Rubenstein v. Frey - Document No. 19

Rubenstein v. Frey Doc.
19
Case 1:06-cv-04642-RJH Document 19 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
:
In Re “A Million Little Pieces : MDL Docket No. 1771
Litigation” :
____________________________________:
:
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO :
ALL ACTIONS :
____________________________________:
REPLY DECLARATION OF EVAN J. SMITH, ESQUIRE IN

SUPPORT OF “A MILLION LITTLE PIECES” PLAINTIFFS’
GROUP’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT
OF CO-INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL
I, Evan J. Smith, Esquire hereby declares:
1. I am an attorney, duly licensed and admitted to practice law in the
State of New York and in this Court. I am a partner in the law firm of Brodsky & Smith,
LLC, counsel for Plaintiff Michele Snow in these coordinated proceedings. I have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration. If called upon and sworn as
a witness, I could and would competently testify to these facts.
2. I am also licensed to practice in the State of California and our firm has
offices in New York and California. We currently are actively litigating complex and/or
class action matters in both California and New York state and/or federal courts.
3. Defendants had no choice in the selection of the lead negotiators for the
Plaintiffs and/or the selected proposed Interim Class Counsel. Such lead negotiators and
proposed Interim counsel was discussed, selected and agreed upon solely by and between
Plaintiffs and their respective counsel that are a part of the AMLP Plaintiffs’ Group
without any input from any Defendants or any of their counsel.
Dockets.Justia.com
4. I attended the MDL oral argument and to the best of my knowledge there
was no attorney from the lawfirm of Shalov, Stone & Bonner who attend or argued.
5. I asked the attorney from Shalov Stone & Bonner who attended the
September 13, 2006 status conference before the status conference began when he or his
firm became involved in the case and he advised me that he had been involved in the case
since they filed the original complaint for Plaintiff Sara Rubenstein.
6. Despite my extensive litigation in this action, including but not limited to
the MDL proceeding, the negotiations with all plaintiffs’ counsel in the proposed
leadership structure, and settlement negotiations with defense counsel, the first time I
became aware of Shalov Stone & Bonner’s involvement in this litigation was through
their September 11, 2006 correspondence to the Court regarding the issues to be
addressed at the September 13, 2006 status conference.
7. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiff Rubenstein’s MDL brief is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
8. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Pilar More’s Complaint is attached
hereto as Exhibit “B.”
9. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rubenstein’s Complaint is attached
hereto as Exhibit “C.”
10. A true and correct copy of Thomas Mullaney, Esquire’s September 21,
2006 correspondence with fax confirmation to James Bonner, Esquire is attached hereto
as Exhibit “D.”
11. A true and correct copy of the instant MDL attorney docket is attached
hereto as Exhibit “E.”
2
12. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rubenstein’s SDNY docket sheet is
attached hereto as Exhibit “F.”
13. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rubenstein’s SDNY attorney docket
sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit “G.”
14. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rubenstein’s United States District
Court for the Central District of California’s docket sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit
“H.”
15. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rubenstein’s United States District
Court for the Central District of California’s attorney docket sheet is attached hereto
as Exhibit “I.”
16. A true and correct copy of the MDL Panel’s official service list is attached
hereto as Exhibit “J.”
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: October 4, 2006 /s/ Evan J. Smith, Esquire (ES3254)

Evan J. Smith, Esquire (ES3254)

Rubenstein v. Frey - Document No. 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rubenstein v. Frey - Document No. 19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rubenstein v. Frey - Document No. 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rubenstein v. Frey Doc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

REPLY DECLARATION OF EVAN J. SMITH, ESQUIRE IN

I, Evan J. Smith, Esquire hereby declares:

1. I am an attorney, duly licensed and admitted to practice law in the

a witness, I could and would competently testify to these facts.

without any input from any Defendants or any of their counsel.

6. Despite my extensive litigation in this action, including but not limited to

addressed at the September 13, 2006 status conference.

7. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiff Rubenstein’s MDL brief is

attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

8. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Pilar More’s Complaint is attached

hereto as Exhibit “B.”

9. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rubenstein’s Complaint is attached

hereto as Exhibit “C.”

hereto as Exhibit “E.”

attached hereto as Exhibit “F.”

sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit “G.”

hereto as Exhibit “J.”

Dated: October 4, 2006 /s/ Evan J. Smith, Esquire (ES3254)

You might also like