Free Declaration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SUSAN MARTIN (AZ#014226) DANIEL L. BONNETT (AZ#014127) JENNIFER KROLL (AZ#019859) MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2517 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS

Declaration of Susan Martin in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Susan Martin affirms under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am of legal age, under no legal disability and if called as a witness

could competently testify to the matters set forth in this declaration from my own personal knowledge. 2. I am a principal in the firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C., and I am

lead counsel in this lawsuit. I submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to set forth the experience and qualifications of the

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

attorneys in this firm and other information for consideration by the Court in accordance with Plaintiffs' and counsel's request pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(g) that the firm of Martin & Bonnett be appointed as class counsel. Background and Experience. 3. I received my J.D. from the New York University School of Law in

1976 and was admitted to practice law in the State of New York in 1977 and the State of Arizona in 1992. My practice has been devoted almost exclusively to the representation of employees and unions in labor and employment matters, and to the representation of employee benefit plans and retirees and active participants in such plans. The firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. limits its practice to these areas. 4. I began working on cases under ERISA as soon as I began practicing

law. At that time, ERISA had been recently enacted and I participated in a lengthy series of cases challenging the merger of two pension funds before enactment of ERISA regarding the scope and preemptive effect of ERISA as well as several substantive provisions. See Wenzel v. Commissioner, 707 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1983); New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Hoh, 561 F.Supp. 687 (N.D.N.Y. 1983); New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Ret. Fund v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 192 U.S. App.D.C.344, 591 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund, 434 F.Supp. 950 (W.D.N.Y. 1977). I have been litigating cases under ERISA since that time. In addition to representing participants and retirees of pension and welfare benefit plans, I have served as fund counsel or special counsel for a number of "Taft-Hartley" (jointly administered labor-management) multi-employer and single employer pension and welfare benefit plans. 5. From my practice and experience, I know that there are few attorneys

with knowledge of ERISA that represent pension plan participants and beneficiaries

2

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

on a regular basis. I believe that I am one of a relatively small number of plaintiff lawyers in the country who are knowledgeable about the pension provisions of ERISA and regularly represent plaintiffs in this area of the law. 6. We have represented ERISA plaintiffs in many areas of the country.

I have litigated ERISA matters in the federal district courts for districts in New York, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, and on appeal or petition for certiorari in the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and District of Columbia Circuit Courts, and in the United States Supreme Court. 7. This firm has served as class counsel and I have served as lead counsel

in numerous class action cases in the ERISA and employment and labor law fields. I have worked on, inter alia, the following ERISA Class action cases brought on behalf of former employees or retirees: Tourangeau v. Uniroyal, Inc., Civ. N-86-208 (D.Conn.); Kirkhart v. Forstmann Little & Co., 88 Civ. 2071 (S.D.N.Y.); Dembski v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., 88 Civ. 2953 (E.D.N.Y.); Leroy v. Scovill, Civ. N-86-114 (D. Conn.); Johnson v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 19 F.3d 1184 (7th Cir. 1994); Gould v. Loral Corp., 97-02168 PHX-RCB (D. Ariz); Ivelich v. Western Grower's Pension Trust, 97-20649SW-(N.D.Ca.); Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004). Recently, this firm was appointed class counsel in another ERISA case in this Court with over 1,000 participants. In that case, the Plaintiffs won a motion for summary judgment and achieved a settlement scheduled to be heard shortly. See Loewy v. Retirement Committee, CV 03-2284-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz.). 8. I have lectured on ERISA and have authored or co-authored numerous

papers and reports on various ERISA topics, which have been presented to meetings of the American Bar Association, the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans and similar organizations. I have served for several years as the plaintiff and

3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

union co-chair of the ERISA subcommittee of the ABA Labor Section's Committee on Employee Rights and Responsibilities and have volunteered time to teach other lawyers about ERISA. For example, in April of this year, I conducted a training seminar on ERISA basics for the attorneys and staff of the Arizona Center for Disability Law and I have assisted the Volunteer Lawyers Association in ERISA matters. 9. My partner, Daniel Bonnett, and Jennifer Kroll, an associate with the

firm, also work on this case. Mr. Bonnett has been practicing law since 1978 and, for the past ten years, as a principal in the law firm of Martin & Bonnett, has focused his practice on representing employees and unions in labor and employment matters, including representing plan participants in ERISA matters. Mr. Bonnett is admitted to practice law in the states of Arizona, Illinois and Iowa and in the United States District Courts for Arizona, Connecticut and the Central District of Illinois as well as the Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits. Ms. Kroll has been with our firm since 2001. She was admitted to practice law in the State of Arizona in 2001. She spends a substantial portion of her time working with me on ERISA matters. In addition to her J.D., which she obtained in 1999, Ms. Kroll has a Masters Degree in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell University. I believe she is more knowledgeable about ERISA litigation than many attorneys who have practiced in this field far longer than she. 10. Given our ERISA experience and experience as counsel in class action

cases involving ERISA and other matters, I believe our firm has demonstrated commitment, resources and ability to prosecute vigorously class action matters on behalf of our clients. Work Performed in This Case

4

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11.

In accordance with Rule 23(g), we comment on our efforts with regard

to investigation and identification of claims on behalf of the members of the class. We have been working on this case and on the investigation and identification of the claims and potential claims of the class plaintiffs since 2001. As set forth in the complaint, Plaintiffs' first efforts in this regard began in June 2001 with requests for plan documents. This firm pursued these requests over the course of the next several years during the administrative review process and through the claims asserted in this case. We believe that we have diligently reviewed and investigated the claims available to Plaintiffs and that we have asserted those claims identified which we believe in good faith, and after review, are meritorious. 12. We have also retained an actuary, Claude Poulin, who reviewed a sample of over 500 individual participant benefit calculations. Based on his review, it appears that over half of the individuals would be members of Subclass A because the calculations of their minimum benefits without an SBA Offset results in a higher benefit than the benefit they are receiving. Based on the actuary's review, it also appears that approximately 97 individuals out of the over 500 reviewed would be members of Subclass B regarding the fractional reduction of the SBA offset because they worked in excess of 35 years. With respect to the number of potential class

members affected by the claims asserted regarding Plan amendments that were adopted on or after 2000, we do not have an approximate number of participants, but given the size of the Garrett Corp. and the numbers of people who have secured benefit accounts, we believe that there are sufficient members of this subclass to satisfy any reasonable numerosity requirement. 13. We have committed an extensive amount of time and resources to this

case and hereby affirm that we are able, willing and determined to continue to do so.

5

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

We believe that we have and will continue to prosecute the claims asserted in the matter diligently and fairly in the best interests of the members of the classes. 14. Based on the foregoing your declarant respectfully requests that this

Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certify the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 (b)(2) or alternatively, Rule 23 (b) (3) and that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(g), appoint the firm of Martin & Bonnett as Class Counsel. Dated this 26th day of August, 2005. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

By: s/Susan Martin Susan Martin Daniel L. Bonnett Jennifer L. Kroll 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2517 (602) 240-6900 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 26, 2005 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the Following CM/ECF registrants: David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Ave., Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 and mailed to: Amy Promislo, Esq. John G. Ferreira, Esq. Azeez Hayne, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for the Defendants s/T. Mahabir

14 15 16 17 18
G:\WORK\Allied\Court\Pleadings\Susan Martin declaration for class certification .wpd

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 90

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 7 of 7