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:

• 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(2d Cir. May 6, 2020) (Court ruled for GM, holding it was not bound by the inadvertent inclusion of language from an outdated non-operative sale agreement)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, 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)

Johannesssohn, et al., v. Polaris Indus., 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 July 1, 2020)

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)

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); see also 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); and In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-00696 (E.D.N.Y. 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)

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)

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 for 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 the party’s Release (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.

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)

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)

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)