Richard C. Godfrey, P.C.

MDL 2543: In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation (S.D.N.Y.): Lead outside counsel representing GM in the thousands of individual plaintiff product liability claims and the more than 100 consolidated class actions arising out of the millions of GM vehicles recalled during 2014 for various safety defects. After six years of litigation, there have been hundreds of opinions and orders issued. The most recent opinions of significance include:

• MDL 2543: In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021) (Court’s Order Relating to the allocation of Economic Loss Counsel’s fees and expenses under Settlement Agreement)
• MDL 2543: In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, 2020 WL 7480323 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2020) (Final Approval Order of nationwide class settlement for millions of vehicles and putative class members for the remaining economic loss claims in the MDL, and Opinion overruling objections; no appeals taken)
• Pillars v. General Motors LLC, No. 18-1954 (2d Cir. May 6, 2020) (Court ruled for GM, holding it was not bound by the inadvertent inclusion of language from an outdated non-operative sale agreement)
• MDL 2543: In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation (S.D.N.Y. April 27 and May 4, 2020) (Preliminary Approval Order of nationwide class settlement for millions of vehicles and putative class members for the remaining economic loss claims in the MDL)
• MDL 2543: In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, 407 F. Supp. 3d 212, and 2019 WL 3564698 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6 and Dec. 12, 2019) (Court granted GM summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for scores of billions of dollars in economic loss damages claims)
• In re Motors Liquidation Co., 943 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2019) (Court ruled for GM, holding that it was not liable for punitive damages as the successor of Old GM)
• Reichwaldt v. General Motors LLC, No. 18-1939 (2d Cir. Nov. 19, 2019) (Court ruled for GM, holding it was not liable for punitive damages under a 2009 Sale Agreement approved in Old GM’s Bankruptcy, and also that plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata doctrine)

A Leading Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Revival Chiropractic, No. 21-10559 (11th Cir. 2021) (Retained as appellate counsel to represent insurance company in appeal of adverse judgment interpreting Florida Personal Injury Protection statute to require insurance payments contrary to the terms of the company’s insurance policies)

Johannesssohn, et al., v. Polaris Indust. Inc., 16-CV-3348 (NEB/LIB), 2020 WL 1536416 (D. Minn., Mar. 31, 2020) (Represent Polaris in putative multi-state class action arising out of a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) investigation and recall of All-Terrain Vehicles for allegedly excessive heat and fire risks; Court ruled for Polaris, denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) Petition to appeal granted, and oral argument on appeal held April 13, 2021)

Colby Thompson v. Polaris, Inc., No. A20-0427 (Minnesota Supreme Court) (Appeal by Petitioner Polaris regarding whether a written internal investigation report marked privileged and confidential and solely prepared by a D.C. law firm was or was not entirely protected by the attorney client privilege; oral argument held March 3, 2021)

In re Polaris Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 364 F. Supp. 3d 976, 984 (D. Minn. 2019) (“Polaris Mktg. I”), and In re Polaris Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 18‐CV‐0939 (WMW/DTS), 2020 WL 919259, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 26, 2020) (“Polaris Mktg. II”) (Represent Polaris in another putative multi-state class action arising out of a CPSC settlement alleging product liability claims for alleged thermal heat and fire hazards in certain Polaris vehicles. Court granted motion to dismiss much of the complaint; plaintiffs subsequently dropped certain plaintiffs from case, leading to a final judgment and an appeal, which is pending)

Guzman & Albright v. Polaris Industries Inc., No. 8:19-cv-01543 (C.D. Calif.) (Represent Polaris in putative California class action; oral argument on Polaris’s summary judgment motion held April 30, 2021, and summary judgment in favor of Polaris granted by the Court on May 12, 2021. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit filed May 18, 2021; appeal pending as No. 21-55520, May 19, 2021)

United Methodist Church Mediation (D.C. July 2019-January 2020) (Working with mediator Ken Feinberg and partner Wendy Bloom on a pro bono basis, assisted Mr. Feinberg in reaching a proposed resolution of differing viewpoints within the United Methodist Church regarding the full participation of LGBTQ persons in the Church)

Keene, et al. v. CNA Holdings LLC, No. 2019-000816 (South Carolina 2020) (Represent CNA (Celeanse) on appeal from adverse jury verdict finding asbestos plaintiff’s tort claims were not barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act of South Carolina; oral argument held June 11, 2020)

Berry v. City Of Chicago, 2019 IL App (1st) 180871, 133 N.E. 3d 1201, appeal allowed 132 N.E. 3d 284 (Ill. 2019), and Court of Appeals’ decision reversed, 2020 IL 124999 (Ill. Supreme Court, Sept. 24, 2020) (Represented City of Chicago in putative class action alleging impermissible lead levels in the City’s water system; case dismissed in favor of client, but Illinois Court of Appeals reversed in plaintiff’s favor. Subsequently, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and dismissed all claims against client as a matter of law)

Hatchett v. Henry Schein, Inc. et al., No. 3:19-CV-83 –NJR, 2020 WL 733834 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2020) (Represented Henry Schein in antitrust class action price fixing case; District Court dismissed claims with prejudice for lack of antitrust standing; plaintiffs did not appeal); representation of Henry Schein in other antitrust cases: IQ Dental v. Henry Schein, 924 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2019); Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., 952 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2020) (Client Henry Schein voluntarily dropped from litigation by plaintiffs after 7th Circuit ruled); In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-00696 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); and Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019)

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Windstream Servs., LLC, No. 17-CV-7857 (JMF), 2019 WL 948120 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2019) (Trial counsel for Windstream in case alleging that Windstream had breached a bond indenture covenant; after bench trial, Court ruled against Windstream, finding breach of the bond covenant and also that Windstream had not cured the default)

Hossfeld v. A Leading Property Casualty & Insurance Company, No. 19-cv-03492 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (Represented insurance company in putative consumer class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; client eventually dismissed from lawsuit)

MDL 2179: In re Deepwater Horizon (E.D. La.): Represented BP in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill casualty, described by the 5th Circuit as “epic” and of “gargantuan size and extraordinary complexity.” 819 F.3d 190, 197 (5th Cir. 2016). In this regard:

• Mr. Godfrey tried the first Deepwater trial starting in May 2010, less than a month after the accident and completed in April 2011: In re United States Coast Guard - Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Joint Investigation into the Deepwater Horizon Casualty. This was the federal government’s administrative investigation and trial into the causes of the casualty.
• The scope of Mr. Godfrey’s role in defending BP in Deepwater Horizon was best explained by BP PLC’s now retired Global Head of Litigation, who explained:
  • “When I envision[d] the ideal lead counsel in a high stakes case like Deepwater Horizon, that lawyer must be all of the following: a broad thinking strategist, a trial lawyer with a deep subject matter experience and a thirst for the facts that matter, a person with boundless energy, and an advisor we know and trust based on decades of loyal service. Rick [Godfrey]’s rich career experience...prepared [him], uniquely, for this engagement.”
  • “What sets [Godfrey] apart is his strategic thinking. When we [BP] have a complex issue and we aren’t sure how to approach it, we will sit at a whiteboard (to plan strategy). There is no one better at getting from point A to point Z than Rick. He is easy to deal with, he’s a clear thinker, and he pays attention to every detail like no one else.”
  • “Kirkland & Ellis had lawyers here for regulatory matters, trial, discovery (civil claims) and [Godfrey] was the general…His commitment to the company was incredible. He turned (Kirkland & Ellis) inside out. We got whatever we needed when we needed it. I don’t think any other firm in America could have done that or would have wanted to do that.”
• In addition Mr. Godfrey:
  • Provided strategic litigation counseling to BP’s senior management and Board; and
  • Led the teams from multiple law firms in negotiating various settlements, including the massive Economic Loss class settlement and the Medical Benefits Class Settlement.

Hurt v. Celanese Corporation and Shell Oil Company, No. 17-CV-0315 (E.D. Ark. July 6, 2018) (Represented Celanese in alleged class action in which plaintiff sought multi-state (24 state) class certification for allegedly defective piping used in residential plumbing. After oral argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the District Court ruled for Celanese and Shell, dismissing case with prejudice; no appeal taken)

Kinseth, et al. v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55 (Iowa 2018) (Represented Weil-McLain on appeal of adverse jury verdict in asbestos exposure case; Iowa Supreme Court reversed and ruled in favor of client)

A Leading Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, Etc., 212 So.3d 973 (Fla. 2017), motion for rehearing denied (Mar. 27, 2017) (Represented insurance company in cases regarding whether its personal injury protection policies complied with Florida statute; Florida Supreme Court ruled as a matter of law in favor of client, reversing lower courts’ adverse judgments)

Foster, et al. v. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., et al., 6:15-cv-03519 (W.D. Mo. 2017) (Represented manufacturer of military and consumer rifle accessories in a consolidated product liability class action involving allegedly defective holographic weapons sights; matter was resolved in a nationwide class settlement approved in July 2017)

City Of Neodesha v. BP Corp. N. Am., 287 P.3d 214 (2012): Represented BP party defendants on appeal of adverse judgement in environmental contamination lawsuit involving damages and injunctive remediation relief of nearly $500 million. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the liability judgment, and directed entry of judgment for BP party defendants. See discussion of the Supreme Court argument in the book “Poisoned Legacy,” by journalist Mike Magner (2011) at page 379.

• On remand, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial and plaintiffs appealed. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, finding again for the BP defendants on all issues.) See 334 P.3d 830 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014), rehearing denied October 7, 2015.
• Subsequent to the Appellate Courts’ rulings in BP’s favor, the City of Neodesha in 2014 filed more than 1,600 new cases against BP in its municipal court, claiming violations of municipal ordinances that it had just enacted. Ordinances carried mandatory minimal penalties amounting to at least $750 million. BP removed the actions to Federal Court, which denied the City’s motion to remand after an evidentiary hearing. See City of Neodesha v. BP Corp., N. Am. Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 2016 WL 1298087 (D. Kan. Mar 31, 2016)
• Subsequent to the denial of the City’s motion to remand, BP filed counterclaims challenging the City’s new ordinances, alleging the more than 1,600 lawsuits unlawfully targeted BP to penalize it for successfully having defended against the City’s original pollution complaint. Confronted with these counterclaims, the City of Neodesha in December 2017 entered into a Consent Decree, in which the Court permanently enjoined the City from bringing future litigation against BP regarding the City’s pollution claims. Upon entry of the Consent Decree, litigation ended with BP paying nothing.

Romero v. A Leading Property and Casualty Insurance Company (E.D. Pa. 2001-2019): Lead outside counsel representing insurance company defendant for 18 years in one of the largest age discrimination cases ever brought, involving a putative class of thousands of former insurance agents and a separate lawsuit by the EEOC challenging the validity of a Release on grounds that the insurance company allegedly had retaliated against terminated employee agents. The most significant opinions in the 18 years of litigation include:

• Plaintiff's class certification motion denied, 52 F. Supp. 3d. 715 (E.D. Pa. 2014)
• Summary judgement denial opinion, 1 F. Supp. 3d. 319 (E.D. Pa. 2014)
• Summary judgment granted to insurance company client against the EEOC’s claims, 3 F. Supp. 3d 313 (E.D. Pa. 2014), affirmed, 778 F.3d 444 3d Cir. 2015.
• Trial counsel in ERISA bench trial; District Court found no pension plan cutback liability against company for all but potentially two of the 118 named plaintiffs, whose total alleged damages were de minimis, assuming they could have survived further motion practice, No. 01-6764, 2017 WL 1508879 (E.D. Pa. April 27, 2017)
• Trial counsel for insurance company in combined bellwether jury trial and bench trial resulting in split verdicts over the validity of Releases given by terminated agents to insurance company (E.D. Pa. 2015), and 158 F. Supp. 3d. 369 (E.D. Pa. 2016)
• Partial summary judgement granted for insurance company client on ADEA disparate impact claim, and ERISA section 510 claim, 251 F. Supp. 3d. 867 (E.D. Pa. 2017)
• Case finally settled in 2018 and 2019 on an individual plaintiff basis.

The Marley-Wylain Company v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B267711 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Mar. 24, 2016) (Represented Marley-Wylain on application for peremptory writ of mandate; writ granted in favor of client Marley-Wylain regarding law applicable in upcoming personal injury jury trial arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos)

Jacobs, et al. v. Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., et al., 2017 IL App (1st) 151107, 73 N.E.3d 1220 (Represented Yellow Cab on appeal from adverse $26 million jury verdict in a personal injury action; Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against client)

Plaintiff A v. Corporate Defendant, No. 16-CV-06152 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (Appointed by Court to represent plaintiff (pro bono) in sex discrimination and retaliation employment case)

Fisher v. Univ. Of Texas At Austin, 570 U.S. 297, 133 S. Ct. 2411 186 L Ed. 2d 474 (2013) (Filed amicus brief on behalf of The American Jewish Committee in support of the University of Texas’s admissions policy and to urge that constitutional parameters to race-conscious admissions policies not be altered.) See 2012 WL 3418839 (Aug. 13, 2012). Following oral arguments held October 2012, the Supreme Court vacated the 5th Circuit’s decision and remanded. See 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013). Applying more exacting scrutiny, the 5th Circuit reaffirmed in July 2014, see 758 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 2014). Certiorari was again granted by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2015. See 135 S. Ct. 2888 (2015). Filed second amicus brief on behalf of the American Jewish Committee on November 2, 2015. See 2015 WL 6690036 (Nov. 2, 2015)

Nettles, et al. v. A Leading Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 02-CH-14426 (Circuit Court Cook County, July 6, 2010) (Trial counsel for an insurance company in certified class action trial alleging violations of Illinois and Washington state wage and hours laws with respect to its adjusters. After bench trial, Court ruled for insurance company client finding no liability; appellate court affirmed judgment for the company; see 980 N.E.2d 103 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2012). Nettles’ subsequent petition for leave to appeal denied, see 981 N.E.2d 998 (Ill. 2012)

N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corp., et al., No. EXL-L-9868-05, (Superior Ct. N.J.) (Represented foreign oil company defendants in alleged environmental contamination case)

Puffer v. A Leading Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 675 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2012). See also 614 F.Supp.2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2009); 255 F.R.D. 450, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3533, 2009 WL 136097 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2009); Rule 23 (f) petitions denied twice (7th Cir. Mar. 25 and Dec. 21, 2009); 614 F.Supp.2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (Represented an insurance company in putative gender discrimination class action; plaintiff's motions for class certification denied)

J.M. v. Briseno, 2011 IL App (1st) 091073, 949 N.E.2d 779 (Represented female student J.M. (pro bono) on appeal in case involving two University of Chicago Law School students and the Illinois Civil No Contact Order Act; appeals court reversed lower court judgment, ruling in favor of client J.M.)

United States v. Individual Defendant, 618 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2010) (Represented individual defendant as appointed counsel (pro bono) on appeal of defendant’s criminal conviction for (i) an alleged conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and for (ii) allegedly filing a false tax return. On appeal, the Court ruled in defendant-client’s favor, vacated defendant’s conviction, and remanded for a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct)

Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010), petition for rehearing denied (7th Cir., July 30, 2010); 656 F.Supp.2d 825, 2009 WL 2905552 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2009); 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13520, 2009 WL 449073 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 23, 2009); 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72314 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2008) (class certification denied); 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72314, 2008 WL 4378399 (Sept. 23, 2008); 480 F.Supp.2d 1034 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (Represented BP in putative consumer class action challenging gasoline pricing)

BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Flint Hills Res., LLC, 697 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2010); 615 F.Supp.2d 765 (N.D. Ill. 2009); 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32708, 2009 WL 1033373 (N.D. Ill. April 17, 2009); 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13524, 600 F.Supp.2d 976, 2009 WL 449081 (N.D. Ill. 2009); 500 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D. Ill. 2007); 489 F.Supp.2d 853 (N.D. Ill. 2007); 2006 WL 2505691 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006) (Represented BP Amoco as trial counsel in a jury trial alleging breach of contract and fraud arising out of the sale of a chemical plant; jury returned flipped verdict after trial last over 9 weeks; case subsequently settled)

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Gill, 221 S.W.3d 841, (Tex. App. 2007), reversed in favor of Exxon Mobil, 299 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. S. Ct. 2009), petition for rehearing denied (Jan. 15, 2010) (Represented ExxonMobil in putative statewide class action alleging breach of contract and fraudulent concealment over gasoline pricing) 

In re General Growth Properties, Inc., 409 B.R. 43, 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Represented General Growth project-level debtors as trial counsel in challenge to Chapter 11 filings; bench trial opinion in favor of clients)

Autry Petroleum Co. v. BP Products N. Am., Inc., 2008 WL 360628 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2008), motion for reconsideration denied, 2008 WL 693800 (M.D. Ga., Mar. 12, 2008), aff’d, 334 Fed. Appx. 982 (11th Cir., June 26, 2009), petition for rehearing by Autry denied (November 25, 2009) (Represented BP in putative nationwide class action brought by jobbers alleging violations of the UCC and breach of contract over gasoline prices)

MDL 1532: In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 632 F.Supp.2d 42 (D. Me. 2009) (Summary judgment ruling in favor of defendants in multidistrict litigation antitrust case); 2009 WL 861485 (D. Me. Mar. 26, 2009). See also 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008), motion for rehearing denied (1st Cir. May 2008); 533 F.3d 1, 2008 WL 2568457, 2571402 (1st Cir. 2008), and other opinions reported at: 307 F.Supp.2d 136 (D. Me. 2004); 490 F.Supp.2d 12 (D. Me. 2007); 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10240 (D. Me. Mar. 10, 2006); 235 F.R.D. 127 (D. Me. 2006); 236 F.R.D. 53 (D. Me. 2006); 466 F.Supp.2d 364 (D. Me. 2006); 241 F.R.D. 77 (D. Me. 2007); 243 F.R.D. 17, 20 (D. Me. 2007); 244 F.R.D. 70 (D. Me. 2007); 2008 WL 583548 (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2008); 2008 WL 1924993 (Apr. 29 2008); 2009 WL 861485 (Mar. 26 2009); 609 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Me. 2009) (Represented General Motors in putative class action alleging antitrust conspiracy)

Nolan v. Weil-McLain, 233 Ill. 2d 416, 910 N.E.2d 549 (2009), petition for rehearing denied (June 11, 2009), and reversing, 365 Ill.App.3d 963, 851 N.E.2d 281, 303 Ill. Dec. 383 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. 2006) (Counsel on appeal for Weil-McLain; Illinois Supreme Court ruled in client’s favor and reversed lower court’s entry of adverse jury verdict and judgment in an asbestos case, and reversed the Court of Appeals to set aside what was known as the “Lipke” rule)

Flagler Auto., Inc., v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 582 F.Supp.2d 367, 2008 WL 4604085 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), 67 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1 (Callaghan), appeal dismissed (2d Cir. Feb. 2009) (Represented ExxonMobil in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of the UCC and breach of contract with respect to gasoline pricing)

Daniel v. Aon Corp., 384 Ill.App.3d 1081, 973 N.E.2d 1084 (2008), petition for rehearing denied (Represented the Aon parties in putative class action involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, and claimed violations of consumer fraud statutes); see also related cases in MDL 1663: In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2818 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2008); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74711 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2007); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73220 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2007); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65037 & 64767 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2007); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47659 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40729 (D.N.J. June 5, 2007); 2007 WL 1062980 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2007); 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17019 (Mar. 3, 2009); 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63633, 2008 WL 3887616 (Aug. 20, 2008); 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17754; 17755 (Feb. 17, 2009)

UAW v. General Motors Corp., 235 F.R.D. 383, 2006 WL 1071904 (E.D. Mich. 2006); 2006 WL 891151 (E.D. Mich. 2006), aff’d , 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) (Represented GM in class action case involving retiree health care benefits; class settlement resulted in restructuring of union retiree health care benefits); see also Int’l Union v. General Motors Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92590, 2008 WL 2968408, 156 Lab.Cas. 11,098 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2008); 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16767 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2008)

MDL 1510: In re Daewoo Motor Co., Ltd. Dealership Litig., and Daewoo Motor Am., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 315 B.R. 148 (M.D. Fla. 2004), aff’d , 459 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2032 (2007) (Represented GM in litigation arising out of the sale of Korean automobile manufacturer’s assets)