|
|
|
William R. Weinstein, Principal of Law Offices of William R. Weinstein, has been litigating for more than thirty-five years, with the last 30 years dedicated primarily to the representation of plaintiffs in complex consumer, securities, and corporate class actions. He has served as Class Counsel or Co-Lead Class Counsel in a number of class actions seeking relief on behalf of nationwide or state-wide classes of consumers, including: five nationwide class actions and two statewide class actions against three different of the largest wireless telephone providers; a nationwide class action and a statewide class action against one of the largest "low price" retail chains; a statewide class action on behalf of prepaid gift cardholders; and a statewide class action in the home-energy industry. Additionally, Mr. Weinstein served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in a nationwide class action against a major national real estate developer. Mr. Weinstein also achieved a successful resolution as Class Counsel in an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act seeking disabled parking accommodations for mobility-disabled persons not living, or working or attending school, full-time in New York City. In addition, Mr. Weinstein successfully represented a nationwide class of the minority shareholders of a life insurance company in an action challenging the sufficiency of the consideration paid in connection with a tender offer that settled for more than $5 million. Selected documents in pending and recent cases can be viewed by clicking on Cases.
Before beginning his legal education, Mr. Weinstein spent four years working as an Internal Auditor for the Internal Audit Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Cincinnati, Ohio -- becoming the first person in Ohio to receive his Certified Public Accounting certificate (in 1980, currently inactive) based on such experience.
After graduating cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1983, where he was Topics Editor of The Tax Lawyer, Mr. Weinstein served for one year as a law clerk for The Honorable Paul C. Weick of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Weinstein then began his practice in New York City in 1984, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex tax, commercial, insurance and securities-related litigation for almost eight years. In 1992, Mr. Weinstein began his concentration on complex corporate, securities and consumer class actions primarily on behalf of plaintiffs, practicing with several different law firms, and continuing with the opening his new law offices effective December 1, 2009.
A number of the reported favorable decisions in which Mr. Weinstein has been involved include: Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2016 WL 3748482 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016) (holding that Emilio has Article III standing to litigate his claims under the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), and denying Sprint’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint); Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2015 WL 5052551 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2015) (granting Emilio’s motion to amend the complaint); Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 68 F. Supp. 3d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying Sprint’s motion to dismiss or to strike the complaint’s class allegations); Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2014 WL 902564 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2014), aff'd, 582 F. App’x 63 (2d Cir. Nov. 12, 2014) (confirming Arbitrator's Final Award holding that class action waiver was unenforceable and that Emilio could pursue his class claims in a court action); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 606 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting FCC preemption defense in connection with breach of contract claim for failure to provide promised service at promised rate); Emilio v. Robison Oil Corp., 63 A.D.3d 667, 880 N.Y.S.2d 177 (2d Dep’t 2009) (certifying a class of New York customers in connection with pricing practices of electric ESCO); Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2008 WL 4865050 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2008), aff'd, 315 F. App'x 322 (2d Cir. 2009) (granting petition to compel arbitration on behalf of class of New York wireless telephone customers in connection with New York State Excise Tax charges); Lonner v. Simon Property Group, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 100, 866 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2d Dep't. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss complaint alleging deceptive gift card practices); Florio v. City of New York, 2008 WL 2854116 (S.D.N.Y Jul. 22, 2008) ((sustaining amended complaint under Americans with Disabilities Act for failure of New York City to accommodate mobility-disabled persons not living, or working or attending school, full-time in New York City); Lan v. Ludrof, 2008 WL 763763 (W.D. Pa Mar. 21, 2008) (approving $5.234 million settlement of claims arising out of tender offer for minority shares of Erie Family Life Ins. Co.) (more than 99.3% of all Net Settlement Funds actually paid out to the Class); Meekins v. City of New York, 524 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (sustaining complaint under Americans with Disabilities Act for failure of New York City to accommodate mobility-disabled persons not living, or working or attending school, full-time in New York City); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding class waiver in arbitration agreement unenforceable under California law); Lonner v. Simon Property Group, Inc., 31 A.D.3d 398, 817 N.Y.S.2d 503 (2d Dept. 2006) (reversing dismissal of complaint alleging deceptive gift card practices); Emilio v. Robison Oil Corp., 28 A.D.3d 417, 813 N.Y.S.2d 465 (2d Dept. 2006) (reversing grant of summary judgment on complaint alleging improper consumer pricing practices); Broder v. MBNA Corp., 281 A.D.2d 369, 722 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1st Dep't. 2001) (certifying class of credit card holders regarding issuer's practice of allocating credit card payments to low APR cash advance balances first); (settlement valued in excess of $22 million); Rodney v. KPMG, 143 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1998) (reversing grant of summary judgment) ($13.9 million settlement against accountants in mutual fund securities fraud case involving complex mortgage-backed derivatives); In re Avon Sec. Litig., 1998 WL 834366 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (granting class certification); In re Henry Hackel, 245 A.D.2d 124, 665 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1st Dep't 1997), appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 814, 681 N.Y.S.2d 474 (1998) (consolidated AMEX arbitration against broker/dealer on behalf of 97 claimants arising out of options Ponzi scheme) (award in excess of $825,000 after more than 15 hearing days); Winston v. Mezzanine Investments, L.P., 648 N.Y.S.2d 493 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 1996) (awarding judgment in excess of $10 million after week-long trial for breach of partnership agreement); Krouner v. American Heritage Fund, 1996 WL 393584 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 1996) (sustaining complaint alleging securities fraud by mutual fund); In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Litig., 148 F.R.D. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (decision rejecting privilege assertions followed by $3 million settlement).
A substantial number of Mr. Weinstein's other successes in consumer, securities and disability class actions are unreported. See, e.g., Emilio v. Robison Oil Corp., No. 1412-2003 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester County) (approving $700,000 settlement on behalf of ESCO electric customers, with claimants receiving approximately 75% of total calculated contract damages); Kitamura & Landa v. Trump Parc Condominium, No. 603562-2008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York County) (approving $3,340,000 settlement on behalf of certain condominium owners, with all claimants receiving 100% of calculated damages plus interest); Florio v. City of New York, No. 06-cv-6473 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 22, 2010) (approving settlement under Americans with Disabilities Act requiring disabled parking accommodations for mobility-disabled persons regardless of residency in New York City); Lonner v. Simon Property Group, Inc., No. 2246-2004 (Sup. Ct. Westchester County June 29, 2009) (certifying class of gift card holders regarding claims based on dormancy fee practices); Opperman v. Verizon Wireless, No. BC326764 (Ca. Sup. Ct. L.A. County 2006) (nationwide settlement valued in excess of $10 million for deceptive practices involving sale of Motorola V710, with consumers entitled to up to 100% refunds); Veliz v. Hollywood Enter. Corp., No. CGC-02-40692 (Ca. Sup. Ct. S.F. County 2005) (late fee case resolved as part of nationwide settlement); Angeline v. Emigrant Savings Bank, No 02-08459 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester County 2004) (settlement resulting in 100% refunds of fax fees charged in connection with mortgage payoff letters); Winn v. Symons Int'l Group, Inc., et al., IP 00-0310-C-B/S (S.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2002) (denying all of individual, corporate and accounting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 10(b) class action complaint); In re Verizon Three Way Calling Litig., No. 603484-01 (Supreme Ct. N.Y. County) (class action settlement providing full refund of improper three way calling charges of up to $2 million collected); Greenwald v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., No. 604758-99 Supreme Ct. N.Y. County) (class action settlement providing 50%-100% refund of excessive smoker life insurance rates charged to non-smoker class members); Duke v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., No. CT 99-08254 (MN. D. Ct. Hennepin County) (settlement in principle in multi-million dollar vanishing premium insurance case after court denied defendant's motion to dismiss from bench) (argued by Mr. Weinstein); In re Del-Val Sec. Litig., Master No. MDL 872 (S.D.N.Y.) (combined $5.5 settlement against underwriters and accountants).
Overall, Mr. Weinstein has helped produce settlements in consumer and securities class actions paying benefits to class members in excess of $100 million.
Finally, not all of the class actions in which Mr. Weinstein has served as Class Counsel or Co-Lead Class Counsel have resulted in victories for the class, but the cases were nevertheless worth bringing even if not ultimately successful. See, e.g., Adell v. Cellco P’shp d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 2019 WL 1040754 (N.D. Oh. Mar. 5, 2019), aff’d, 2022 WL 1487765 (6th Cir. May 11, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 355 (2022) (unsuccessful challenge to enforceability of Verizon’s arbitration agreement on grounds that waiver of constitutional right to federal court adjudication of claims under Article III of United States Constitution is involuntary and that Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 irreconcilably conflicts with and overrides Federal Arbitration Act); Katz v. Cellco P’shp d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 2013 WL 6621022 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013), aff’d, 794 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 596 (2015) (unsuccessful challenge to constitutionality of Federal Arbitration Act as violation of separation of powers principles under Article III of United States Constitution in connection with the hundreds of millions of involuntarily imposed wireless telephone arbitration agreements); Litman v. Cellco P’shp d/b/a Verizon Wireless,381 F. App’x 140 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. granted, vacated & remanded, 131 S. Ct. 2872 (2011), cert. granted, vacated & remanded, 131 S. Ct. 2873 (2011), on remand, 655 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1046 (2012) (initial successful challenge in Third Circuit to enforceability of arbitration agreement under New Jersey law, decision vacated and New Jersey law held preempted after AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011)); Tepper v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 19 A.D.3d 585, 797 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2005) (claims seeking refunds of part of monthly cable television charges for failure to carry New York Yankees baseball games); Pew v. Cardarelli, 2005 WL 3817472 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2005) (securities fraud claims on behalf of members of agricultural cooperative regarding sale of "Money Market Certificates"); Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) (claims regarding failure of federal savings and loan associations to pay escrow interest required under state law); Del Greco v. CVS Corp., 337 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (ERISA claims on behalf of breast cancer patients required to pay brand-name co-payments for generic tamoxifen citrate prescriptions); Ludl Elec. Prods., Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 397, 775 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2d Dep't 2005) (deceptive practice claims regarding automatic renewal provisions in equipment leases and related equipment lessor practices).
Education:
-
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1983 (cum laude)
-
Topics Editor, The Tax Lawyer (1982-83)
-
B.B.A., University of Cincinnati, 1976 (magna cum laude) (major in accounting)
Professional Associations and Memberships:
-
New York City Bar Association (Member, Federal Courts Committee, 2013-2018; Chair, Annual Supreme Court Review CLE Subcommittee, 2015-2017, Member, 2013-2018; Chair, Class Action CLE Subcommittee, 2014-15; Member, Federal Rules Amendments Subcommittee, 2014-2017; Member, E-Discovery CLE Subcommittee, 2016-17; Member, Second Circuit Oral Argument Transcript Subcommittee, 2015-16) (Member, Consumer Affairs Committee, 2002-13; Chair, General Business Law § 349 Revisions Subcommittee, 2008-09)
-
Federal Bar Council
Publications, Speeches and Presentations:
-
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent, dated October, 2020, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., No. 19-963 (U.S. Supreme Court)
Click here to view the brief.
-
Supreme Court - A Year in Review, 2016 Term, Program Chair, New York City Bar Association, July 19, 2017
-
Supreme Court - A Year in Review, 2015 Term, Program Co-Chair, New York City Bar Association, July 20, 2016
-
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents, dated July 24, 2015, DIRECTV Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462 (U.S. Supreme Court)
Click here to view the brief.
-
The Future of Class Actions, Chair and Panel Member, New York City Bar Association, March 3, 2015
Bar Admissions:
-
Mr. Weinstein is admitted to the practice law in New York, and is admitted (but inactive) in Ohio. He also is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Circuit Courts for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Northern District of Ohio.
|
|
|
