FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
`
`
`
`1 9 9 0 N O R T H C A L I F O R N I A B L V D .
`W A L N UT C R E E K , C A 9 4 5 9 6
`
`7 0 1 B R I C K E L L A V E N U E
`M I A M I , F L 3 3 1 3 1
`
`
`
`www.bursor.com
`
`
`1 3 3 0 A V E N U E O F T H E A M E R I C A S
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`
`
`FIRM RESUME
`
`With offices in Florida, New York, and California, BURSOR & FISHER lawyers have
`represented both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts throughout the country.
`
`The lawyers at our firm have an active civil trial practice, having won multi-million-
`dollar verdicts or recoveries in six of six class action jury trials since 2008. Our most recent
`class action trial victory came in May 2019 in Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, in which Mr.
`Bursor served as lead trial counsel and won a $267 million jury verdict against a debt collector
`found to have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. During the pendency of the
`defendant’s appeal, the case settled for $75.6 million, the largest settlement in the history of the
`Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
`
`In August 2013 in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., in which Mr. Bursor served as lead trial
`counsel, we won a jury verdict defeating Sprint’s $1.06 billion counterclaim and securing the
`class’s recovery of more than $275 million in cash and debt relief.
`
`
`In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (II), we obtained a $50 million jury verdict in
`favor of a certified class of 150,000 purchasers of the Avacor Hair Regrowth System. The legal
`trade publication VerdictSearch reported that this was the second largest jury verdict in
`California in 2009, and the largest in any class action.
`
`The lawyers at our firm have an active class action practice and have won numerous
`appointments as class counsel to represent millions of class members, including customers of
`Honda, Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Sprint, Haier America, and Michaels Stores as well
`as purchasers of Avacor™, Hydroxycut, and Sensa™ products. Bursor & Fisher lawyers have
`been court-appointed Class Counsel or Interim Class Counsel in:
`1. O’Brien v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2010) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of purchasers of LG French-door refrigerators,
`2. Ramundo v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2011) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of consumers who made in-store purchases at
`Michaels Stores using a debit or credit card and had their private financial
`information stolen as a result,
`3. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011) to represent a
`certified class of purchasers of mislabeled freezers from Haier America
`Trading, LLC,
`4. Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of military personnel against CitiMortgage for
`illegal foreclosures,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 2
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of purchasers of Crest Sensitivity Treatment &
`Protection toothpaste,
`6. Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012) to represent a
`proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag Centennial
`washing machines from Whirlpool Corp., Sears, and other retailers,
`7. In re Sensa Weight Loss Litig. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) to represent a certified
`nationwide class of purchasers of Sensa weight loss products,
`8. In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig. (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012) to
`represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers,
`9. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014) to represent a certified
`nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil,
`10. Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) to represent a certified
`nationwide class of purchasers of children’s homeopathic cold and flu
`remedies,
`11. Ebin v. Kangadis Family Management LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014)
`to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure
`Olive Oil,
`12. In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015) to represent a certified
`class of purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed,
`13. Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., et al. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) to represent a
`certified class of purchasers of mislabeled KitchenAid refrigerators from
`Whirlpool Corp., Best Buy, and other retailers,
`14. Hendricks v. StarKist Co. (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) to represent a certified
`nationwide class of purchasers of StarKist tuna products,
`15. In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Card Litig. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015) to
`represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of NVIDIA GTX 970
`graphics cards,
`16. Melgar v. Zicam LLC, et al. (E.D. Cal. March 30, 2016) to represent a
`certified ten-jurisdiction class of purchasers of Zicam Pre-Cold products,
`17. In re Trader Joe’s Tuna Litigation (C.D. Cal. December 21, 2016) to
`represent purchaser of allegedly underfilled Trader Joe’s canned tuna.
`18. In re Welspun Litigation (S.D.N.Y. January 26, 2017) to represent a proposed
`nationwide class of purchasers of Welspun Egyptian cotton bedding products,
`19. Retta v. Millennium Products, Inc. (C.D. Cal. January 31, 2017) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of Millennium kombucha beverages,
`20. Moeller v. American Media, Inc., (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2017) to represent a
`class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of Personal
`Privacy Act,
`21. Hart v. BHH, LLC (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2017) to represent a nationwide class of
`purchasers of Bell & Howell ultrasonic pest repellers,
`22. McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates (N.D. Cal. September 6, 2017) to
`represent a certified nationwide class of individuals who received calls from
`Rash Curtis & Associates,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 3
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Lucero v. Solarcity Corp. (N.D. Cal. September 15, 2017) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of individuals who received telemarketing calls
`from Solarcity Corp.,
`24. Taylor v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2017) to represent a
`class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of Personal
`Privacy Act,
`25. Gasser v. Kiss My Face, LLC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) to represent a
`proposed nationwide class of purchasers of cosmetic products,
`26. Gastelum v. Frontier California Inc. (S.F. Superior Court February 21, 2018)
`to represent a certified California class of Frontier landline telephone
`customers who were charged late fees,
`27. Williams v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) to represent a proposed
`nationwide class of Facebook users for alleged privacy violations,
`28. Ruppel v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2018) to
`represent a class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of
`Personal Privacy Act,
`29. Bayol v. Health-Ade (N.D. Cal. August 23, 2018) to represent a proposed
`nationwide class of Health-Ade kombucha beverage purchasers,
`30. West v. California Service Bureau (N.D. Cal. September 12, 2018) to
`represent a certified nationwide class of individuals who received calls from
`California Service Bureau,
`31. Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition Corporation (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018) to
`represent a nationwide class of purchasers of protein shake products,
`32. Moeller v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast (S.D.N.Y.
`Oct. 24, 2018) to represent a class of magazine subscribers under the
`Michigan Preservation of Personal Privacy Act,
`33. Bakov v. Consolidated World Travel Inc. d/b/a Holiday Cruise Line (N.D. Ill.
`Mar. 21, 2019) to represent a certified class of individuals who received calls
`from Holiday Cruise Line,
`34. Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson (E.D. Cal. March 29, 2019) to represent a
`certified class of purchasers of Benecol spreads labeled with the
`representation “No Trans Fat,”
`35. Edwards v. Hearst Communications, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. April 24, 2019) to
`represent a class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of
`Personal Privacy Act,
`36. Galvan v. Smashburger (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2019) to represent a proposed
`class of purchasers of Smashburger’s “Triple Double” burger,
`37. Kokoszki v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2020) to represent a
`class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of Personal
`Privacy Act,
`38. Russett v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. (S.D.N.Y. May 28,
`2020) to represent a class of insurance policyholders that were allegedly
`charged unlawful paper billing fees,
`39. In re: Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (D.N.J. June 3,
`2020) to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of generic
`diabetes medications that were contaminated with a cancer-causing
`carcinogen,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 4
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40. Hill v. Spirit Airlines, Inc. (S.D. Fla. July 21, 2020) to represent a proposed
`nationwide class of passengers whose flights were cancelled by Spirit Airlines
`due to the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, and whose tickets were not
`refunded,
`41. Kramer v. Alterra Mountain Co. (D. Colo. July 31, 2020) to represent a
`proposed nationwide class of purchasers to recoup the unused value of their
`Ikon ski passes after Alterra suspended operations at its ski resorts due to the
`novel coronavirus, COVID-19,
`42. Qureshi v. American University (D.D.C. July 31, 2020) to represent a
`proposed nationwide class of students for tuition and fee refunds after their
`classes were moved online by American University due to the novel
`coronavirus, COVID-19,
`43. Hufford v. Maxim Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020) to represent a class of
`magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of Personal Privacy
`Act,
`44. Desai v. Carnegie Mellon University (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2020) to represent a
`proposed nationwide class of students for tuition and fee refunds after their
`classes were moved online by Carnegie Mellon University due to the novel
`coronavirus, COVID-19,
`45. Heigl v. Waste Management of New York, LLC (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020) to
`represent a class of waste collection customers that were allegedly charged
`unlawful paper billing fees,
`46. Stellato v. Hofstra University (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2020) to represent a
`proposed nationwide class of students for tuition and fee refunds after their
`classes were moved online by Hofstra University due to the novel
`coronavirus, COVID-19,
`47. Kaupelis v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2020), to
`represent consumers who purchased defective chainsaws,
`48. Soo v. Lorex Corporation (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2020), to represent consumers
`whose security cameras were intentionally rendered non-functional by
`manufacturer,
`49. Miranda v. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc. (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2020), to
`represent consumers and employees whose personal information was exposed
`in a data breach,
`50. Benbow v. SmileDirectClub, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. Feb. 4, 2021), to
`represent a certified nationwide class of individuals who received text
`messages from SmileDirectClub, in alleged violation of the Telephone
`Consumer Protection Act,
`51. Suren v. DSV Solutions, LLC (Cir. Ct. DuPage Cnty. Apr. 8, 2021), to
`represent a certified class of employees who used a fingerprint clock-in
`system, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
`52. De Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021), to represent a
`certified class of consumers who purchased allegedly “natural” Tom’s of
`Maine products,
`53. Wright v. Southern New Hampshire University (D.N.H. Apr. 26, 2021), to
`represent a certified nationwide class of students for tuition and fee refunds
`after their classes were moved online by Southern New Hampshire University
`due to the novel coronavirus, COVID-19,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 5
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54. Sahlin v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC (Cir. Ct. Williamson Cnty.
`May 21, 2021), to represent a certified class of employees who used a
`fingerprint clock-in system, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric
`Information Privacy Act,
`55. Landreth v. Verano Holdings LLC, et al. (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. June 2, 2021),
`to represent a certified class of employees who used a fingerprint clock-in
`system, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`56. Rocchio v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, (Sup. Ct., Middlesex
`Cnty. October 27, 201), to represent a certified nationwide class of students
`for fee refunds after their classes were moved online by Rutgers due to the
`novel coronavirus, COVID-19,
`57. Malone v. Western Digital Corp., (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021), to represent a
`class of consumers who purchased hard drives that were allegedly deceptively
`advertised,
`58. Jenkins v. Charles Industries, LLC, (Cir. Ct. DuPage Cnty. Dec. 21, 2021) to
`represent a certified class of employees who used a fingerprint clock-in
`system, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
`59. Frederick v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., (Cir. Ct. DuPage Cnty. Jan. 6, 2022)
`to represent a certified class of exam takers who used virtual exam proctoring
`software, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
`Act,
`60. Isaacson v. Liqui-Box Flexibles, LLC, et al., (Cir. Ct. Will Cnty. Jan. 18,
`2022) to represent a certified class of employees who used a fingerprint clock-
`in system, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
`Act,
`61. Goldstein et al. v. Henkel Corp., (D. Conn. Mar. 3, 2022) to represent a
`proposed class of purchasers of Right Guard-brand antiperspirants that were
`allegedly contaminated with benzene,
`62. McCall v. Hercules Corp., (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cnty. Mar. 14, 2022)
`to represent a certified class of who laundry card purchasers who were
`allegedly subjected to deceptive practices by being denied cash refunds,
`63. Lewis v. Trident Manufacturing, Inc., (Cir. Ct. Kane Cnty. Mar. 16, 2022) to
`represent a certified class of workers who used a fingerprint clock-in system,
`in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
`64. Croft v. Spinx Games Limited, et al., (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2022) to represent
`a certified class of Washington residents who lost money playing mobile
`applications games that allegedly constituted illegal gambling under
`Washington law,
`65. Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC, (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2022) to represent a
`certified class of Illinois residents whose identities were allegedly used
`without their consent in alleged violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act,
`66. Rivera v. Google LLC, (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. Apr. 25, 2022) to represent a
`certified class of Illinois residents who appeared in a photograph in Google
`Photos, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
`67. Loftus v. Outside Integrated Media, LLC, (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2022) to
`represent a class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of
`Personal Privacy Act,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 6
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`68. D’Amario v. The University of Tampa, (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of students for tuition and fee refunds after their
`classes were moved online by The University of Tampa due to the novel
`coronavirus, COVID-19,
`69. Fittipaldi v. Monmouth University, (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2022) to represent a
`certified nationwide class of students for tuition and fee refunds after their
`classes were moved online by Monmouth University due to the novel
`coronavirus, COVID-19,
`70. Armstead v. VGW Malta Ltd. et al. (Cir. Ct. Henderson Cnty. Oct. 3, 2022) to
`present a certified class of Kentucky residents who lost money playing mobile
`applications games that allegedly constituted illegal gambling under Kentucky
`law,
`71. Cruz v. The Connor Group, A Real Estate Investment Firm, LLC, (N.D. Ill.
`Oct. 26, 2022) to represent a certified class of workers who used a fingerprint
`clock-in system, in alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
`Privacy Act;
`72. Delcid et al. v. TCP HOT Acquisitions LLC et al. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022) to
`represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sure and Brut-brand
`antiperspirants that were allegedly contaminated with benzene,
`73. Kain v. The Economist Newspaper NA, Inc. (E.D. Mich. Dec. 15, 2022) to
`represent a class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of
`Personal Privacy Act,
`74. Strano v. Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2023) to
`represent a class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of
`Personal Privacy Act,
`75. Moeller v. The Week Publications, Inc. (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2023) to represent
`a class of magazine subscribers under the Michigan Preservation of Personal
`Privacy Act.
`
`
`SCOTT A. BURSOR
`
`
`Mr. Bursor has an active civil trial practice, having won multi-million verdicts or
`recoveries in six of six civil jury trials since 2008. Mr. Bursor’s most recent victory came in
`May 2019 in Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, in which Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel
`and won a $267 million jury verdict against a debt collector for violations of the Telephone
`Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
`
`In Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2013), where Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel,
`the jury returned a verdict defeating Sprint’s $1.06 billion counterclaim and securing the class’s
`recovery of more than $275 million in cash and debt relief.
`
`In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (2009), the jury returned a $50 million verdict
`in favor of the plaintiff and class represented by Mr. Bursor. The legal trade publication
`VerdictSearch reported that this was the second largest jury verdict in California in 2009.
`
`Class actions are rarely tried to verdict. Other than Mr. Bursor and his partner Mr.
`Fisher, we know of no lawyer that has tried more than one class action to a jury. Mr. Bursor’s
`perfect record of six wins in six class action jury trials, with recoveries ranging from $21 million
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 7
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`to $299 million, is unmatched by any other lawyer. Each of these victories was hard-fought
`against top trial lawyers from the biggest law firms in the United States.
`
`Mr. Bursor graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1996. He served as
`Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review, and was a member of the Board of Advocates and
`Order of the Coif. Prior to starting his own practice, Mr. Bursor was a litigation associate at a
`large New York based law firm where he represented telecommunications, pharmaceutical, and
`technology companies in commercial litigation.
`
`Mr. Bursor is a member of the state bars of New York, Florida, and California, as well as
`the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth and
`Eleventh Circuits, and the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern
`Districts of New York, the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California, the
`Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, and the Eastern District of Michigan.
`
`
`Representative Cases
`
`Mr. Bursor was appointed lead or co-lead class counsel to the largest, 2nd largest, and 3rd
`largest classes ever certified. Mr. Bursor has represented classes including more than 160
`million class members, roughly 1 of every 2 Americans. Listed below are recent cases that are
`representative of Mr. Bursor’s practice:
`
`Mr. Bursor negotiated and obtained court-approval for two landmark settlements in
`
`Nguyen v. Verizon Wireless and Zill v. Sprint Spectrum (the largest and 2nd largest classes ever
`certified). These settlements required Verizon and Sprint to open their wireless networks to
`third-party devices and applications. These settlements are believed to be the most significant
`legal development affecting the telecommunications industry since 1968, when the FCC’s
`Carterfone decision similarly opened up AT&T’s wireline telephone network.
`
`Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. representing a
`class of approximately 2 million California consumers who were charged an early termination
`fee under a Sprint cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated
`damages under the California Civil Code, as well as other statutory and common law claims.
`After a five-week combined bench-and-jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in June 2008 and the
`Court issued a Statement of Decision in December 2008 awarding the plaintiffs $299 million in
`cash and debt cancellation. Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel for this class again in 2013
`during a month-long jury trial in which Sprint asserted a $1.06 billion counterclaim against the
`class. Mr. Bursor secured a verdict awarding Sprint only $18.4 million, the exact amount
`calculated by the class’s damages expert. This award was less than 2% of the damages Sprint
`sought, less than 6% of the amount of the illegal termination fees Sprint charged to class
`members. In December 2016, after more than 13 years of litigation, the case was settled for
`$304 million, including $79 million in cash payments plus $225 million in debt cancellation.
`
`Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in White v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`
`Wireless representing a class of approximately 1.4 million California consumers who were
`charged an early termination fee under a Verizon cellphone contract, asserting claims that such
`fees were unlawful liquidated damages under the California Civil Code, as well as other statutory
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`and common law claims. In July 2008, after Mr. Bursor presented plaintiffs’ case-in-chief,
`rested, then cross-examined Verizon’s principal trial witness, Verizon agreed to settle the case
`for a $21 million cash payment and an injunction restricting Verizon’s ability to impose early
`termination fees in future subscriber agreements.
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 8
`
`
`
`Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in Thomas v. Global Visions Products Inc. Mr.
`
`Bursor represented a class of approximately 150,000 California consumers who had purchased
`the Avacor® hair regrowth system. In January 2008, after a four-week combined bench-and-jury
`trial. Mr. Bursor obtained a $37 million verdict for the class, which the Court later increased to
`$40 million.
`
`Mr. Bursor was appointed class counsel and was elected chair of the Official Creditors’
`
`Committee in In re Nutraquest Inc., a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case before Chief Judge Garrett E.
`Brown, Jr. (D.N.J.) involving 390 ephedra-related personal injury and/or wrongful death claims,
`two consumer class actions, four enforcement actions by governmental agencies, and multiple
`adversary proceedings related to the Chapter 11 case. Working closely with counsel for all
`parties and with two mediators, Judge Nicholas Politan (Ret.) and Judge Marina Corodemus
`(Ret.), the committee chaired by Mr. Bursor was able to settle or otherwise resolve every claim
`and reach a fully consensual Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, which Chief Judge Brown
`approved in late 2006. This settlement included a $12.8 million recovery to a nationwide class
`of consumers who alleged they were defrauded in connection with the purchase of Xenadrine®
`dietary supplement products.
`
`Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in In re: Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation. After
`filing the first class action challenging Pac Bell's late fees in April 2010, winning a contested
`motion to certify a statewide California class in January 2012, and defeating Pac Bell's motion
`for summary judgment in February 2013, Mr. Bursor obtained final approval of the $38 million
`class settlement. The settlement, which Mr. Bursor negotiated the night before opening
`statements were scheduled to commence, included a $20 million cash payment to provide
`refunds to California customers who paid late fees on their Pac Bell wireline telephone accounts,
`and an injunction that reduced other late fee charges by $18.6 million.
`
`L. TIMOTHY FISHER
`
`L. Timothy Fisher has an active practice in consumer class actions and complex business
`litigation and has also successfully handled a large number of civil appeals.
`
`Mr. Fisher has been actively involved in numerous cases that resulted in multi-million
`dollar recoveries for consumers and investors. Mr. Fisher has handled cases involving a wide
`range of issues including nutritional labeling, health care, telecommunications, corporate
`governance, unfair business practices and consumer fraud. With his partner Scott A. Bursor, Mr.
`Fisher has tried five class action jury trials, all of which produced successful results. In Thomas
`v. Global Vision Products, Mr. Fisher obtained a jury award of $50,024,611 — the largest class
`action award in California in 2009 and the second-largest jury award of any kind. In 2019, Mr.
`Fisher served as trial counsel with Mr. Bursor and his partner Yeremey Krivoshey in Perez. v.
`Rash Curtis & Associates, where the jury returned a verdict for $267 million in statutory
`damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 9
`
`
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Fisher was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1997. He is also a member of
`the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States District
`Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California, the Northern
`District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Missouri. Mr.
`Fisher taught appellate advocacy at John F. Kennedy University School of Law in 2003 and
`2004. In 2010, he contributed jury instructions, a verdict form and comments to the consumer
`protection chapter of Justice Elizabeth A. Baron’s California Civil Jury Instruction Companion
`Handbook (West 2010). In January 2014, Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Mr. Fisher to a four-year term as
`a member of the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.
`
`Mr. Fisher received his Juris Doctor from Boalt Hall at the University of California at
`Berkeley in 1997. While in law school, he was an active member of the Moot Court Board and
`participated in moot court competitions throughout the United States. In 1994, Mr. Fisher
`received an award for Best Oral Argument in the first-year moot court competition.
`
`In 1992, Mr. Fisher graduated with highest honors from the University of California at
`Berkeley and received a degree in political science. Prior to graduation, he authored an honors
`thesis for Professor Bruce Cain entitled “The Role of Minorities on the Los Angeles City
`Council.” He is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
`
`Representative Cases
`
`Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court). Mr. Fisher litigated
`claims against Global Vision Products, Inc. and other individuals in connection with the sale and
`marketing of a purported hair loss remedy known as Avacor. The case lasted more than seven
`years and involved two trials. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff and the class in the
`amount of $40,000,000. The second trial resulted in a jury verdict of $50,024,611, which led to
`a $30 million settlement for the class.
`
`In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases - Handset Locking Actions (Alameda County Superior
`Court). Mr. Fisher actively worked on five coordinated cases challenging the secret locking of
`cell phone handsets by major wireless carriers to prevent consumers from activating them on
`competitive carriers’ systems. Settlements have been approved in all five cases on terms that
`require the cell phone carriers to disclose their handset locks to consumers and to provide
`unlocking codes nationwide on reasonable terms and conditions. The settlements fundamentally
`changed the landscape for cell phone consumers regarding the locking and unlocking of cell
`phone handsets.
`
`In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases - Early Termination Fee Cases (Alameda County
`Superior Court and Federal Communications Commission). In separate cases that are a part of
`the same coordinated litigation as the Handset Locking Actions, Mr. Fisher actively worked on
`claims challenging the validity under California law of early termination fees imposed by
`national cell phone carriers. In one of those cases, against Verizon Wireless, a nationwide
`settlement was reached after three weeks of trial in the amount of $21 million. In a second case,
`which was tried to verdict, the Court held after trial that the $73 million of flat early termination
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2023 11:28 AM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17
`
`
`
`
`fees that Sprint had collected from California consumers over an eight-year period were void and
`unenforceable.
`
`INDEX NO. 607116/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2023
` PAGE 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Selected Published Decisions
`
`Melgar v. Zicam LLC, 2016 WL 1267870 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (certifying 10-jurisdiction
`class of purchasers of cold remedies, denying motion for summary judgment, and denying
`motions to exclude plaintiff’s expert witnesses).
`Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 WL 7017050 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12. 2015) (denying motion for
`summary judgment).
`Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., 2015 WL 1932484 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) (certifying California
`class of purchasers of refrigerators that were mislabeled as Energy Star qualified).
`Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 1252 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss claims
`alleging unlawful late fees under California Civil Code § 1671).
`Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., 2015 WL 9685557 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) (denying motion for
`summary judgment in case alleging false advertising of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for
`children).
`Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2014 WL 4793935 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (denying motion to transfer
`venue pursuant to a forum selection clause).
`Forcellati v. Hyland’s Inc., 2014 WL 1410264 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) (certifying nationwide
`class of purchasers of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children).
`Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 30 F.Supp.3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss in
`case alleging underfilling of 5-ounce cans of tuna).
`Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., 2013 WL 5781673 (E.D. Cal. October 25, 2013) (denying motion
`to dismiss in case alleging that certain KitchenAid refrigerators were misrepresented as Energy
`Star qualified).
`Forcellati v. Hyland’s Inc., 876 F.Supp.2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (denying motion to dismiss
`complaint alleging false advertising regarding homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children).
`Clerkin v. MyLife.com, 2011 WL 3809912 (N.D. Cal. August 29, 2011) (denying defendants’
`motion to dismiss in case alleging false and misleading advertising by a social networking
`company).
`In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 186 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2010) (affirming order
`approving $21 million class action settlement).
`Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 571 (2007) (affirming order denying motion to
`compel arbitration).
`
`Selected