Craig Richard Heidemann's Legal Cases (4)

Class action

Andrew Tyler Foster, et al v. L-3 Communications — $61.0 Million

Jul 07, 2017

OUTCOME: Settlement - $61 Million

Under the terms of a recent settlement negotiated by a group of Missouri attorneys, L-3 Communications, one of the largest defense contractors in the United States, owners of EOTech gun sights will rec ... eive over $51,000,000 in class benefits. In December, 2015, Craig R. Heidemann and Nathan A. Duncan of Douglas, Haun & Heidemann, P.C. filed their class action complaint against L-3 Communications alleging violations of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act and of other states’ consumer protection statutes together with violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The federal complaint also included other federal and state causes of action. Tim Dollar, together with co-counsel from Oregon and New York filed a similar suit later that month. A third action against L-3 Communication was filed in Michigan. All three cases were consolidated before Judge Brian C. Wimes in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri. The consolidated action sought reimbursement of amounts paid by thousands of L-3 Communications customers who purchased EOTech brand holographic weapon sights between 2004 and present. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s marketing was deceptive in that the sights did not perform as Defendant advertised and that Defendant concealed the defects from its customers. The alleged defects included (1) thermal drift, (2) reticle fade, (3) moisture incursion, and (4) parallax. Defendant denied the existence of these alleged defects and denied liability. Pursuant the Court’s mediation order, the parties participated in mediation with Rodney Max. After four different mediation sessions spanning several months, the parties reached an agreement in principal that would make it possible for class members to return their sights to L-3 for a full refund plus an additional voucher. Class members also had the option of retaining the sight and receiving a cash payment. Judge Wimes preliminarily approved the class settlement on February 15, 2017. He entered his order finally approving the settlement on July 7, 2017. Class members returned more than 78,300 sights at an approximate total value of $51,025,761.00. L-3 also agreed to pay attorney fees separate from any class benefits in the amount of $10,000,000. In sum, L-3 will have paid in excess of $61,000,000.00 to resolve this litigation.

Class action

Sherrell v. Great Southern

Oct 02, 2014

OUTCOME: Settlement - $5.4 Million

A class action settlement involving Great Southern Bank was preliminarily approved in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri on June 11, 2014. Under the proposed Settlement, all persons who we ... re residents of Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana and Connecticut who borrowed money from Great Southern Bank to finance an automobile, boat, trailer or other consumer goods (“collateral”) and either voluntarily surrendered the collateral or had it repossessed between February 16, 2007 and February 16, 2011, are settlement class members and might be eligible to receive a benefit from a class action settlement. The settlement resolves a lawsuit concerning the notice that Great Southern Bank sent to borrowers in default of their loan obligations prior to Great Southern Bank selling the collateral, and will provide qualifying persons or businesses who file valid claims on or before August 25, 2014 with a one-time payment equal to 30% of the amount defined in Section 400-9.625 of the Revised Missouri Statutes. The actual amount varies with the original amount of the loan from Great Southern Bank and the amount of interest that was paid on the loan.

Class action

Wilhoite v. Mo. Dept. of Social Services

Apr 02, 2014

OUTCOME: $7.6 million settlement

Ramona Wilhoite sued the Dallas County Sheriff's Department. Wilhoite, alleging that it refused to provide her with necessary medical treatment for internal bleeding during her incarceration at the Dal ... las County Jail. She was eventually taken to a hospital where she was treated. Medicaid paid her $4,021 bill. Ramona settled her non-medical claims for $20,000. She contended that none of her settlement was for reimbursement of medical care. Nonetheless, the Missouri Department asserted a lien against the settlement. Ramona then filed suit in federal court, seeking class certification. Her contention was that the Department was violating 42 U.S.C. 1396p(a)(1) and Ahlborn. Ramona argued that she adequately represented other Medicaid recipients settling claims against third parties where the State made claims against the non-medical portion of the recovery. The State argued that Ramona did not adequately represent other potential class members because, among other reasons, a portion of Ramona’s settlement was set aside in trust pending the outcome of the litigation. The court found this distinction to be a de minimus difference. Finding the class action device to be a superior way to resolve the issue, the Court certified the class.” Wilhoite asserted three counts against the Missouri Department of Social Services. First, injunctive relieve and damages under Section 1983 alleging violations of rights secured by 42 USC 1396p(a)(1) and by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Second, Wilhoite seeks “disgorgement of all amounts collected in violation of section 1396p(a)(1) and a permanent injunction under an unjust enrichment theory.” Third, damages are sought under a breach of contract theory based upon an alleged violation of 1396p(a)(1). Class certification was sought for similarly situated Missouri citizens “who have received Medicaid and who had liens asserted and/or monies taken by Defendant out of their third party civil settlements or judgments from January 21, 2000 to present, where said settlements or judgments were unrelated to medical care and services, or where the liens asserted and or monies taken by the Defendants were in excess of the amount of said settlement or judgment related to medical care and services, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1).

Civil rights

In re: Texas Prison Litigation

Jan 01, 1999

OUTCOME: $2.2 Million Settlement

Plaintiffs were Missouri prisoners who were transferred from Missouri state-penal institutions to penal institutions in Gregg and Brazoria Counties in Texas. Their transfer and confinement was done pur ... suant to a contract between the State of Missouri and the counties whereby they agreed to house and supervise the Missouri prisoners in exchange for money. The Plaintiffs allege that they are third-party beneficiaries of those contracts and that the counties breached the contract. In addition, the Plaintiffs assert a § 1983 claim that they were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment while they were incarcerated in the county jails when they were bitten by dogs, shot with fire hoses and tortured with tasers.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained