Kevin P. Roddy is a shareholder in the law firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. He is co-chair of the firm's Class Actions Team. He concentrates his practice on complex litigation, including class actions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, anti-racketeering, and securities fraud statutes.
During 2005-2007, he served as President of the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT). During 2003-2005, he was NASCAT's President-Elect. From 2000 to 2011, he served on NASCAT's Executive Committee and, from 1991 to 2011, he served as Chair of the NASCAT Amicus Committee. From February 2000 through December 2004, he was managing partner of the Los Angeles Office of Hagens Berman LLP, a Seattle-based firm specializing in class action litigation. From December 1991 to February 2000, he was Managing Partner of the Los Angeles Office of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, a New York- and San Diego-based law firm specializing in class action litigation.
Kevin and his wife, Joann, have three children. They live in Brielle, New Jersey. Kevin is a member of the Executive Board of the Manasquan-Brielle Little League.
Mr. Roddy has authored many publications in the legal field, including the following significant works:
• Kevin P. Roddy, RICO IN BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1991) (two-volume treatise with annual supplements through 1997)
• G. Robert Blakey & Kevin P. Roddy, Reflections on Reves v. Young: Its Meaning and Impact on Substantive, Accessory, Aiding and Abetting and Conspiracy Liability Under RICO, 33 Amer. Crim. L. Rev. 1345 (1996). This article was published as the Special 25th Anniversary issue of AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, and it has been favorably cited by numerous federal circuit and district courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Smith v. Berg, 247 F.3d 532, 536 nn. 7&8 (3rd Cir. 2001).
• American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law, SAMPLE CIVIL RICO JURY INSTRUCTIONS (1994) (principal author)
• Kevin P. Roddy & Daniel S. Floyd, LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN CALIFORNIA (National Business Institute 2001 & 2002)
• Kevin P. Roddy and Seth Aronson, LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN CALIFORNIA (National Business Institute 2000)
• Kevin P. Roddy, Eight Years of Practice and Procedure Under the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995, Postgraduate Course in Federal Securities Law (July 2004) (papers prepared for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 programs are available on Lexis)
• Civil Law Editor, RICO LAW REPORTER (1991 to present)
• Member, Editorial Advisory Board, CIVIL RICO REPORT (1991 to present)
Other Significant Professional Activities:
During 1991-2011, as Chair of NASCAT's Amicus Committee, Mr. Roddy filed more than three dozen amicus curiae briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, federal circuit courts and state supreme courts, including Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, No. 08-905 (securities litigation); Jones v. Harris Assocs., L.P., No. 08-586 (shareholder litigation); Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank, Ltd., No. 08-1191 (securities litigation); Boyle v. United States, No. 07-1309 (RICO); Bridges v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., No. 07-210 (RICO); Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., No. 06-484 (securities litigation); Mohawk Indus. v. Williams, No. 05-465 (RICO); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, No. 04-1371 (SLUSA preemption of “holder” actions; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005); Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, No. 03-932, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005) (securities fraud “loss causation”); Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 102 P.3d 268 (Cal. 2004) (“economic loss rule” in consumer fraud cases); Borowiec v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 808 N.E.2d 957 (Ill.2004) (consumer protection action; validity of arbitration clauses); SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002) (broker-dealer's liability for securities fraud); Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) (RICO; liability of corporate officers); Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S. 808 (1999) (media and privacy rights under First Amendment); Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) (asbestos class action settlements); Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (RICO); Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (asbestos class action settlements); BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (punitive damages in consumer protection cases); Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (ERISA rights of employees); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73 (1995) (ERISA rights of employees); Boca Grande Club v. Florida Power & Light Co., 511 U.S. 222 (1994) (contribution rights of defendants); Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) (securities fraud; liability of aiders and abettors); TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993) (punitive damages under state law); Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Insurance, 508 U.S. 286 (1993) (contribution rights of defendants in securities fraud cases); Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1992) (RICO; liability of professional advisers); and Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (RICO; proximate causation and recovery of damages).
Since November 1999, he has appeared as a principal speaker at the following continuing legal education programs:
• Georgia Bar Association, Seminar on RICO, Atlanta, Georgia, November 7, 2013
• American Law Institute-American Bar Association, Postgraduate Course in Federal Securities Law, Boston, MA, July 7-9, 2005
• American Bar Association, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, E-Document Preservation & E-Discovery After Zubulake - What Every Litigator and In-House Counsel Needs to Know, April 21, 2005 (teleconference)
• NASCAT, Class Action Notice and Claims Administration - Best Practices of the Experts, Lake Las Vegas, Nevada, April 7, 2005
• CLE International, Class Actions: A How-To on Initiating, Defending and Litigating Them, Los Angeles, California, February 24-25, 2005
• Federal Trade Commission, Class Actions Workshop, Washington, DC, September 13-14, 2004
• American Law Institute-American Bar Association, Postgraduate Course in Federal Securities Laws, Chicago, Illinois, August 26, 2004
• Business & Professions Code Section 17200: Is The Unfair Competition Law “Unfair”?, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Francisco, California, December 9, 2003.
• The Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime, Jesus College, Cambridge, United Kingdom, September 12, 2003
• When the Going Gets Tough: Advising a Company in Crisis (Parts I & II), American Bar Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, August 9-10, 2003
• Business and Professions Code Section 17200 in California, Oakland, California, July 30, 2003
• American Law Institute-American Bar Association, Postgraduate Course in Federal Securities Laws, San Francisco, California, July 24, 2003
• Institute for Law and Economic Policy, Agencies, Economic Justice and Private Initiatives, San Diego, California, April 5, 2003
• National Business Institute, Litigating the Class Action Lawsuit in California, Los Angeles, California, December 16, 2002
• American Law Institute-American Bar Association, Postgraduate Course in Federal Securities Law, Boston, Massachusetts, July 18, 2002
• Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Business Litigation in the “Post-Enron” World, Los Angeles, California, April 9, 2002
• University of Kentucky School of Law, 11th Biennial Midwest/Midsouth Securities Law Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, February 15, 2002
• Northwestern University School of Law-Securities Regulation Institute, 29th Annual Securities Regulation Conference, San Diego, California, January 23, 2002.
• Practising Law Institute, 33rd Annual Institute on Securities Regulation, New York, New York, November 7, 2001
• National Business Institute, Litigating the Class Action Lawsuit in California, Los Angeles, California, October 24, 2001
• American Law Institute-American Bar Association, Postgraduate Course in Federal Securities Law, San Francisco, California, July 19, 2001
• Institute for International Research, Securities Regulation & Enforcement Conference, New York, New York, June 19, 2001
• National Business Institute, Litigating the Class Action Lawsuit in California, Los Angeles, California, October 25, 2000
• Orange County Bar Association, Second Annual Capital Markets Seminar, Costa Mesa, California, September 27, 2000
• Practising Law Institute, Advanced Securities Law Workshop, San Diego, California, August 10, 2000
• Practising Law Institute, 31st Annual Institute on Securities Regulation, New York, New York, November 3, 1999
Participation in Significant Class Action Litigation:
For more than 25 years, he has represented plaintiffs in many significant class actions, representative actions, and derivative actions litigated in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He has represented individual and institutional clients, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the California Public Interest Group, USAction, and the Congress of California Seniors. Mr. Roddy has played the lead role in representing plaintiffs in many significant cases, and has helped secure recoveries exceeding $2 billion.
Mr. Roddy's efforts in these complex cases have been praised by federal and state courts. In approving a worldwide settlement of a civil RICO and consumer protection class action brought on behalf of approximately 18 million people who used Western Union's money transfer services to transfer money from one country to another, in which Mr. Roddy served as Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton of the Eastern District of New York lauded Mr. Roddy's “extensive experience handling civil RICO cases and class actions.” The Court noted that the team of plaintiffs' counsel, led by Mr. Roddy, had “secured a significant recovery, including injunctive relief that requires [Western Union] to materially change the consumer disclosure forms and receipts that it uses throughout the world, in a complex, risky class action, and confronted defense counsel from highly respected law firms.” In re Western Union Money Transfer Litigation, Master File No. CV-01-0335 (CPS) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2005) (Memorandum and Order, at 13, 16).
Mr. Roddy has assumed leadership roles in a number of complex cases and class actions. For example, in the above-referenced Western Union Money Transfer Litigation, he was selected Lead Counsel for the Worldwide Class by Senior Judge Sifton. That case was settled in 2005 on a worldwide basis for consideration exceeding $65 million and the imposition of worldwide injunctive relief. In coordinated cases brought in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, In re Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4266 & 4270, Mr. Roddy was chosen Co-Lead Counsel for the California Plaintiff Class, which consisted of over 450,000 vehicle owners. In February 2005, Coordination Trial Judge David DeAlba certified a statewide (California) class. During June-September 2007, Mr. Roddy, along with other Plaintiffs' counsel, tried the class action for 50 days in the Sacramento County Superior Court. In November 2007, the parties announced a proposed four-state class action settlement on behalf of nearly one million vehicle owners residing in California, Illinois, Texas and Connecticut. That settlement was approved by Judge DeAlba in July 2008. In another class action that was prosecuted simultaneously in state courts in California and Florida, In re Rexall Cellasene Cases, Mr. Roddy was chosen Co-Lead Counsel for the nationwide consumer class and, working together with attorneys from the Federal Trade Commission, in 2003 he successfully negotiated a $20 million settlement that provided consumers with a full-dollar recovery and imposed precedent-setting injunctive relief that governs the entire dietary supplement industry.
In the Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020, Mr. Roddy was chosen by Judge Hayden to serve as one of the Subcriber Class Counsel in a class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of health insurance plans. In 2012, this class action settled for $120 million and, in August 2013, Judge Hayden granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. In re Aetna UCR Litigation, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127691 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2013).
Mr. Roddy has extensive experience trying cases. Since 1982, he has tried more than a dozen cases in federal and state courts in New Jersey, California, Virginia, Arizona, Tennessee and North Carolina. In In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savings & Loan Securities Litigation, he was one of the lead trial counsel for a class of 23,000 defrauded shareholders and bondholders; that case (including a five-month jury trial in the District of Arizona) resulted in settlements of approximately $250 million and a jury verdict against the non-settling defendants exceeding $3 billion. In The Industry Network System, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, he was co-lead trial counsel in a 68-day antitrust conspiracy jury trial in the District of New Jersey. In Stilwell Developments v. Wing Wah Chong, he was lead trial counsel for the plaintiff smoke alarm manufacturer in a two-month intellectual property trial involving the enforcement of patents and copyrights; that case resulted in a $7 million jury verdict for plaintiff, which was successfully enforced in ancillary proceedings in the Hong Kong courts.
Mr. Roddy has extensive experience in the appellate courts. For example, in March 2006, Mr. Roddy argued a civil RICO case in the United States Supreme Court. The resulting decision, Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006), established the standard for evaluating proximate causation in such cases.
Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125197 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2012)
•In re Ford Motor Co. E-350 Can Products Liability Litigation (No. II), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13887 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2012)
•Nine Years of Practice and Procedure Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
•Restitution Disgorgement and Injunctions The Availability Of Equitable And Injunctive Relief Under The California Unfair Competition Law and The Unique Challenges Presented By Multiple Enforcers and Follow-On Lawsuits
•Ries v. Ariz. Bevs. USA LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169853 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012)
•The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and Its Anticipated Impact Upon Certification of Nationwide and/or Multi-State Classes of State Law Claims in Federal Court
•The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 The First Nine Months What Do We Know So Far