Brad J. Moore
“I was meant to be a part of this place.”
That’s how Brad Moore, the newly elected President of the Public Justice Foundation, described the natural fit he sees between his work as a trial attorney and his commitment to Public Justice’s work.
Noting that his firm – Stritmatter Kessler Whelan – “has done three cases with Public Justice over the years,” Moore says that “The work that Public Justice does is right up my alley.”
The road leading to his year-long Presidency at the organization’s helm, which has just kicked off, began as early as Public Justice itself. He was introduced to the organization through his law partner and mentor, Paul Stritmatter, who is a founder of Public Justice. That, in turn, led to a close friendship with former president Jack Landskroner, who guided Moore on the path to his current leadership position on the board.
A career as a litigator, however, wasn’t always a sure thing.
Moore grew up with a lawyer for a dad (who would later become his law partner), and a mom who served as Majority Leader in the Washington State House of Representatives. His own journey to the law began, in part, as a tour guide through the Canadian Rockies. Moore led over 50, eight to ten day motorcoach tours throughout British Columbia and Alberta, and his stint as a tour guide revealed how comfortable he was with talking and engaging with people of varied backgrounds. As a result, “talking with and in front of jurors has come somewhat natural to me,” he says.
That, along with an influential Philosophy of Law class in college, led to Moore becoming a passionate advocate for insureds and consumers, injury victims and victims of defective products. His work fighting for those seeking justice makes him a perfect choice to lead Public Justice.
In addition to guiding Public Justice’s existing work in the States, Moore says another priority for his tenure as President will be finding ways to build relationships and associate with Canadian lawyers to pursue high impact public interest lawsuits in Canada.
“The things we care about as a public interest organization here in the States, Canadians also care about,” he notes. “Canadian trial attorneys are fighting so many important battles that are the same as we’re facing here: environmental degradation, preserving access to civil justice and civil rights advocacy, like this year’s Trial Lawyer of the Year finalist from Nova Scotia.”
“That’s why I’m looking into how we can create a strong presence up there.”
Reaching out across borders is another talent that comes naturally to Moore. Outside of his work and home in Seattle, he also has a home in Thailand. He has been fascinated by Southeast Asia since his first trip to the region in the mid-1980s, during which he became one of the first Americans to enter Vietnam following the end of the war.
Now Moore, who succeeds Esther Berezofsky as President of Public Justice, will turn that same passion for reaching out, building alliances and fighting for justice to his new role leading the organization into 2016.
NOTE: This article was republished from PublicJustice.net.
What a night at this evening’s 2015 Public Justice Gala in Montreal, Canada. More to come in future posts. However, I wanted to share with you the amazing moments between the new President of Public Justice, Brad J. Moore, and SKW partner Keith L. Kessler. The room was filled with dedicated advocates, who have fought tirelessly for consumer rights. I could go on and on right now, but it’s late. So, I will just put up a couple of wonderful photos.
The first photo (see top of this post) is of Brad Moore and Esther Berezhovsky (outgoing PJ president) on stage.
The next one is of Brad and Keith. Can you see the joy and pride in Keith’s eyes? What a proud father and tremendous mentor…
Brad’s mother, former State Senate House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, did me the honor of sitting next to me and sharing a little about Brad before he started practicing law. I am truly proud to be a part of such a remarkable firm. We will continue to champion the rights of consumers everywhere.
In today’s The Guardian, injured worker Rosa Moreno shared how she lost both of her hands as an LG television machine worker.
Her evoked such strong reactions–outraging and saddening readers who had no idea of the wrongs inflicted on underpaid workers. The entire firm of Stritmatter Kessler Whelan is proud of Public Justice’s work effort to help Rosa’s story get the attention that it deserves. Public Justice is the country’s largest public interest law firm with the mission of protecting consumers. Rosa Moreno was just selected the recipient for Public Justice’s “2015 Illuminating Injustices” award of $25,000. The award helps shine a light on an injury victim who has suffered significant injury but suffered additional injustice with only obtaining partial recovery.
Below is an excerpt of Rosa’s story:
On February 11, 2011, I lost both my hands.
I was working an overnight shift at my job in Reynosa, Mexico, where I was cutting metal for parts used in assembling flatscreen televisions. I was working in my usual area, and the boss was pressuring us.
“I want you to work faster, because we need the material urgently,” he said.
I was moved to Machine 19, which can rip and cut metal and takes two hands to operate. It is heavy, weighing at least one ton, maybe two, and no one liked to work on it because it was too difficult. They always seemed to assign it to me.
I started work at 11pm. Around 2 or 2:30am, I was positioning metal inside Machine 19. My hands were actually inside the machine, because I had to push the metal in until it clicked into place.
That’s when the machine fell on top of them.
I screamed. Everyone around me was crying and yelling. They stopped the assembly line on the female side of the room, but the men were told to keep working.
Meanwhile, I was stuck. No one could lift the machine off my hands. They remained trapped for 10 minutes, crushed under the machine.
Finally, a few fellow employees created a makeshift jack to lift the machine up just enough for me to pull my hands out. I wasn’t bleeding very much, because the machine actually sealed the ends of my arms and forged them to the piece of metal. They took me to the hospital with the piece attached to my hands. The doctors were surprised when I showed up like that. I remember saying, ‘Take the piece off. Take it off.’ But they didn’t want to.”
My hands were flattened like tortillas, mangled, and they both had to be amputated. I lost my right hand up to my wrist and my left a little higher. I didn’t know how I’d ever work again.
Immediately, I started to worry about my children. I have six children at home, who were between the ages of 9 and 17 during the accident, and I am both mother and father to them. How would I take care of them now?
Working six days a week, I made 5,200 pesos a month ($400). Without my hands, I knew I wouldn’t even be able to make that much.
After five days in the hospital, I checked myself out. But I didn’t go home first. I went directly to the factory where I worked for HD Electronics. I asked to see the manager. He offered me 50,000 pesos ($3,800).
“I’ve lost both my hands,” I said. “How will my family survive on 50,000 pesos?”
“That’s our offer,” he said. “Stop making such a big scandal about it and take it.” I eventually got about $14,400 in settlement money under Mexican labor law, an amount equal to 75% of two years’ wages for each hand. But I knew I had to do better for my family. So I looked across the border, to Texas, where my former employer is based.
I found a lawyer with a nice office in a good part of town. I was sure he would help me. Instead, he said, “Go up to the international bridge and put a cup out and people will help you.”
I was devastated.
That’s when I decided to tell my story on television. That led me to Ed Krueger, a retired minister who vowed to find me the right lawyer. That lawyer was Scott Hendler at the law firm Hendler Lyons Flores, in Austin, Texas. Even though I could not pay, he helped me file a lawsuit against LG Electronics, which contracted with the factory where I worked. Finally, about 18 months after the accident, I had hope.
Then the judge in my case threw out the lawsuit on a technicality, saying LG had not been properly notified. I wasn’t even given a chance to respond.
It’s been four years since I lost my hands. I have trouble paying my mortgage, and I wonder: Was that first lawyer right? Will I end up on a bridge, holding a cup out in front of me?
If you are so moved, please consider donating to Ms. Moreno via www.documentaryphotographs.com/rosamoreno1.html
This is photographer Alan Pogue’s explanation of his beautiful portraits of Rosa: I have worked with Ed Krueger for more than 20 years. He is the founder of the Comite de Apoyo, for Mexican women workers who teach other workers their rights under Mexican labor law and how to organize to obtain those rights. He is on Facebook, only because someone helped him since he is clueless about the internet. Ed and the Comite are also a worthy cause and without him I would not have met Rosa. I accept money for Rosa and the Comite because Ed has no website or PayPal. He does what he does, driving up and down the Rio Grade teaching workers, mostly women, their rights. He is a saint who knows nothing about PR or the web. I charge nothing or helping Ed, the Comite and Rosa. No administrative cost, no gas money for driving back and forth to the Valley. I stay with Ed when I drive down so there are no hotel costs. Simple and direct. This is what I expect form others.
Note: SKW partner Brad J. Moore Seattle, Public Justice President Elect/Consumer Protection Attorney is incoming president of the Public Justice Foundation, who is instrumental as a leader in this organization devoted to protecting individuals, consumer rights, the environment. Like SKW, Public Justice wants to challenge the most powerful organizations to do the right thing and to hold them accountable when they make choices in favor of profit over the consumer’s/worker’s well being.
Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is not the only one who is wondering why it took Premera so long to act, after realizing that at least 11 million individuals’ information were exposed to a data breach. We are too and want to see the large class of Premera customers find justice.
Hackers had unauthorized access to approximately 6 million in Washington and the other 5 million in Alaska and Oregon whose information. There are possibly other markets associated with this breach that extends beyond Washington, Oregon, and Alaska.
Our firm is pursuing a class action to obtain a meaningful recovery for all of the victims involved as the result of Premera’s lack of vigilance over their customer’s data. Please contact PremeraClass@Stritmatter.com, as our attorneys want to speak with you ASAP. Our own Brad J. Moore, who is at the helm of the country’s largest public interest law firm (Public Justice) has a long track record of success with some of the largest consumer protection class action lawsuits.
According to KUOW, after Premera called Kreidler to inform him about the data breach that had occurred over a month before, he asked his staff to find out why it took the health insurer so long to inform everyone about this significant news.
He’s launched a multistate investigation of Premera, explaining: “We would have been heavily engaged in this activity weeks ago if we’d been afforded the opportunity to know in a more timely basis. It was clear once we were notified. Which is part of the irritation right now. It took six weeks.”
The class action/consumer protection attorneys are all for Kreidler’s idea about establishing rules that would have compelled Premera to reveal the information within hours, not weeks.
Again, if you or someone you know was or is a Premera insured and believe that sensitive information was accessed in an unauthorized manner, contact us at PremeraClass@Stritmatter.com
A derivative shareholder lawsuit was filed with plaintiff Judith Burbrink, claiming that retailer Nordstrom filed false, misleading proxy statements with the SEC that covers up the substantial costs associated with operating the planes while rubber-stamping related party transactions with the family. Nordstrom has claimed in SEC filings that the company charges the family market prices for services it provides them. Moreover, the company has stated that payments it receives from the family exceed the estimated costs of providing those services.
Interestingly, however, the lawsuit claims that contrary to those filings, Nordstrom’s board “has never conducted any analysis of the costs of providing the services to the Nordstrom family.” [emphasis added]
The complaint goes on to say that Nordstrom’s has been operating a “bloated and costly” flight department to manage company planes, as well as personal aircraft for the
Nordstrom family. Specific figures detailing the approximate costs of the operation are redacted in the complaint, but Burbrink claims the flight department has cost shareholders millions of dollars. “Contrary to their materially false and misleading statements, the Board has, year after year, violated their fiduciary duties by blessing the related party transactions with the Nordstrom family without inquiring what the costs to the Company are, and whether the charges to the Nordstrom family equitably reflect their share of use of the Flight Department’s resources,” the lawsuit said. “The Board has also utterly failed to inquire whether the payments from the Nordstrom family adequately compensate the Company for undertaking an aviation-services enterprise that is far removed from the Company’s core business and that exposes the Company to risk of liability,” it added.
According to the complaint, the amount of services the company provided to the Nordstrom family jumped in 2007 during the financial crisis. Between March 2007 and November 2008, the company’s stock price fell from $55 per share to $6.61 per share, which inflicted “steep losses on the Nordstrom family,” the suit said. “Not coincidentally, it was around this time that the Nordstrom family began to shift the costs of flying and maintaining their vast fleet of personal planes on to the Company,” the lawsuit said.
The complaint was filed after the plaintiffs attorneys from Strimatter Kessler Whelan, Morgan & Morgan PC, Kyros Law Offices and Hung G. Ta Esq. PLLC inspected company documents Nordstrom produced. “The Company believes that all of the information in our publicly-filed proxy statement regarding aircraft matters is consistent with SEC requirements, IRS guidelines and other governing laws and regulations,” Nordstrom said Friday in an email. “We strive to act in strict accordance with our governance rules.”
Burbrink is represented by Brad J. Moore of Stritmatter Kessler Whelan, Hung Ta, Natalia Williams and JooYun Kim of Hung G. Ta Esq. PLLC, Peter Safirstein and Roger Sachar of Morgan & Morgan PC and Konstantine W. Kyros of Kyros Law Offices.
NOTE: The aforementioned is an excerpt of what appears in various news articles that surfaced today.
Yesterday, The New York Times reported on the following: Earlier this week, we received a groundbreaking decision in the first of the Yakima Valley, WA dairy cases led by Public Justice*, in which we just won on motion for summary judgment. This is a case brought in the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of Center for Food Safety and a local community group under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), seeking to find that the dairies were operating as open dumps and endangering the public health by contaminating the local water supply with nitrates. This case is the first of its kind to seek to establish that manure created at an industrial animal operation (in this case, a mega-dairy), when mishandled, is a solid waste under RCRA. This legal approach is particularly meaningful because RCRA offers far-reaching remedies to force the industry to clean up their practices and the contamination they caused.
Building on inspiring work by Charlie Tebbutt to develop the facts of the case, Public Justice took the lead in the motion for summary judgment briefing. In a 111-page precedent-setting opinion, the Court found that Plaintiffs had established their case on all five claims concerning the drinking water supply, and that the only critical issue left for trial on the groundwater contamination is the remedies. The court reserved Plaintiffs’ RCRA claims on environmental contamination of surface waters and whether the cow pens were sources of contamination for trial because Plaintiffs did not move for summary judgment on those issues (they were extremely minor claims and were left out in an effort to pair down the motion). To summarize Plaintiffs’ five claims, the Court ruled:
- Plaintiffs had standing.
- Defendants’ manure was a solid waste under RCRA because it had no beneficial use (they created far more than they could properly use).
- The manure was leaking into groundwater, which is the Valley’s drinking water supply, and endangering public health through nitrate contamination.
- The dairy is operating in violation of RCRA’s open dumping provisions, meaning they must conform to sanitary landfill or other waste treatment standards.
- The corporate entities backing Cow Palace were also liable.
This is an enormous victory for the Yakima Valley community, who have been fighting for clean water for more than two decades, as well as for advocates seeking to reform industrial animal agriculture to a more sustainable place. The Food Project already has several cases either filed or being developed to build off of this groundbreaking precedent, and this will empower countless communities whose drinking water has been poisoned by factory farms. It is also simply an historical moment for environmental law to expand RCRA in this fashion, and will help pressure the industry to operate in a more sanitary fashion, protecting not only the environment and the local community, but the animals, the workers, and consumers.
For Public Justice, this is a model case because it was brought not only by Public Justice, but in partnership with Board members. Brad Moore with Stritmatter Kessler Whelan in Seattle acted as local counsel, attending the site inspection and performed key depositions that gave us the facts we needed to win at summary judgment, and Beth Terrell with Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, also of Seattle also played a prominent role in the case, most recently in drafting ALL of the Daubert motions for Defendants’ numerous experts. Both provided critical financing to make these cases possible.
Also significant: Judge Rice ruled on Plaintiffs motions to unseal the documents in the case. The Plaintiffs have vigorously opposed Defendants’ prolific document sealing and it was rewarding to receive a strong opinion in favor of an open court, and against court secrecy. All of the documents supporting our case were unsealed.
On a more personal note, and something that brings home the import of this case, when Ms. Jessica Culpepper was at the hearing on this motion, an 83 year old woman approached her afterward. The woman was an elder in the Yakama Tribe, and had traveled to Spokane to see the hearing and report back to the other elders. The two spoke for some time about the case, her life, and Public Justice. She thanked the legal team for their tenacity to fight this important legal battle. In the Yakama language, the elder spoke about how important the work was to protect their waters. Ms. Culpepper asked her to write down how to say “thank you” in Yakama:
This is a major victory on the side of justice. We will continue to update you as the case progresses.
*Brad J. Moore serves as President Elect of Public Justice, the nation’s largest public interest law firm that advocates consumer rights.
Sprint may have been overcharging its consumers to the tune of millions of dollars by cramming unauthorized charges onto its consumers’ bills. Haven’t we heard this before? Yes, in fact earlier this year, SKW attorney Brad J. Moore, also the President Elect of Public Justice (the country’s largest public interest law firm focused on consumer protection) obtained a $20 million class action settlement against Sprint PCS for illegal taxes.
Most recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are targeting Sprint in an investigation for practices of illegally billing customers tens of millions of dollars for unauthorized charges related to premium text messages.
Just yesterday, the consumer bureau sued Sprint in Federal District Court in Manhattan. The lawsuit claims that Sprint has been operating a billing system that allows third parties to “cram” unauthorized charges onto consumers’ mobile phone bills.
On a parallel track, the F.C.C. is conducting a similar investigation. Sources reveal that a settlement where Sprint would pay $105 million in refunds/restitution is imminent.
“Consumers ended up paying tens of millions of dollars in unauthorized charges, even though many of them had no idea that third parties could even place charges on their bills,” said Richard Cordray, director of the consumer bureau. “As the use of mobile payments grows, we will continue to hold wireless carriers accountable for illegal third-party billing.”
In the past, the F.C.C., the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general have participated in lawsuits or settlements with AT&T and T-Mobile for similar alleged cramming charges. The practices under scrutiny typically focused on charges on customers’ bills for premium text messages, that came via horoscopes or other digital content.
The three major mobile companies have gotten hit with accusations of ignoring warning signs that many of the charges were unauthorized. Ignoring thousands of consumer complaints, these carriers blithely allowed third-party companies to assess the charges.
The action by the consumer bureau is a clear signal (again, no pun intended!) of its ongoing plans to police mobile payment systems (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Wallet, and others). Thank goodness for consumer protection groups and watchful agencies who are not entirely in the pockets of these mobile companies.
A widespread fallacy is that class action lawsuits only help to line lawyers’ pockets. This is what corporations want everyone to believe. That way, consumers who are hurt–either physically or financially– as the result of a corporation’s wrongdoing are less apt to seek a class action against a behemoth. But the results that Stritmatter Kessler Whelan has consistently obtained on behalf of class action plaintiffs have empowered many consumers. They have truly found justice and appropriate compensations for their injuries.
Public Justice, the nation’s largest public interest law firm pursues actions on behalf of consumers to keep large corporations in check. PJ attorney, Paul Bland, explains in the video below why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “analysis” of class actions is bunk. We at SKW are proud of the many accomplishments of PJ. Our own Brad J. Moore is currently vice president (Public Justice’s president-elect by August 2014), involved in some PJ lawsuits that include the one against Yakima industrial dairies who are responsible for that region’s groundwater contamination.
After eight years, a consumer class action lawsuit with Sprint customers, Christopher Hesse and Nathaniel Olsen as named plaintiffs, resulted in a $20 million settlement late last month. The class action was on behalf of hundreds of thousands of mobile phone service customers of Sprint PCS. The lawsuit against Sprint PCS alleged that the mobile phone company had engaged in misleading and illegal billing practices by charging all of its customers in Washington State. Instead of acknowledging its illegal conduct and repaying the collected taxes to its customers, Sprint PCS embarked on an eight-year legal battle that reached as high as the the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sprint’s initial argument was that it did not need to abide by state law and continue to charge the illegal tax. It also argued that the case against it had already settled in a Kansas State court, despite the fact that Kansas residents cannot settle a consumer case that alleges Washington law in a Kansas court. After years on appeal, Sprint finally argued that the courthouse doors were closed to its Washington customers and that the case should be decided on an individual basis through a secret tribunal (made up of individuals who Sprint would select).
The settlement will fully reimburse every Sprint PCS cusomter who paid the illegal tax plus interest from 2002 to the present. Brad J. Moore of Stritmatter Kessler Whelan is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.