IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SIMON DOMINGUEZ, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ, JOSE FRANCISCO BRIONES, and ROBERT PEREZ On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, Jury v. CASE NO. 2:07-cv THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, WARREN TODD HOEFFNER, THOMAS E. BILEK, HOEFFNER & BILEK, L.L.P., JAMES P. BUDDY BELL, and BUDDY BELL ATTORNEY AT LAW Defendants. PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs SIMON DOMINGUEZ, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ, JOSE FRANCISCO BRIONES, and ROBERT PEREZ on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, file their Second Amended Original Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand against THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. (NYSE: HIG), THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, WARREN TODD HOEFFNER, THOMAS E. BILEK, HOEFNNER & BILEK, L.L.P., JAMES P. BUDDY BELL, and BUDDY BELL ATTORNEY AT LAW and respectfully show as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this case as a class action in which a member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant and in which the matter

2 in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). This Court may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Venue is proper as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District. 28 U.S.C II. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Simon Dominguez, an individual, resides in San Diego, Duval County, Texas. He was represented for silicosis claims by Defendant Hoeffner, which claims were settled with The Hartford. 4. Plaintiff Pedro Dominguez, an individual, resides in San Diego, Duval County, Texas. He was represented for silicosis claims by Defendant Hoeffner, which claims were settled with The Hartford. 5. Plaintiff Jose Francisco Briones, an individual, resides in San Diego, Duval County, Texas. He was represented for silicosis claims by Defendant Hoeffner, which claims were settled with The Hartford. 6. Plaintiff Robert Perez, an individual, resides in Alice, Jim Wells County, Texas. He was represented for silicosis claims by Defendant Hoeffner, which claims were settled with The Hartford. 7. Defendant The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. ( THFSGI ) is a corporation headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. The Hartford does not appear to have a registered agent for service of process in the State of Texas and therefore may be served through the Texas Secretary of State. 2

3 8. Defendant The Hartford Insurance Company ( THIC, together with THFSGI, collectively referred to herein as The Hartford ) is a corporation headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. 9. Defendant Warren Todd Hoeffner, an individual, resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Warren Todd Hoeffner may be served with process at his residence at 829 Little John Lane, Houston, Texas Defendant Hoeffner & Bilek, L.L.P. (together with Warren Todd Hoeffner, collectively referred to herein as Hoeffner ) is a business organization organized under the laws of Texas and maintains its principle place of business in Houston, Texas. 11. Defendant Thomas E. Bilek ( Bilek ), an individual, resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Thomas E. Bilek, may be served with process at his residence at Pebble Hill Drive, Houston, Texas Defendant James P. Buddy Bell, an individual, resides in Corpus Christi, Texas and may be served with process at his resident at 211 Cape Cod Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas Defendant Buddy Bell Attorney at Law (together with James P. Buddy Bell collectively referred to herein as Bell ) is a business organization under the laws of Texas and maintains its principle place of business in Corpus Christi, Texas. This defendant may be served by and through its principle owner of record James P. Bell at 101 N. Shoreline, Ste. 210, Corpus Christi, Texas III. FACTS 14. This case arises out of Hoeffner s legal representation of Plaintiffs and the settlement of the silicosis claims brought by Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class with The Hartford. Hoeffner and at least two employees of The Hartford, acting in the course and scope of their 3

4 employment with The Hartford, settled the silicosis claims of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class in bulk. Plaintiffs silicosis claims were settled for more than $34 million, but unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Hoeffner and The Hartford s employees agreed to a kickback scheme whereby the Hartford employees would be paid bribes and Hoeffner would recover substantial attorneys fees. 15. Bell and Bilek also represented Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. According to the Indictment filed by the United States Attorney in 4:07CR262; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the Indictment ), several of the improper payments were made on the Hoeffner & Bilek IOLTA Trust Account and referred to Title VII Settlement with Bell and Hoeffner. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such information and belief allege, that Bilek and Hoeffner knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class were being damaged by the kickback scheme described herein and in the Indictment and that Bilek and Hoeffner, at minimum, failed to prevent said improper payments. IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 16. Pursuant to FRCP 23, this action meets the requirements for certification as a class action. Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of all persons who were represented by Hoeffner, Bilek and Bell and whose silicosis claims were settled by The Hartford between and including 2002 and 2004 (the Plaintiff Class ). 17. The Plaintiff Class alleged is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. According to information presently available, the Plaintiff Class consists of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons. 4

5 18. There are questions of law and fact common to each class member that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Such common questions include but are not limited to: (1) the fiduciary duties owed by Hoeffner, Bilek and Bell to the Plaintiff Class; (2) The Hartford s knowledge of those duties; (3) whether Hoeffner, Bilek and Bell breached their fiduciary duties; (4) whether The Hartford participated in any such breaches of fiduciary duties by Hoeffner, Bilek and Bell; (5) whether Defendants conduct with respect to the Plaintiff Class was negligent or grossly negligent; (6) whether Defendants conduct caused injury and damages to the Plaintiff Class; and (7) the appropriate remedies and measure of damages. 19. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of each class member and the Plaintiffs have no interest adverse to the interests of other members of the Plaintiff Class. 20. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class member and have retained counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of class action litigation. 21. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Such treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender. There are no difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this class action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. V. CAUSES OF ACTION Negligence and Gross Negligence 5

6 22. Defendants owed a common-law duty to the Plaintiff Class to exercise ordinary care. Defendants failed to exercise such ordinary care and were therefore negligent. Defendants negligence foreseeably and proximately injured the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. 23. Moreover, Defendants conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result to the Plaintiff Class. This conduct is gross negligence under the law. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 24. Hoeffner, Bilek and Bell breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class and has caused them damages. Knowing Participation in Breach of Fiduciary Duty 25. Hoeffner was a fiduciary with respect to the Plaintiff Class. Hoeffner breached his duties, causing the Plaintiff Class damages. The Hartford knowingly participated in these breaches of fiduciary duty, and is therefore liable for the resulting damages. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty 26. Hoeffner was a fiduciary with respect to the Plaintiff Class. Hoeffner breached his duties, causing the Plaintiff Class damages. The Hartford aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty, and is therefore liable for the resulting damages. Discovery Rule/Fraudulent Concealment 27. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class invoke the legal doctrines of the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment to toll limitations in this case. Conditions Precedent 28. All conditions precedent have been satisfied or have occurred for the recovery of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. 6

7 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs SIMON DOMINGUEZ, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ, JOSE FRANCISCO BRIONES, and ROBERT PEREZ on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, respectfully request that this Honorable Court: A. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class their actual and exemplary damages and all other appropriate remedies, legal or equitable. B. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class prejudgment interest. C. Award Plaintiffs their expenses, attorneys fees and costs as provided by applicable law. D. Award Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class such other and further relief to which they may be entitled under the circumstances. SIGNED this 15th day of August, Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Christopher A. Bandas Christopher A. Bandas State Bar No Southern Bar No BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C. 500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020 Corpus Christi, Texas (361) Telephone (361) Facsimile Jeffery D. Meyer State Bar No Southern District No MOULTON & MEYER, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 6700 Houston, Texas (713) Telephone (713) Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 7