Blog : jack lee

If You Bought an LCD Flat Panel Product, You May Qualify for a Cash Payment

If You Bought an LCD Flat Panel Product, You May Qualify for a Cash Payment

Oct. 18 Update: See today’s announcement regarding this settlement.

We want to make sure you do not miss the announcement of the historic settlement of one of our cases that could mean $25, $100, $200 or more in your pocket.

Since 2007, Minami Tamaki partner Jack Lee has served as the Court-appointed Liaison Counsel for consumers, known as “indirect purchasers,” in a class action against ten leading international companies for unlawfully conspiring to fix prices of LCD panels used in laptops, desktop monitors, and flat screen televisions. The case is IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL Case No. 1827, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

The indirect purchasers we represent include individual and private companies in 24 states and the District of Columbia that purchased laptops, monitors, and TVs containing LCD panels for use (and not for resale) from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2006.

This litigation has resulted in settlements totaling approximately $1.1 billion, the largest amount ever obtained for consumers who bought products indirectly from retailers and resellers, and not directly from the original manufacturer. The net proceeds of the settlement, after attorneys’ fees and costs, will be distributed to consumers and businesses that submit claim forms.

We believe it is likely that you, like tens of millions of other consumers, may have purchased one or more of the products at issue in this case during the seven year period that the price-fixing occurred. We hope that you will take advantage of the opportunity to recover any unlawful overcharges you paid as a result of this conspiracy.

Consumers and businesses in the District of Columbia and the following 24 states are eligible to participate in this settlement:  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Eligibility requirements and instructions on the claims process are available online at the web site: https://lcdclass.com/Home.aspx.The deadline for filing claims is December 6, 2012. Eligible consumers will be able to collect $25, $100, $200 or more by answering a few simple questions about the number of LCD flat screen TVs, monitors, and laptops they bought from 1999 to 2006. The exact amount of each payment will depend upon the number of products purchased and the number of claims filed. No receipts or other documents are required for small claims.

We believe that the eligibility requirements and claims process described on the web site are clear and simple. However, if you have questions or would like assistance in preparing your claim, we invite you to contact our toll-free LCD help line at 1-855-225-1886 or via e-mail at info@lcdclass.com.

While Minami Tamaki LLP is pleased to announce this settlement and to have played a substantial role in this momentous litigation, we will ultimately measure our success by the benefits actually received by consumers eligible to share in the proceeds, including our friends and clients. We are therefore notifying you of this opportunity, urging you to submit your claim, and offering whatever assistance you feel you may need to realize the maximum benefit available to you. We also encourage you to pass this information on to your friends, family members, and colleagues who may be interested in making claims for their share of this settlement.

Recorder: ‘LCD Makers to Pay $539M to Settle Civil Antitrust Suits’

The Recorder last week reported on a case in which Minami Tamaki partner Jack Lee is the court-appointed liaison. See article below.  Bloomberg also reported on the settlement.

The plaintiffs in the case allege that Samsung, Hitachi, Sharp and others “engaged in a worldwide, multiyear conspiracy to fix prices and hinder competition related to TFT-LCD panels, which are in TVs, notebooks and monitors.”

LCD Makers to Pay $539M to Settle Civil Antitrust Suits
By Ginny LaRoe, The Recorder
December 23, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — On the heels of a plaintiff-friendly ruling in the TFT-LCD antitrust litigation, a group of manufacturer defendants is poised to settle for $539 million.

Co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel Francis Scarpulla of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason and Joseph M. Alioto of Alioto Law Firm filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval on behalf of indirect purchaser plaintiffs and state attorneys general on Friday. They asked U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to sign off on a deal to resolve price-fixing claims against Samsung, Hitachi, Sharp, Chimei, Chunghwa, Epson and HannStar.

Plaintiffs allege the makers engaged in a worldwide, multiyear conspiracy to fix prices and hinder competition related to TFT-LCD panels, which are in TVs, notebooks and monitors.

The filing comes after Illston earlier this month rejected defendants’ renewed bid to toss the case for lack of antitrust standing on the part of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, saying the plaintiffs alleged injuries and the direct link between defendants’ alleged anti-competitive conduct “place this case squarely within the type of suit the antitrust laws were meant to address.”

Earlier this year a group of defendants settled with direct purchaser plaintiffs for around $388 million.

Plaintiffs asked for a Jan. 20 hearing before Illston, who presides over the consolidated multidistrict litigation and related criminal action.

Minami Tamaki partner Jack Lee is the court-appointed liaison in the action.

Minami Tamaki Achieves $3.7 Million Settlement in Class Action Against Census Bureau

data_collection_05_00-56-9In September, Minami Tamaki Partner Jack W. Lee and Senior Associate Bethany Caracuzzo finalized a $3.7 million settlement with the U.S. government in a wage and hour class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 2,000 plaintiffs in 17 states against the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The lawsuit alleged that the Census Bureau violated federal law by consciously refusing to pay overtime wages to temporary census employees who worked on the Year 2000 Census.

Census administrators “were targeting a very vulnerable population here – people who are students, retired, homemakers – hoping those groups of people who were temporary employees” wouldn’t raise a fuss, said Lee in a 2001 interview with AsianWeek. Census supervisors “were trying to cross their fingers and hope that no one would notice.”

Some Census supervisors demanded that employees accomplish tasks in “whatever” time it took, requiring or allowing staff to work more than 40 hours a week.

“These people who went out and did counting door-to-door, … they had guns pointed at them, had dogs chasing them (and) had their cars break down on desert roads, just to get their jobs done,” said plaintiff Kent Christofferson, a 20-year Navy veteran who signed on as a field operations supervisor with the Year 2000 Census and was the lead plaintiff.

Census administrators “were trying to save money, because the less they spent, the better they looked,” Christofferson said in an interview with AsianWeek. “The money was available. They could have used it at any time, but they chose not to. … When you have people pushing hours and everything, you don’t need to.”

With the Census 2010 counting completed earlier this year, Lee hopes that the lawsuit helped change the way the Census Bureau managed this year’s temporary workers.

“The goal of the lawsuit was not only to obtain the wages owed the plaintiffs from the 2000 Census, but to also ensure that future Census workers would not have to go through the same injustice,” said Lee.

Minami Tamaki Hosts Asian Pacific American Students from Berkeley Law

More than 30 members of the UC Berkeley Law School’s Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA) and the Asian American Law Journal gathered at Minami Tamaki LLP on October 27 for a fun and inspirational evening.

The law students had the opportunity to meet and mingle with Partners Don Tamaki, Dale Minami, Jack Lee, and Associates Eunice Yang and Sean Tamura-Sato. Over food and wine, the Minami Tamaki attorneys provided words of advice and encouragement, drawing upon their varied experiences and career paths.

Read More

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Edward Davila Nominated to Northern District Federal Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Edward Davila Nominated to Northern District Federal Court

jack_lee_captionU.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) yesterday praised President Obama’s nomination of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Edward Davila for a federal judgeship on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Senator Boxer recommended Davila’s nomination to the White House after a thorough interview and vetting process by her bipartisan advisory committee, which is chaired by Minami Tamaki LLP partner Jack W. Lee.

Senator Boxer said, “I am so pleased the President has nominated Judge Edward Davila for a federal judgeship in the Northern District of California. Judge Davila’s extensive legal career and his deep community involvement will make him an asset to the federal bench. When confirmed, he will be the only Latino judge serving in the Northern District.”

Since 2001, Judge Davila has served on the Santa Clara County Superior Court, where he oversees cases in the criminal, civil, family and juvenile justice divisions. Previously, he was a partner at Davila & Polverino and served as a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County. Judge Davila was a two-time president of the La Raza Lawyers Association Santa Clara County, and he served as President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association in 1998. Judge Davila received the 2006 Justice Baryl Salsman Award from the Santa Clara County Bar Association for his contributions to the legal community.

He received his bachelor’s degree from the San Diego State University and earned his law degree from the University of California Hastings College of Law.

The Northern District of California stretches from the Monterey Coast in the south to California’s northern border with Oregon and from the Pacific Ocean in the west nearly to Sacramento County in the east. More than 7.3 million people live in the district, which includes San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

Court Approves Class Action Status for LCD Price Fixing Lawsuit

Jack Lee and Brad YamauchiIn late March, U.S. District Judge Susan Y. Illston in San Francisco certified a price fixing class action lawsuit filed by Minami Tamaki LLP as a class action on behalf of customers of liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) or products containing them.

Partners Jack Lee (left photo) and Brad Yamauchi (right photo) filed the lawsuit in 2007 against Samsung Electronics, LG Philips, Sharp, Toshiba, Hitachi, and others, alleging violation of antitrust and unfair competition laws, on behalf of all owners of LCD displays who were overcharged due to a price fixing scheme.

The firm is seeking money damages from the defendants, including restitution of all profits illegally obtained from overcharging the public. Price fixing occurs when vendors cooperate to set prices for their products at artificially high levels.

The firm has been deeply involved in trial preparation for the case in anticipation of a likely trial date in 2011.

Melinda Haag Nominated for U.S. Attorney for Northern District of California

jack_leeU. S. Senator Barbara Boxer yesterday praised President Obama’s nomination of attorney Melinda Haag to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California. Senator Boxer recommended Haag’s nomination to the White House after a thorough interview and vetting process by her bipartisan advisory committee, which is chaired by Minami Tamaki LLP partner Jack W. Lee.

Senator Boxer said, “I am so pleased the President has nominated veteran attorney Melinda Haag to serve as the top federal prosecutor in San Francisco. She is well respected in the California legal community and will bring more than two decades of experience handling white collar crime cases to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”

Since 2003, Haag has been a partner at San Francisco-based Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in the White Collar Criminal Defense and Corporate Investigations Group, which handles cases involving fraud, antitrust violations, environmental crimes, health care fraud and other corporate matters. Before that, she was recruited by former U.S. Attorney and current FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve in the San Francisco U.S. Attorney’s Office, where she headed the White Collar Crime Unit and was the deputy chief of the General Crimes Unit. Haag also has experience as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Haag received her bachelor’s degree from the University of California San Diego and she earned her law degree at UC Berkeley.

The Northern District of California stretches from the Monterey Coast in the south to California’s northern border with Oregon and from the Pacific Ocean in the west nearly to Sacramento in the east. More than 7.3 million people live in the district.