of public housing residents bringing suit over contamination-related injuries. Case settled on a mass basis for over $10,000,000) B. Januszewski v. Horseshoe Hammond, No. 2:00CV352JM (N.D.Ind.) (was part of team of attorneys in mass suit alleging that defendant riverboat casino caused injuries to its employees arising from exposure to secondhand smoke.) B&E's Clients In The Instant Litigation 5. 6. B&E represents approximately 700 clients in this litigation. Those clients reside in the majority of the states and have claims against every major

defendant in the MDL proceeding. 7. The vast majority of B&E's clients have pets that were either injured or killed as a 2

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 3 of 12

result of eating defendants' contaminated food. The rest either incurred damages as a result of being forced to undergo precautionary screening tests or not being able to use previously bought recalled food. In addition to the average pet owner, we have clients in this action who run animal sanctuaries, breed animals, and rely on trained working dogs due to disabilities. B&E's Litigation Efforts 8. In the first three days following Menu Foods' March 16, 2007 recall -- including a

holiday weekend before the press took particular notice of that event -- my firm screened inquiries from approximately a half-dozen consumers, investigated the few publicly-available facts concerning the recall, researched the factual and legal history of such recalls, and compiled information on Menu Foods business practices and corporate structure. On the fourth day after the recall, March 20, 2007, we filed one of the first class action lawsuits against Menu Foods. 9. Over the next two weeks, we began working with animal rights groups (including

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), congressional offices, bar associations and other organizations. 10. During this time, we also started to collaborate with the other plaintiffs' attorneys who

had filed lawsuits or were representing injured clients. We participated in multiple phone conferences and in-person meetings with attorneys from approximately half-a-dozen attorneys such as Scott Kamber, Ilan Chorowsky (affilliated with Progressive Law Group), Michael Kelly of Kirtland & Packard, LLC, John Jacobs of the Jacobs Law Firm, Chtd., and Gino DiVito of Tabet, DiVito and Rothstein. We began discussing ways to share information for the collective interest of the our respective clients and putative classes. 11. Those efforts were interrupted when a mass number of filings followed the press

3

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 4 of 12

attention the initial lawsuits were receiving. A group of attorneys lead by Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP (the "Wexler Group") quickly announced that they were hosting a meeting of all plaintiffs' attorneys at the Peninsula Hotel in Chicago, Illinois. 12. Although the stated purpose of that meeting was to start organizing informal

collaborative efforts, no true effort was made to effectuate this purpose. Rather, it appeared to be little more than a thinly disguised way to establish the position of certain attorneys and contributed (intentionally or not) only to a fracturing of the informal joint efforts in which the early firms were engaged. 13. On April 3, 2007, after developing a more complete factual record, my firm amended

its complaint to include claims of fraud, consumer fraud, and spoliation of evidence. 14. Legal commentators, including the National Law Journal, have commended my firm

for advancing these theories. 15. We have continued our active involvement since filing the amended complaint. In

addition to procedural litigation tasks, such as briefing and arguing early motion to stay by Menu Foods, submitting a brief to the MDL Panel on whether these cases should be centralized and the issue of the most appropriate venue, we have contributed in several other significant ways. 16. First, we have assembled a massive factual and legal database, along with a collection

of fact and opinion witnesses, essential to successfully prosecuting this case. In addition to the public interest groups and governmental offices who have been providing information to it, we began working more and more with other similarly minded plaintiffs' firms. 17. Based on this work, we been privy to a significant amount of information not generally

available to the public, including information about when the defendants started to learn their pet

4

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 5 of 12

food was likely contaminated and problems with the effectuation of the various recalls (including recalled products being sold for weeks after the recalls were announced, and complaints about food that was not initially recalled). 18. We also had a key role in winning the most significant plaintiff's victory to date. In

Workman v. Menu Foods Limited, No. 07-CV-1338, Workman's counsel (the Wexler Group), working without the benefit of consultation with all of the other plaintiffs firms in these cases, filed a motion regarding Menu Foods improper communications with the putative class. Workman's counsel argued in their motion that, because of these communications, they should be able to send a letter to all members of the putative class supposedly informing them of their rights. 19. However, as we explained in our own filing, the proposed letter was as misleading as

Menu Foods' communications and did more harm than good. 22. We further presented evidence, in the form of affidavits from four of our clients,

establishing that Workman's counsel was significantly understating the nature and extent of Menu Foods communications with class members. As we demonstrated, Menu Foods was repeatedly calling putative class members -- often through the use of automated telephone calls and messages -- including class members who it had been told were represented by counsel. We also marshaled evidence demonstrating that Menu Foods was intentionally giving misleading and incorrect legal advice to persons it knew were represented. 23. We argued that Menu Foods should be prevented from communicating with any

member of the class and that no "corrective" letter be sent out, unless it came from the Court itself and was both neutral and accurate, a position that ultimately prevailed.

5

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 6 of 12

24.

I have also been one of the leading negotiators on the issue of the preservation and/or

destruction of certain of the recalled products currently being stored by defendants. Because my firm has taken the lead on pursuing a spoliation claim against Menu Foods, I have unique insight into some of the relevant facts issues. 25. Finally, along with Mr. Audet, Mr. Kamber, and certain attorneys from the Wexler

Group, I have been involved in some preliminary communications with various defendants (as well as work arising out of those communications) which could potentially lead to resolution of some or all of these cases. B&E's Additional Advocacy Efforts 26. My firm has also had what is unquestionably the leading role in efforts outside of the

litigation, including writing an editorial in USA Today about the pet food crisis, providing testimony for the hearing of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations on "Pet Food Contamination," contributing drafts of model legislation to the office of United States Senator Richard Durbin and providing consultation to numerous individuals and public interest groups around the country working on similar legislative efforts. 27. These public education, legislative, and advocacy efforts have enhanced our ability to

litigate this case in numerous ways, including allowing us to combat defendants' public relations machine. 28. After our efforts to focus media attention on the inadequate scope of the initial recall --

and our publicized explanation that it would bring fraud claims against any company withholding information from the public -- more than a dozen additional recalls were announced. Similarly, it now appears that -- after we made public that Menu Foods had admitted to

6

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 7 of 12

destroying recalled products returned to it by consumers received (an admission that gave rise to our spoliation claim) -- Menu Foods began to preserve the recalled food it was receiving. 29. Our legislative and public awareness efforts have yielded other, albeit less direct,

benefits. First, we have established relationships with numerous public interest groups and governmental agencies that have provided invaluable assistance in researching the facts of this case. Second, this knowledge and understanding of the facts has, in turn, prepared us to be especially effective in the discovery phase of this case. Third, we have become highly sensitive to the particular concerns of the class members in this litigation. Unlike class members in a more conventional consumer or securities cases, the members of the instant putative class are much more emotionally invested in this case and tend to have very strong views about the appropriate remedies (which must needs extend far beyond the merely financial).

7

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 8 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 9 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 10 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 11 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-02867-NLH-AMD

Document 36

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 12 of 12