 |
|
|
|
 Johnson v. National Carriers, Inc., 2006 WL 3300761 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 13, 2006)
Mr. Sharp represented Defendant. Defendant was granted a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds in a defamation action.
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 282 Kan. 433, 146 P. 3d 162 (2006).
Mr. Sharp represented a class of Kansas consumers as indirect purchasers of rubber-processing chemicals price-fixed by defendants. After defendants were granted a dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed finding in a significant personal jurisdiction opinion that general jurisdiction existed in Kansas and some of the defendants were subject to it. Specific jurisdiction existed over some defendants because an antitrust violation is a tortious act involving economic injury that occurred outside the state with effects inside the state and that due process was met because the stream of commerce theory applies to antitrust violations. Finally, foreign country defendants were subject to jurisdiction because they purposefully participated in a conspiracy that could reasonably be expected to reach Kansas consumers.
Dragon v. Vanguard Industry, Inc., 277 Kan. 776, 89 P. 3d 908 (2004) (Dragon I).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiffs in a nation-wide certified class asserting ten causes of action against a polybutelene pipe manufacturer for defective pipe, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed for failure to consider the conflict of laws issues. On remand, Plaintiffs narrowed their class to four states and three causes of action, but the trial court denied class certification. In Dragon v. Vanguard Industry, Inc., 282 Kan. 349, 144 P. 3d 1279 (2006) (Dragon II), the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously reversed the denial of class certification because the trial judge's record was not adequate for appellate review and remanded to the trial court. The Kansas Supreme Court also found that narrowing the class and causes of actions in an effort to gain certification was proper. Finally, the Court held that class certification decision should be made with findings of fact and conclusions of law. On remand for the second time, the trial court certified the four state class making detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In Re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, 2005 WL 1625040 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiff in a direct purchaser opt-out antitrust case that was wrongfully removed from state court to federal court in Kansas, and then transferred in Multi-District Litigation to Pennsylvania. This opinion remanded the case to Kansas state court for lack of federal court diversity jurisdiction. In Farmland National Beef Packing Company, LP v. Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 2356958 (Kan. Dist. Ct. August 3, 2006). Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiff in a direct purchaser opt-out antitrust case. Defendants moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, but the trial court denied defendants request recognizing for the first time cross-jurisdictional tolling based on the previously filed federal court class action which was timely filed. Defendants' motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert was denied and the pretrial is set for late June, 2007.
Premier Pork, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc, S.A., 2006 WL 1388464 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Jan. 31, 2006).
Mr. Sharp represented a certified class of indirect purchasers of methionine, an animal feed additive, in an antitrust price fixing case. After class certification, the parties settled the case and final approval was granted to the settlement for the Kansas class awarding $7,500 incentive awards to each class representative, awarding attorney's fees at 33 1/3 %, and granting distribution in part to class members and in part cy pres to worthy students in various colleges and junior colleges in Kansas. Some class members received over $200,000, and students received up to $5,000 per year for scholarships.
Chance v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 2004 WL 3810161 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Dec. 2, 2004).
Mr. Sharp represented a class of Kansas indirect purchaser consumers of moist snuff for abuse of monopoly power and restraint of trade. The court denied Defendants request to decertify the class. In Chance v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 2006 WL 1390382 (Kan. Dist. Ct. March 8, 2006). After the class was certified, a New York class action was filed and both cases settled. Plaintiffs' experts estimated the settlement in excess of $100 million. This settlement gained final approval, incentive awards were paid to the class representatives, and attorneys' fees were awarded.
Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., Inc., 31 Kan. App. 2d 259, 62 P.3d 685 (2003).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiffs in a bad faith action against Mid-Continent Casualty Company for failure to defend and cover the Defendant/insured. The Court held that Plaintiffs at trial proved bad faith, that the insurer was negligent and failed to provide a defense for the insured without just cause or excuse permitting an award of attorney's fees and a judgment in excess of insurance policy limits. The total judgment was in excess of $4 million. On remand, a trial was held on the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees. The trial court entered judgment in excess of $1 million. The insurer appeal. In Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., Inc., 2005 WL 1500928 (June 24, 2005), the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the amount of attorney's fees. In Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., Inc., 281 Kan. 930, 135 P. 3d 1127 (2006), the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the insurance company to pay attorney's fees in excess of $1.3 million.
Stocking v. AT&T Corp., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (W.D.MO. 2006).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiff in a Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim against her employer for failing to pay for prescription contraception coverage in a comprehensive healthcare plan. The class was certified and partial summary judgment granted to the Plaintiff.
Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co., 172 S.W. 3d 512 (Tenn. 2005).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiffs in an indirect purchaser class action against Sorbates manufacturers for price-fixing and unjust enrichment. The trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed and the Tennessee Supreme Court recognized for the first time that non-resident buyers had an indirect purchaser cause of action in Tennessee if they could show that the price-fixing conspiracy substantially affect Tennessee commerce. On remand, the trial court dismissed Plaintiffs case, Plaintiffs appealed again and had the trial court reversed again.
In Re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, 2005 WL 1027078 (D. Neb. March 31, 2005).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiff in a Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act sex discrimination case against Union Pacific. Over Defendants objection, the class was certified.
Vargus v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 248 Kan. 881, 811 P. 2d 868 (1991).
Mr. Sharp represented the Plaintiff in an insurance coverage case. The Kansas Supreme Court found coverage because the insurance company had agreed that the policy would be reinstated without lapse if the premium was paid by a certain date, which it was, even though a loss occurred prior to the premium being paid.
Felkner v. Anderson, 2005 WL 602974 (W.D. MO. 2005).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiff in a shareholder derivative action against NovaStar Financial, Inc. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the board of directors. Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.
In re Vitamin Antitrust Litig., 2006 WL 4103412 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Mar. 10, 2006).
Mr. Sharp represented Plaintiffs in an indirect purchaser price-fixing antitrust case against choline chloride manufacturers. Over defendants' objection, the class was certified. The order lists a compendium of contested indirect purchaser class action, all of which have been certified. In In re Vitamin Antirust Litig., 2006 WL 4058904 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Dec. 22, 2006), the trial court granted judgment on the merits to the Plaintiff Class awarding approximately $12 million in statutory full consideration damages, trebeled, fees, expenses, and prejudgment interest. This is the first plaintiff's antitrust judgment on the merits rendered in Kansas, and carefully addresses collateral estoppel law.
|
|
|
|
