NYC terror attack victim’s parents plan to sue city

By Bruce Golding; November 21, 2017 5:42pm

https://nypost.com/2017/11/21/nyc-terror-attack-victims-parents-plan-to-sue-city/

The parents of a victim in last month’s terrorist truck attack along Manhattan’s west side bike path filed notice Tuesday that they plan to sue the city over his grisly death.

Barbara and James Drake allege that officials were “grossly negligent” for “failing to remedy the known occurrence of frequent motor vehicles entering the bike path.”

Paperwork served on city Comptroller Scott Stringer and the Hudson River Park Trust says 32-year-old Darren Drake of New Milford, New Jersey, suffered “extensive trauma” along with “fear and terror of the impending incident” when he and seven others were fatally mowed down on Oct. 31.

“My clients are heartbroken because this terrible tragedy was 100 percent preventable,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Rosemarie Arnold said.

The Drakes also plan to sue the state and filed similar paperwork with Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, she said. Their eventual suit will also target Home Depot, from which accused killer Sayfullo Saipov rented the flatbed truck used in the bloody attack, Arnold said.

Saipov, 29, allegedly shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great” – when he hopped out of the rented flatbed truck brandishing pellet and paintball guns following the carnage, that also left more than a dozen others injured.

The immigrant from Uzbekistan was busted when a cop on patrol nearby shot him in the gut, and allegedly asked for an ISIS flag to decorate his hospital room.

Authorities installed concrete barriers at 57 spots along the pathway afterward.

Last week, The Post revealed that data obtained by the NYC Park Advocates group showed 50 motorists were ticketed for driving on the path — and one was busted for driving while intoxicated — between January and October.

Stringer’s office and the Park Trust — which oversees the bike path for the city and state — declined to comment, while Scheiderman’s office didn’t return an inquiry.

A Home Depot spokesman noted that the company “cooperated with law enforcement throughout this ordeal to help them with their investigation.”

New Milford parents of terror attack victim intend to sue New York City

Joshua Jongsma, Staff Writer; Published 6:07 p.m. ET Nov. 21, 2017; Updated 4:02 p.m. ET Nov. 22, 2017

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/new-milford/2017/11/21/new-milford-parents-terror-attack-victim-intend-sue-new-york-city/887019001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/21/nyc-terror-attack-victims-parents-sue-city/887635001/

The parents of a New Milford man killed in the New York City terrorist attack on Halloween intend to sue the city and multiple departments citing an unsafe environment that contributed to the attack.

Darren Drake, 32, was one of eight people killed on Oct. 31, when authorities say Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old Uzbekistan immigrant from Paterson, sped down a bike path in lower Manhattan in a truck he rented from The Home Depot. He allegedly knocked down pedestrians and cyclists, including Drake, before ramming a school bus.

Also Tuesday, Saipov was charged in Manhattan federal court with providing material support to the Islamic State group, along with eight counts of murder and 12 counts of attempted murder in aid of racketeering. Numerous counts carry a potential penalty of death.

Drake’s parents, James and Barbara, are seeking monetary damages from the City of New York and its Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Transportation, and the Hudson River Park Trust.

According to the notice to sue issued Tuesday by attorney Rosemarie Arnold, representing the Drake family, the agencies being sued were “grossly negligent” in the operation of the bike path.

Officials responsible for the path did not recognize vehicles had “easy access” to the path and did not install barriers that could have blocked entry, according to the intent to sue document.

“All of the above entities were instrumental in creating and constructing the bike path, which should have been free and clear of vehicular traffic,” Arnold stated in an email to NorthJersey.com. “All of the above mentioned entities were aware that vehicles regularly either mistakenly or purposefully used the bike path but did nothing to curtail that problem. The terrorist, who did a test run of his terror mission, knew in advance that he would have unfettered access to the plaintiff and other victims.”

Messages left for the New York City Comptroller’s Office, which handles claims for and against the city, were not immediately returned.

A 2003 graduate of New Milford High School, Drake lived most of his life in the borough. He was pursuing a second master’s degree in technology management from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, and was a program manager for Moody’s Analytics at the World Trade Center.

“Darren was a highly educated, well-loved, successful 32-year-old man who was a happy, positive person who used biking as a means to stay healthy in mind and body,” Arnold stated. “His parents are heartbroken, especially since this terrible tragedy was completely preventable.”

A message left for James Drake on Tuesday night was not returned.

Darren Drake rode his bike on the lower Manhattan path every day to stay slim, Arnold said. On the morning of the attack he spoke to his mother and was distressed because he was too busy at work to take his ride that day, Arnold continued. However, one of his appointments canceled and he was able to ride his bike for an hour — the same time as the attack.

Barriers were credited with preventing more fatalities and injuries when a car plowed into pedestrians in Times Square in May.

The New York State Department of Transportation recommends bollards for paths shared by cyclists and pedestrians

“Unauthorized motor vehicles are banned from bicycle or shared-use paths,” the state’s design guide says. “Barriers should be provided.”

However, the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials calls them “ineffective” and says they may hinder access by emergency vehicles and cause serious injuries to cyclists who strike them.

Ridgewood father speaks on son’s brutal beating on school sports field

POSTED 7:12 PM, NOVEMBER 17, 2017, BY CHRISTIE DUFFY

Exclusive: Ridgewood father speaks on son’s brutal beating on school sports field

RIDGEWOOD, N.J. — Two New Jersey families have now filed suit against the Ridgewood School District, including students, and the social-media platform Snapchat after a teenage boy was video-taped being brutally beaten on school property.

The violent assault, which left the teen with a shattered skull, occurred on October 27 and again on October 28 on a school sports field.

“For the first week after I saw the video, I couldn’t sleep. The image is just so horrifying,” the father of the student beaten told PIX11 exclusively. He did not want himself or his son to be publicly identified and he did not want video of his son’s beating broadcast. “He’s got several titanium plates and screws to hold his skull and his face together.”

He said his son’s face is still numb and swollen from the assault. He’s had reconstructive surgery and he may need a second operation if the wounds don’t heal accordingly.

“In the media I’ve heard this called a fight,” said the family’s attorney, Rosemarie Arnold. “This was not a fight, this was an ambush and a beat down.”

According to the lawsuit and the teen’s father, a bully had been spreading rumors and circulating seductive photos of a female classmate at the high school. The teen beaten allegedly approached this student inside the school library and asked him to stop. In return, the alleged bully ordered a friend on the wrestling team to pummel the teen.

“This poor child was the only one who came forward and said you really need to stop this,” said Arnold. “And because he came forward, like he was taught, he got a beat down.”

The teenage girl and the teen beaten are the two alleged victims who are suing.

PIX11 contacted the Ridgewood Schools Superintendent for comment today. He referred us to earlier public statements published on the district’s website.

One reads: “[We] will use this recent incident to address ‘witness’ behavior as a school community. It is highly unfortunate that the incident – which happened after school hours on district property – resulted in unnecessary and unacceptable violence.”

New Jersey passed an anti-bullying bill of rights in 2010 in an effort to combat bullying in public schools.

“There is this whole thing now in high schools now, how they want you to try and intervene,” said Arnold. “They have interviews and they have training materials, but what they don’t do is they don’t teach you how to safely intervene,” said Arnold.

“Frankly, I’m disgusted,” said the boy’s father of the school’s response to the incident.

Teen whose beating was recorded by classmates suing high school

By Paul Milo, NJ Advance Media for NJ.com; Updated Nov 17, 2017; Posted Nov 16, 2017

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2017/11/teen_whose_beating_was_recorded_by_classmates_suin.html

RIDGEWOOD– A boy who was beaten on public school property and a girl who was cyber-bullied are suing the school district, claiming they were victims of a cruel game involving social media that had been ignored by the district for years, their attorney said Thursday.

“Two years ago Ridgewood High School had this exact same problem where students were disseminating photos” and school officials failed to address the situation, said Rosemarie Arnold, of Fort Lee.

Police and school officials launched an investigation early this month after they learned of a male student who was allegedly beaten by classmates on school property outside school hours. The first incident occurred on Stevens Field, followed by a second incident on Brookside Field, according to Facebook posts and a news release sent out by Ridgewood police. The first fight happened around Oct. 23, according to a notice of claim filed by Arnold Thursday.

The youth was hospitalized after suffering serious injuries, including facial fractures and eye damage, Arnold said.

Students recorded the second fight and jeered the boy as it was occurring, Superintendent of Schools Daniel Fishbein said.

Arnold and family members say the boy was attempting to defend his girlfriend after pictures of her were circulated on social media. The girl was clothed in the pictures, which showed her from the waist up and had been sent to a prior boyfriend, Arnold said.

She also said that for at least two years students at the school have participated in a game the object of which is to collect nude photos of other students, which are then shared on social media.

“The board and the administration knew about this game but did nothing…The kids get a sense of ‘I have to handle this myself,'” Arnold said of the boy’s attempt to defend the girl.

The suit names Ridgewood High School and the Board of Education as defendants. The social media site Snapchat is also a defendant for allegedly failing to uphold its own policies governing certain kinds of photos.

A spokeswoman for the district could not immediately be reached Thursday night.

Leonia couple sue Costco, alleging they were charged sales tax on toilet paper

BY NICHOLAS PUGLIESE
STAFF WRITER | THE RECORD
September 16, 2016, 7:45 PM

http://www.northjersey.com/news/leonia-couple-sue-costco-alleging-they-were-charged-sales-tax-on-toilet-paper-1.1661653

A Leonia couple have filed a class-action complaint against Costco Wholesale, alleging that they were illegally charged sales tax on toilet paper at the retailer’s stores in Wayne and Hackensack.

Robert Arnold and Jacqueline Taufield lost only about $6, their attorney said, but their suit could have a big financial impact. They allege in their complaint that more than 100,000 customers could have been similarly affected.

“Conceivably, Costco has to return all of their money plus interest,” said the attorney, Rosemarie Arnold, who has no relation to Robert. “Plus, in this particular case, I think punitive damages are warranted because they know they can’t be charging tax on toilet paper.”

Lawmakers in New Jersey and many other states have exempted toilet tissue and other necessities to keep lower-income consumers from paying extra for things they must use on a daily basis.

Robert Arnold and Taufield allege in their complaint that they were charged a 7 percent sales tax when they purchased Charmin Toilet Tissue at Costco locations in Wayne and Hackensack. Both transactions occurred in July 2015.

When they asked managers for a refund, they were refused and told to contact Costco’s headquarters in Washington state, Arnold, the attorney, said Friday.

“Despite being aware of the illegality of their actions, Costco Wholesale continues to cheat their customers, causing them to incur monetary damages when they purchase toilet tissue,” the couple allege in their complaint.

The couple accuse the warehouse giant of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence and fraud, as well as violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and something known as the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

Another open question, Arnold said, is what Costco is doing with the money that they are collecting on the toilet paper.

“I think that they’re keeping it because if they’re turning it over to the government, isn’t the government going to say, ‘This isn’t taxable’?” she said.

“Unfortunately, we are not able to provide a response at this time,” a Costco spokeswoman said when reached for comment on Friday.

Costco is the second largest retailer in the United States and has about 18 locations in New Jersey, according to the complaint.

Costco accused of improper sales tax charges on toilet paper in New Jersey

CNBC.com
by Dan Mangan
Friday, September 16, 2016, 2:18 PM

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/16/costco-accused-of-improper-sales-tax-charges-on-toilet-paper-in-new-jersey.html

Don’t you know you’re not supposed to squeeze the Charmin toilet paper — or charge sales tax on it?

A New Jersey couple on Friday filed a class-action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale and several of its stores, claiming the membership-only warehouse giant has been illegally overcharging them — and potentially hundreds of thousands of other customers — by charging sales tax on toilet tissue purchases in violation of state law.

Toilet tissue sold for household use is exempt from New Jersey’s 7 percent sales tax.

But the couple, Jacqueline Taufield and Robert Arnold, said that they were charged the tax when they purchased Charmin toilet tissue on July 26, 2015, from a Costco in Wayne, New Jersey, and then again when they picked up some more Charmin in a Costco in Hackensack five days later.

The suit said that when the Leonia couple complained to Costco management after realizing they had been charged sale tax improperly, “they refused to issue a rebate to them.”

The couple’s lawyer, Rosemarie Arnold, said, “Rather than refund [Robert’s] money, they told him, ‘Well, if you believe that, you have to mail your receipt to the corporate headquarters along with a letter and tell the corporate headquarters how you were improperly charged tax.'”

The couple was “annoyed and angry” about the charge, and that response, said Arnold, who is not related to Robert.

“The obvious solution is to say, ‘You’re absolutely right … we made a mistake, here’s your money back,’ ” the lawyer said.

The suit says that Costco “despite being aware of the illegality of their actions… continues to cheat their customers, causing them to incur monetary damages when they purchase toilet tissue.”

The claim, filed in Bergen County Superior Court, alleges violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, violation of the state’s “Truth-in-Consumer Contract,” and fraud.

A Costco spokeswoman, when asked for comment on the suit, said, “Unfortunately, we are not able to provide a response at this time.”

Arnold, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said the amount of tax charged improperly in the couple’s case is less than $1.50 in each purchase.

But nonetheless, Arnold said, “I think it’s huge problem” for Costco and its customers because of the likelihood that the couple were not the only ones subject to the incorrect tax charging.

Costco has 19 warehouse locations in New Jersey, according to the company’s website. And the suit says the class of potentially affected customers is more than 100,000 people.

Arnold said the potential damages for the class would be in the “millions of dollars.”

“Everybody uses toilet paper,” Arnold said. “You have to figure that a patron of Costco is always going to buy toilet paper.”

The lawyer also said it’s an open question of whether Costco “is actually paying the taxes to the government, or keeping the money?”

“Most likely, it’s the latter, because if they submitted tax resolutions to the government, the government would say, ‘This is an non-taxable item, it’s toilet paper,’ ” Arnold said.

A spokesman New Jersey’s Treasury Department, which oversees tax regulations, declined to comment on the lawsuit. But the spokesman noted that “large chain stores have point-of-sale cash registers that are programmed to charge sales tax on a variety of items.”

The spokesman also noted that the department does investigate complaints about stores improperly collecting or not collecting sales tax, and that anyone can file such a complaint anonymously.

“Time Warner Accused of Exaggerating for Merger”

Time Warner Accused of Exaggerating for Merger
by Chris Fry
Courthouse News Service
Friday, December 11, 2015 9:31 AM PT

Read the full article at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/12/11/time-warner-accused-of-exaggerating-for-merger.htm

HACKENSACK, N.J. (CN) – Aiming to boost its stock for an upcoming merger, Time Warner Cable fired workers who resisted inflating subscriber numbers, five ex-employees claim in court.

The lawsuit filed in Bergen County Superior Court comes seven months after Charter Communications announced a plan to buy Time Warner Cable in a cash-and-stock deal that would make it the second-largest Internet and cable company in America.

Time Warner Cable shareholders approved the company’s $56 billion takeover by Charter Communications on Sept. 21.

Meanwhile the five recently fired Time Warner employees now suing the company estimate that the Time Warner and Charter Communications merger is “worth approximately $79 billion.” Their complaint is the Top Download for Courthouse News on Friday.

All former direct sales supervisors or managers of field sales at Time Warner, the five fired workers say that Time Warner sales reps were on the front lines of the fraud, but that encouragement for the practice came from higher-ranking executives.

The plaintiff workers claim to have a January 2015 email from Chris Van Name, the executive vice president of sales channels, that “specifically instructed sales representatives of TWC to ‘pull out all the stops’ and ‘get sales at any cost’ to ‘increase’ the volume of sales.”

Suing in Bergen County Superior Court, the employees say sales reps facilitated the fraud by creating “multiple TWC service accounts at the same location … under identities of various people living at the same location.”

They also created accounts “under incorrect or false social security numbers” and “under identities of people who were no longer living at said location,” the Dec. 1 complaint states.

Other times, employees created accounts under the names of people “whose accounts had previously been frozen or terminated due to ‘non-payment,’ but who still maintained [TWC’s] cable service equipment,” according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say senior human resources generalist Marielys Mejia sent an email in November 2014, telling employees that Time Warner Cable would not suspend anyone accused of creating fraudulent accounts.

Behind the drive to create fraudulent subscribers, Time Warner hoped “to falsely inflate stock prices for the benefit of a potential merger with Charter Communications,” according to the complaint.

The plaintiff workers claim that they flagged the fraudulent “non-pay” accounts on several occasions, but that their supervisors “failed to properly investigate, address or report” the illegal activity.

One of the plaintiffs, Gregory Klein of Staten Island, N.Y., says sales director Lynden Armogan went so far as to mock him at a company dinner in March 2015.

“You should stop being so damn conservative all the time,” Armogan said, according to the complaint, allegedly telling Klein that “there is no need to do everything by the book” in front of co-workers.

Frederick Fischer, a plaintiff hailing from Somerset, N.J., contends that he attended a mandatory meeting in May 2015 where Armogan and Senior Vice President Blaine Altaffer “instructed the employees present to increase subscriber numbers so stock prices would rise within the next 120 days.”

With the plaintiffs vocally objecting to the “illegal, fraudulent activity,” they say Altaffer even threatened Fischer “by hostilely stating to him this is ‘a career making time for you, don’t blow it.'”

Another plaintiff, Nicholas Warren of Fort Lee, N.J., says he inquired in March 2105 about Time Warner installing a computer system that would prevent the creation of fraudulent customer accounts. He says Armogan “threatened” him by saying, “Get out of here, you should not be concerned with this.”

That May, Warren allegedly informed Armogan again that the company should have a computer system in place to verify customer identities and prevent the fake accounts. He says Armogan “angrily” told him such a move would compromise sales.

“Get out of here and never bring this up again,” Armogan said, according to the complaint.

Aside from the accusations related to inflated accounts, plaintiff Raymond Bailey, of Hackensack, N.J., also alleges a count of sexual harassment.

Bailey says he attended a Time Warner dinner at which Armogan began “rubbing his buttocks up against [his] leg at the event in front of his co-workers and wife.”

Armogan “continuously and systematically made romantic and sexual passes” at Bailey following the incident, the complaint states.

Time Warner fired the five workers behind the lawsuit on Sept. 10, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs, three of whom sued with their wives, seek damages for retaliation under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. They are represented by Rosemarie Arnold of Fort Lee.

Time Warner spokesman Keith Cocozza did not return an inquiry regarding the lawsuit.

Each of the supervisors mentioned in the article is a defendant to the action, which takes aim at a total of 12 individuals plus Time Warner and its corporate affiliates.

“Sanofi Whistleblower Alleges Company Attorneys Destroyed Documents”

Sanofi Whistleblower Alleges Company Attorneys Destroyed Documents
by Mark Terry
BioSpace.com
November 23, 2015 7:00:01 AM

Read the full article at: http://www.biospace.com/News/sanofi-whistleblower-alleges-company-attorneys/400601

As a whistleblower lawsuit against Paris-based Sanofi (SNY) steams ahead, ex-paralegal Diane Ponte alleges that Sanofi lawyers destroyed documents rather than provide them in other legal cases.

Ponte has accused Sanofi, among other things, of shifting $34 million in kickbacks and “incentive payments” to doctors and pharmacies to influence them to prescribe its diabetes drugs. Ponte claims she uncovered the kickbacks in March 2013 while reviewing nine contracts while she was working at the company’s New Jersey headquarters. The nine contracts totaled $34 million.

Seven of the nine contracts were with Accenture, two were with Deloitte. She alleges that these were direct incentives from Sanofi to physicians, hospitals and pharmacies to illegally influence them to prescribe Sanofi’s diabetes drug over other companies’ products. In addition, she alleges that Chris Viehbacher’s firing in October 2014 was in part due to the allegations.

Ponte’s lawsuits also states that when she resisted signing off on the agreement, she was subjected to a “severe and pervasive pattern of workplace retaliation.” She was fired on October 29, 2014. In her complaint, Ponte says her supervisors referred to her as a “ditz,” “dingbat,” “lunatic” and “scatterbrain.”

Ponte’s attorney, Rosemarie Arnold, in October 2014, told Bloomberg Businessweek, “The acts surrounding her termination from the company were blatantly related to her whistle-blowing activity. She was a model employee before that.”

Now Ponte has filed an affidavit in Newark, New Jersey court, stating, “In the course of my working in the Sanofi litigation department, I became personally aware of many instances in which documents were deliberately destroyed by Sanofi attorneys to avoid turning over said documents in discovery.”

Although Sanofi has indicated that it does not comment on pending litigation, the company last year referred to Ponte as a “disgruntled former employee who is opportunistically attacking our company,” and further said her accusations of employment law violations were “without merit.”

The company is being a little more harsh in their wording over this most recent allegation, with Sanofi attorney John Bennet saying her claims were “false, scandalous and unsupported by any evidence.”

However, despite attempts by Sanofi’s attorneys to remove that particular paragraph from the affidavit, Essex County Judge Michelle Hollar-Gregory refused.

Further allegations include that Sanofi’s North American general counsel, Robert DeBerardine, and another company attorney, Edward Berg, were not licensed in New Jersey to practice law during at least part of their tenure at Sanofi. This is required by state Supreme Court ruling for in-house counsel.

Sanofi has also requested that Ponte or her attorneys return company documents that they possess. Sanofi’s Bennett argued in court that Ponte had stolen the documents and that they were not subject to attorney-client privilege. One of Ponte’s lawyers, Chris Dubin, retorted, “It’s not true!” referring to the theft. Rosemarie Arnold, Ponte’s lead attorney, did say that many of the papers were not subject to attorney-client privilege because they had been seen by many people not in Sanofi’s legal department. Judge Hollar-Gregory has overruled Sanofi’s requests.

At least some of those documents include an email from one of Sanofi’s in-house lawyers, Berg, written on March 21, 2013. The email, which is in court records, refers to his quick review of Accenture contracts, which actually expresses concern over the contracts, saying it “has almost no meaningful deliverables, is poorly constructed and incorrectly mentions Regulatory Review. … My initial overall take is that the contract violates almost every principal of financial stewardship and good business practices, with few deliverables, an outlandishly short time frame, no consideration as to the clear legal issues in these types of engagements with customers.”

Despite those apparent concerns, Ponte alleges Sanofi insisted on approval.

CNBC.com: “Sanofi whistleblower lawsuit kicks into higher gear”

Sanofi whistleblower lawsuit kicks into higher gear
by Dan Mangan
CNBC.com
Friday, 20 Nov 2015 | 2:38 PM ET

Read the full article at: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/20/sanofi-whistleblower-lawsuit-kicks-into-higher-gear.html

A whistleblowing former paralegal at drug giant Sanofi is now claiming she was aware of “many instances” where Sanofi lawyers destroyed documents to avoid turning them over to opponents in prior legal cases.

Ex-Sanofi paralegal Diane Ponte’s new allegation comes in an affidavit she filed in her pending lawsuit against the company.

Ponte’s suit, filed last year, claims she learned of an alleged scheme at Sanofi to pay more than $30 million in kickbacks to promote the company’s diabetes drugs. The suit came a year after the France-based drug company already agreed to pay more than $100 million to the U.S. federal government to settle other claims related to alleged kickbacks to doctors, and seven months after Sanofi agreed to pay a nearly $40 million fine in Germany in connection with two employees who were convicted there of paying bribes to boost drug sales.

“Prior to my last position with Sanofi, I had been working in the Sanofi litigation department for approximately seven years,” Ponte wrote in her affidavit in Newark, New Jersey, court. “In the course of my working in the Sanofi litigation department, I became personally aware of many instances in which documents were deliberately destroyed by Sanofi attorneys to avoid turning over said documents in discovery.”

The term “discovery” refers to the process in which opponents in civil litigation exchange documents and other evidence that are relevant to issues in their case, and which could affect the outcome of that case.

Sanofi, when contacted by CNBC about ongoing issues related to Ponte’s case, said, “Sanofi does not comment on pending litigation.” Last year, when Ponte’s case was filed, it referred to her as a “disgruntled former employee who is opportunistically attacking our company,” and called her allegations of employment law violations “without merit.”

However, Sanofi attorney John Bennett recently argued in legal motions that Ponte’s claim of document destruction was “false, scandalous and unsupported by any evidence.”

Bennett also said that Ponte, while working at Sanofi, had never reported any such document destruction to the company’s internal complaints system despite that she would have had an obligation to do so under Sanofi’s Code of Business Conduct.

But Essex County Judge Michelle Hollar-Gregory refused during a hearing last week to strike the paragraph in Ponte’s affidavit that alleges the document destruction by Sanofi’s lawyers.

Court filings reveal other new details in the case.

Ponte’s affidavit says that Sanofi’s North American general counsel, Robert DeBerardine, and another lawyer at the company, Edward Berg, were not licensed to practice law in New Jersey for at least part of the time they were working as lawyers at Sanofi. That’s despite Sanofi’s North American headquarters, where Ponte had worked, being located in that state, and despite a state Supreme Court rule requiring in-house counsel at a company to obtain at least a limited license if they want to practice law in the state.

Sanofi claims in court papers that the two attorneys’ law license status isn’t relevant to Ponte’s case, particularly since they were licensed to practice elsewhere in the United States. Sanofi also claims that DeBerardine applied for limited in-house counsel status in April 2013 and had it granted just last month. Berg’s own June 2015 application for that status “is currently pending,” the company said.

Ponte’s suit filed last December claims that she was fired in September 2014 in retaliation for bringing the alleged kickback scheme to light, which led to an internal probe at Sanofi. She also claims that Sanofi’s board fired then-CEO Christopher Viehbacher in October 2014 “in part” because Viehbacher “was involved in the aforesaid illegal and/or fraudulent activity.”

The suit from Ponte alleges she was pressured in March 2013 to approve nine pending contracts Sanofi had with Accenture and Deloitte worth a total of $34 million. Her suit says that despite that she was being asked to review the contracts’ legality, she learned they had actually been executed by Sanofi executive Raymond Godleski four months beforehand.

Her suit claims she determined that the contracts involved illegal incentives from the three companies to “induce customers, including physicians, hospitals and/or retail pharmacy programs such as Walgreens and Rite Aid to [among other things] influence the prescribing of drugs and/or improperly ‘switch’ from selling other manufacturers’ drugs … to selling Sanofi drugs, in violation of the aforesaid Federal healthcare laws.”

Such alleged kickbacks or incentives are illegal because they can encourage the prescription of drugs covered by federal Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs, which in turn could mean that those programs end up paying more in reimbursements than they otherwise would have.

In 2012, Sanofi agreed to pay the federal government $109 million to resolve allegations that the company violated the federal False Claims Act by giving physicians free units of the knee injection Hyalgan in order to induce them to buy and prescribe the drug, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.

In March 2013, two ex-Sanofi employees were sentenced by a court in Germany to suspended sentences, and Sanofi was fined 28 million euros ($29.8 million) in connection with a bribery case there. A spokesman for prosecutors told the Reuters news agency that the former employees made illicit payments to a consulting company that was advising a Sanofi client in order to get the client to order more drugs from Sanofi.

“Sanofi was unfairly given preference because of this,” the spokesman told Reuters. A spokesman for Sanofi told that news agency earlier this year that the company had cooperated with the probe and had tightened its compliance system.

Also related to the ongoing case in New Jersey, Judge Hollar-Gregory last week refused, as least for now, to order Ponte or her lawyers to give back to the company documents related to Sanofi that are in their possession.

A CNBC reporter was present when Sanofi’s lawyer Bennett argued in court that many if not all of the documents are subject to attorney-client privilege, and that Ponte had stolen the documents.

“It’s not true!” angrily protested one of Ponte’s lawyers, Chris Stueben, when Bennett referred to Ponte’s alleged “stealing” of company information.

Ponte’s lead lawyer, Rosemarie Arnold, said that many of the documents would not be subject to attorney-client privilege because they were seen by people not connected to Sanofi’s legal department, as well as for other reasons.

“She was bullied by them,” Arnold said of Sanofi, which is accused in Ponte’s suit of creating a hostile work environment after she made her claims of wrongdoing there. “And now they’re trying to bully her some more.”

Among the documents that Ponte had in her possession is an email from one of Sanofi’s in-house lawyers, Berg, written on March 21, 2013, after he was asked to review some contracts that had been flagged by Ponte as having potential legal issues.

Berg’s email, which is in court records, has the subject line “contracts with Accenture.”

Berg, writing that he was giving “a relatively quick review,” said in the email that “the contract has almost no meaningful deliverables, is poorly constructed and incorrectly mentions Regulatory Review, with no mention of Legal review, when in fact the issues are most likely to create legal risk (kickback) rather than regulatory.”

“My initial overall take is that the contract violates almost every principal of financial stewardship and good business practices, with few deliverables, an outlandishly short time frame, no consideration as to the clear legal issues in these types of engagements with customers,” Berg wrote.

Despite Berg’s apparent concern, Ponte alleges the company pushed for approval of the contracts.

Accenture and Deloitte are not named as defendants in Ponte’s lawsuit. Accenture declined CNBC’s request for comment when Ponte’s suit was filed last year. Deloitte said at that time that “we are confident our contracts and services were entirely appropriate.”

CNBC also has spoken to a former Sanofi contractor, who on Tuesday of this week described how then-Sanofi executive Godleski allegedly pressured her to enter incorrect codes for purchase orders so that the companies that were the subject of the questionable contracts, Accenture and Deloitte, could start getting paid.

The ex-contractor, Jean Kazimir, said Godleski, who is named as a defendant in Ponte’s lawsuit, wanted the companies to get paid even though the contracts hadn’t been approved by Sanofi’s legal department, and despite that the purchase orders would have been for goods instead of for the services that were detailed in the contracts.

“I knew something wasn’t right,” Kazimir told CNBC. She said she had told Godleski he would need to put his request in writing, but that he never did so.

Kazimir’s account is also cited in a federal class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan by shareholders against Sanofi. That suit alleges the company and then-CEO Viehbacher misled investors and inflated Sanofi’s stock price by touting sales growth of its diabetes drugs “while omitting disclosure of the illegal practices used to achieve those sales.” Those alleged illegal practices include the same ones at the center of Ponte’s state court lawsuit.

Sanofi “funneled tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in disguised payments to consultants Accenture and Deloitte, which according to whistleblowers served as middlemen in a scheme to induce pharmaceutical retailers and hospitals to favor Sanofi’s diabetes drugs over competing drugs from Novo Nordisk,” the Manhattan federal court suit claims. The whistleblowers are identified in the suit as Ponte and Kazimir.

Godleski’s lawyer declined to comment on Kazimir’s allegations.

Sanofi has asked a federal judge to dismiss the shareholders’ lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to lay out sufficient legal grounds for their action.

New Jersey Law Journal: “Suit Against CVS Claims Eye Drops Were Tainted by Caustic Chemical”

By David Gialanella
NJLawJournal.com
May 15, 2014

A CVS Pharmacy customer alleges in a New Jersey state court suit that store-brand eye drops contained bleach or peroxide, causing serious injury to his eyes.

Gregg Schwack of Fort Lee, in a suit filed Thursday, alleges that the CVS Pharmacy Redness Relief drops he purchased at a store on River Road in Edgewater on March 30 were contaminated or adulterated.

Schwack applied the treatment to both eyes and immediately felt extreme pain and burning, despite attempts to flush his eyes, and detected the smell of bleach, according to the complaint and his lawyer, Rosemarie Arnold, who heads a Fort Lee firm.

In the weeks since, he’s made numerous doctor visits but still experiences puss, soreness, swelling and blisters in his eyes, Arnold said.

He “was disabled and disfigured and has suffered and will continue to suffer great mental and physical pain and torment,” and “will be in the future compelled to spend great and diverse sums of money for medical aid and treatment, and has been and will be prevented from attending his usual occupation, duties, activities and business,” said the complaint in Schwack v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., filed in Bergen County Superior Court.

The drops were in a sealed container in a sealed box that “was not tampered with” after manufacture, and Schwack applied them as directed, Arnold said.

The suit alleges negligence, gross negligence and recklessness, breach of express and implied warranty, and strict liability under the theory of res ipsa loquitor, which presumes negligence by the nature of the injury.

CVS “put or caused to be put a dangerous product in the stream of commerce” and “must be held strictly liable in tort,” the complaint stated.

The complaint also alleges that Schwack “is the intended third-party beneficiary under a policy or policies of insurance held by defendants…for the payment of medical expenses as the result of the subject accident.”

Arnold said she has asked CVS to cover Schwack’s medical expenses, but the corporation denies that the eye drops could have been contaminated as alleged and has not given a definitive answer on the medical coverage.

The suit names CVS Pharmacy Inc., CVS Caremark and Altaire Pharmaceuticals, which manufactured the drops for CVS.

Arnold said she’s not aware of any other allegations of contaminated CVS eye drops, but last September Altaire voluntarily recalled some lots of an eye care product sold by CVS, Eye Drops for Mild to Moderate Dry Eye, because a preservative contained in the solution could have become ineffective and permitted mold growth. Altaire characterized the recall as precautionary, according to a notice from the Federal Food and Drug Administration.

Schwack, 48, works for Bravo TV and Food Network as a consulting chef and is father to two young boys, according to Arnold.

CVS spokeswoman Christine Cramer didn’t return a call or respond to an email seeking comment late Thursday.

A call to Altaire Pharmaceuticals of Riverhead, N.Y., was not returned.

Read full article at: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202655551193/Suit-Against-CVS-Claims-Eye-Drops-Were-Tainted-by-Caustic-Chemical

New York Post: “Woman sues Live Nation after seat full of splinters”

By Julia Marsh
NYPost.com
April 28, 2014

A woman got a rude surprise when she politely slid to the other side of a bench to make room for a fellow Westbury concertgoer — a backside full of splinters.

Linda Vanston, a schoolteacher from New Jersey, is suing the NYCB Theater at Westbury on Long Island over the injury.

“She was not aware that the bench had exposed sharp shards of wood sticking out of it,” said her lawyer, Rosemarie Arnold.

“She stood up to look at what had happened, and she saw the frayed wood on the bench.”

Vanston, 55, was wearing silk pants and sitting on the bench outside the Engelbert Humperdinck concert on April 29, 2011.

The 1,000 splinters that wedged in her thighs and buttocks have been coming out, around a dozen a day, since then, Arnold said.

Vanston has received “painful injections to help dislodge,” them, her Nassau County Supreme Court suit says. She also had to take time off work and has limited mobility from the incident.

Vanston and her husband are seeking unspecified damages.

Reps Live Nation, which owns the venue, did not return messages for comment.

Read full article at: http://nypost.com/2014/04/28/woman-sues-live-nation-after-seat-full-of-splinters/

The Daily Beast: “Better Call Rosemarie! Meet the Lawyer Suing Christie Over Bridgegate”

Better Call Rosemarie! Meet the Lawyer Suing Christie Over Bridgegate
Rosemary Arnold says her clients—including a doggy-daycare owner—suffered when their town was jammed with traffic.

by Olivia Nuzzi
The Daily Beast
January 16, 2014

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/16/better-call-rosemarie-meet-the-lawyer-suing-christie-over-bridgegate.html

In Fort Lee, New Jersey, perched high above the Hudson River, is a white, slightly weatherworn building. It houses the law offices of Rosemarie Arnold, advertised in bold white lettering above the doorway. At the entrance of the office driveway, a sign informs you that you are at “The Personal Injury Center.” The.

Six days ago, a group of six New Jersey residents filed a lawsuit in federal court in response to revelations that suggested at least one official in Governor Chris Christie’s administration closed lanes of the George Washington Bridge as an act of political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat. Rosemarie Arnold is the civil trial attorney who is representing those (now ten) residents. They are suing Christie, the Port Authority, ex-PA officials David Wildstein and Bill Baroni, and Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly.

Arnold’s website advertises her practice areas: car accidents, dog bites, workplace injuries, burn injuries, workplace discrimination, dangerous and defective products, truck accidents, construction accidents, fall-down injuries, spinal-cord injuries, and wrongful death. When we emailed, she responded to me from her iPad. Her sign off included a series of emojis: three ambulances, five bags of money, four shamrocks, and a rose.

Inside her office waiting room, which smells overwhelmingly of Italian food, a downtrodden client sits on a shiny, brown leather chair. He taps his foot and rests his head on the wall behind him, which is overflowing with thumb-tacked thank-you cards. The rest of the walls are decorated with framed press clippings, highlighting Arnold’s many high profile legal battles.

On the cover of US Weekly, with the headline “My World Was Shattered,” is an article about supermodel Christie Brinkley’s divorce. Arnold represented the young girl with whom Brinkley’s ex allegedly had an affair. The entire wall is devoted to this one case, with three other full-page clippings from the New York Post.

As I read the walls, Arnold, who sports a deep tan and dark brown hair, wizzed by, dressed down in jeans, a white tank top and a pink flannel shirt, “I’m running late, be with you in a minute!” Arnold barely looks 25, which is about how long she has owned her practice.

In front of a very large box of Advil, she began by explaining the terror that was the gridlock on the bridge. “People were screaming at each other, and cars were coming like within millimeters of each other, like trying to cut each other off and be first! It was stressful; it was anxiety producing; and it made everybody late!”

Arnold told me one of her clients was late to work and fired. She said she knew of a “newspaper delivery company that delivers The Times” who was affected, and has a client who owns a doggy daycare “right at the foot of the bridge” that couldn’t have pooches picked up or dropped off.

Arnold said her ten plaintiffs are just the ones they named, and she “expects the class to consist of over 100,000 people.” Arnold adds, “each persons’ damages need to be calculated, but I can’t imagine this case is worth less than tens of millions of dollars.”

The smoking gun text by Bridget Ann Kelly (“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee”) is what Arnold says will win her case for her. The rest of the documents, she told me, weren’t even that important. And Arnold, a former supporter of Christie, said his gross misjudgment and mismanagement in Bridgegate has turned her. “The governor to me is a clear-cut defendant in this case. He is the captain of the ship, and he has publicly stated that this was his fault and his administration failed. He actually publicly stated that they acted, and these are important words, with ‘callous indifference,’ that’s purposeful conduct, that’s not negligence, okay? And the governor has proven to be a bully who takes steps to retaliate against those who don’t support him, so of course suing him puts people in a position where they might be subject to his wrath. I don’t fear that.”

Given Arnold’s familiarity with tabloids and television shows like Inside Edition, where she once appeared, I offer a comparison to Gloria Alred.

Arnold gives me a look.

“This is a serious law firm.”

From Politico.com: “Class-action suit filed over bridge”

Class-action suit filed over bridge

By JOSE DELREAL
Politico.com
January 9, 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-lawsuit-101991.html

A class-action complaint has been filed in federal court against top government officials connected to the George Washington Bridge scandal, the Fort Lee, N.J., attorney behind the move said Thursday.

The complaint — filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by attorney Rosemarie Arnold — takes aim at key players in the controversy, naming Republican Gov. Chris Christie, his formeraide Bridget Kelly, former Port Authority officials Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, the state of New Jersey and the Port Authority as defendants.
As a class action, the exact number of members has not yet been determined, but according to the filing, it “includes any and all individuals and business owners” who were inconvenienced or hurt by the lane closures between Sept. 9 and Sept. 13. According to Arnold, the plaintiffs work or live in or near Fort Lee or New York City and are citing economic damages by the lane closures.

The complaint follows a whirlwind week for Christie, who said in a press conference Thursday that he was blindsided by a report in The Record that said senior members of his staff were connected with the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

Arnold, who officially filed the complaint Thursday, said she was first contacted by potential plaintiffs about suing back in September when allegations surfaced that the closures were politically motivated. At the time, however, she was hesitant to move forward because of a lack of evidence. Following the revelation that top Christie aides were connected to the closures, she now feels confident moving forward.

“At the time, I said, ‘You know, you have to be able to prove it. You can’t have these unsubstantiated allegations,’” Arnold said. “Now I think we have what we need. This is not a situation that complies with the 14th Amendment.”

Moving forward, the class listed in the complaint has to be certified by meeting certain criteria; Arnold said she is “100 percent” certain those steps will be cleared.

Arnold also stressed that her clients were not merely “inconvenienced” by the road closures.

“I have a client that suffers from panic attacks. And while she was stuck in this traffic, she started to have a panic attack. She and her husband were just trapped like rats,” Arnold said. “She walked out of the car, she threw up, and then she just wanted to leave, but she couldn’t walk home. The traffic was disastrous. And this was a deliberate attempt. This was the desired result of the political motivated closure.”

Rosemarie Arnold chosen as “Super Lawyer” every year consecutively

New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyer Rosemarie Arnold

Attorney Rosemarie Arnold

Attorney Rosemarie Arnold has been designated as a “Super Lawyer” by “Super Lawyers” magazine for every year of its publication – for the past 11 years running, from 2005 through 2015:

Rosemarie Arnold: “A ‘super lawyer’ and super mom” (from NorthJersey.com)

A “super lawyer” and super mom
from NorthJersey.com
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Last updated: Tuesday August 11, 2009, 2:30 PM
BY KARL DE VRIES OF TOWN JOURNAL

http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/A_super_lawyer_and_super_mom.html?page=all

A self-described “slumdog millionaire” who grew up in Manhattan’s Washington Heights neighborhood to become one of the top personal injury attorneys in New Jersey, Saddle River Board of Education member Rosemarie Arnold is used to multitasking.

As the head of two firms comprised of 13 lawyers and 40 employees, Arnold has been named by New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine as one of the top 100 attorneys in the state every year since the listings began in 2003. A single mother of two Wandell children, Arnold has appeared on multiple television networks such as Fox News and MSNBC, delivering legal analysis over the past several years and, perhaps most notably, represented Joran van der Sloot in his civil case against the family of Natalee Holloway.

For Town Journal, Arnold described the beginnings of her 23-year career, the experience of being a talking head on TV and what she brings to the school board as a member serving in her second term.

Q: What made you interested in becoming an attorney?

A: I’ve always felt like I had to fight for everything and negotiate for everything, so I wanted to learn how to do it properly.

Q: When did you decide you wanted to practice personal injury law?

A: I got out of law school and I got a job with Christian Steuben’s office, because it was a Fort Lee address and that’s where I lived. I took the job to get my feet wet, and I was doing personal injury defense work, and that’s when I decided I actually wanted to be a lawyer representing the victims who got hurt. My job was to deprive them of their money, but my heart wasn’t there. My heart was to get them the money, because I always had a compassion for humans, so I flipped to the other side and opened up my own firm.

Q: How many cases do you manage at a time now?

A: I oversee 1,000 pending cases, along with the managing partner in this firm, Sheri Breen, who is my second in command. I handle probably about 25 of my own, the top 25.

Q: What makes them the top 25?

A: They’re worth the most money. They’re the most difficult and complex.

Q: Do you find it difficult to manage all of that?

A: No. I find it challenging to manage all of that and be a good mother to my two little girls, but I think I live up to the challenge.

Q: How did you come to represent Joran Van Der Sloot in the Natalee Holloway case?

A: My partner in New York City is Joe Saccopina, and he’s a high-profile criminal attorney. Joran found him on the Internet, from Aruba, and asked him if he could represent him in New York in a civil case that was being filed against him by Beth Holloway. It was a wrongful death case that was filed against him, and I got involved in that because I’m the civil attorney in our firm.

Q: What’s Van Der Sloot like?

A: I don’t know what he’s like now, but when I represented him, he was a devoted student, a respectable son and a confused teenager. I’ve read that he’s changed since then, and he’s done some things I wouldn’t condone. Unfortunately for him, his personality became the boy that was accused of killing Natalee Holloway. Eventually, there was no evidence that he had harmed her in any way.

Q: How many times have you appeared on TV?

A: I’d say about 100.

Q: Is it becoming old hat by now or is it still pretty cool?

A: I enjoy sharing my legal knowledge and experiences with everyone. Most of the TV appearances that I do have to do with cases I’m involved in. But sometimes I’m called in as an expert to comment on other cases.

Q: Do you get nervous before appearing on a national show?

A: No, but I’m much more comfortable talking about my own cases than commenting on other people’s cases.

Q: What compels you to serve on the school board?

A: I’m a public school-educated person, and I believe in the quality of education in our town. I think I bring something extra as a board of education member having a license to practice law, because there are a lot of legal issues that face the board on a daily basis. While I’m not the board’s attorney and I never act as the board’s attorney, I think like a lawyer because I am one.

Rosemarie Arnold – feature article in “Social Life” magazine, August 2012

Unconditional Love – Heals
Social Life magazine – August 2012
by Christopher London, Esq.

Rosemarie Arnold - "Courtroom Bulldog", "Super Lawyer"On a warm July afternoon, I stroll into Sagg Main Store in Sagaponack to grab a sandwich. At the counter, like a shameless gawking school boy, I notice a casually-attired, gorgeous, petite, tan brunette, with a lean, well-toned figure, taut legs, and a posture which suggests a serious fitness regimen. As she places her order for three egg white, bacon and cheese sandwiches, instantly, I recognize the voice and realize it is none other than Super Lawyer and super mom, Rosemarie Arnold, the tireless trial lawyer and victim’s rights advocate.

I met Rosemarie back in the mid 1990’s while I was in the legal headhunting business. There was a buzz about a brilliant trial lawyer in New Jersey who was building a huge reputation for herself and getting multi-million dollar verdicts on cases other lawyers rejected or were too weak in the knees to take to trial. Arnold had emerged as a veritable plaintiff’s prophet or the patron saint of the underdog. Since then, she has developed a reputation as a “courtroom bulldog who won’t be leashed.”

It is rare to catch a free moment with the woman behind the Law Offices of Rosemarie Arnold, the largest personal injury & victim’s rights practices in Bergen County. The “Queen of Torts” now leads a team of experienced trial attorneys and legal staff who offer the same personalized legal representation that Rosemarie became famous for, to families and individuals throughout the tri-state area. Arnold’s highly-referred law firm offers an effective voice to victims of serious accidents, sexual assault, and discrimination in the workplace involving age, race, sex, disability, national origin or religious bias. When the Certified Trial Attorney is not tending to her prolific and high profile case load or serving as a super mom at home, Rosemarie is a sought-out legal expert who has been solicited to offer her expertise to various media outlets including the New York Times, New York Post, and Newsday as well as NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, The Today Show, and a Current Affair.

Arnold’s climb to the top of the legal profession had rather humble beginnings. Her father, who was a physician, passed away when she was five. Her mother, who was a teacher in the New York City public school system, raised 6 kids in a two-bedroom tenement with one bathroom in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan. While she may have the mental DNA for success, she is a self-made woman of the highest order, whose reputation was built the old-fashioned way: dogged work serving the interests of one client at a time, and a relentless commitment to honing all elements of her craft. It is rare to find a lawyer so proficient, with such a strong and disciplined work ethic, a Zen-like strategic sense who is also filled with such compassion, professionalism, and understanding. How do I know? Simply put, she has represented me and those close to me with the greatest degree of care and proficiency. Ask Rosemarie about her impeccable standing with her clients, judges, legal experts, and the reverence she has from her adversaries. ”We brag about the client’s satisfaction, not the successful verdicts or privately negotiated settlements.” To her clients, she is the irreplaceable equivalent of having Socrates, Clarence Darrow, and Mother Theresa in a suit. Yes, she is that good.

Rosemarie has a tremendous sense of humor. In that regard, and as evidence that she does not take herself too seriously, she has a commercial running on NY1 starring 77-year-old identical twins, Iris and Fran, who happen to be her mother and aunt. In addition, one of her firm’s many URLs is suethesleazebag.com.

We start talking about success, the type of success that allows you to spend your summers on Sagg Pond Court in Sagaponack. I ask her what is the key to her success. “My life is fruitful and fulfilling. I give unconditional love to those who mean anything to me. I give that same love to my craft and my clients.” The woman who is writing a book entitled “Sue Unto Others” adds that “understanding your adversary’s perspective is critical to the amicable resolution of a case. If a reasonable resolution does not happen, you are better prepared to go for the jugular and dismantle your opponent.”

After that final nugget, Rosemarie jumps onto her Specialized S-Works Roubaix bicycle to bring egg white sandwiches to her children on the beach. As she notices me admiring her perfectly-toned Jewess form before pulling away, she reminds me that she deserves her ageless fitness-model form because she rides at least 20-25 miles per day and takes notes from a mutual friend, Dr. Mehmet Oz, for whose Health Corps Annual Gala she usually serves as a dinner chair.

Rosemarie Arnold hailed as “a courtroom bulldog who won’t be leashed” (The Record)

A courtroom bulldog who won’t be leashed
The Record (Hackensack, NJ)
August 17, 2003
By PETER POCHNA, STAFF WRITER

Rosemarie Arnold says personal injury law is not “about greedy litigation,” but rather, “making sure the people who need help get help.”

Silence gripped the courtroom as Rosemarie Arnold paused for a moment while describing the plight of her client seated in a wheelchair.

Arnold sniffled, wiping a tear from her eye.

Then she moved in for the kill.

The health club pool in which her client broke his neck was “a ticking time bomb,” the Fort Lee attorney told the jurors.

“It blew up Mr. Lehra’s neck and his arms and his legs. It blew up Mr. Lehra’s manhood,” said Arnold, who wore a tight skirt, high heels, and a look of pained indignation. “It blew up Mr. Lehra’s life and all his hopes and dreams.”

The trial in Hackensack was just getting under way, but the health club owner was clearly in trouble. Within days, before jurors could begin deliberations, Bally’s Total Fitness settled for $1.45 million.

To activists pushing for legal reforms, Arnold represents everything that’s wrong with the justice system: She is a personal injury lawyer who has made millions of dollars for her clients – and herself – by suing doctors, insurance companies, and various kinds of businesses.

Her type is particularly prevalent in New Jersey, which ranks fourth in the nation in lawsuits per capita.

The American Tort Reform Association, among other critics, argues that all that litigation hurts business, drives up insurance costs, puts good doctors out of work, and clogs court dockets with frivolous claims. The association has already won reforms in 11 states and has legislation pending in New Jersey and 20 other states aimed at limiting filings and reducing jury awards.

Although the association portrays her kind as villains, Arnold makes no apologies. She defends her clients with a brash tenacity typified by the license plate on her Audi sedan: “RU NJRD.”

“People think this profession is just about greedy litigation, but it’s really not,” said Arnold, 41, stabbing the air with a long, pink fingernail. “It’s about making sure the people who need help get help.”

Take Eric Myers. Six years ago, he was driving down a road in Point Pleasant when an overloaded asphalt truck swerved into Myers’ lane, crushing his Ford Bronco.

The former assistant manager of Costco in Hackensack has undergone more than 10 surgeries since then, primarily to repair a fractured hip. At one point, an infection in his leg drove his temperature to 106 degrees and left him bathing in tubs of ice and alcohol. Now 35, he walks with a limp, can walk only short distances without resting, and faces more surgery.

Arnold represented Myers in a lawsuit that accused the trucking and paving companies of loading the truck so far beyond capacity that the brakes failed. Following a four-year court battle, Myers last year accepted a $750,000 settlement.

“I’m not a fan of suing anybody, but I needed help getting my life back together,” Myers said. “I had no idea what to do. Rosemarie took me by the hand and led me through the process.”

Arnold runs her 11-attorney firm from a squat, white-stucco building equipped with a $10,000 elevator to help injured clients clear the front steps.

Her work consumes her.

A table in her office is covered with legal documents and diapers it doubles as a changing table for her 1-year-old daughter. A phone message for a colleague is logged in at 4:43 a.m.: Arnold had awakened in the middle of the night with an idea and couldn’t wait until she got to work.

“I get emotionally involved in these cases,” she said. “I do this because I love it. I take care of people. That’s what I’ve done all my life.”

Arnold grew up the eldest of six siblings in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan. Her father, an obstetrician, died of cancer when she was 6. She quickly took responsibility for her four sisters and brother.

“She was always very aggressive and always fighting for the underdog,” said her mother, Iris Arnold. “When I told the kids they couldn’t watch TV, she came back that they had six votes and I had one.

“I told her this was not a democracy.”

Arnold graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 1986 and began her career helping companies fend off personal injury cases. She didn’t like it.

“It made me feel dirty,” she said.

In 1989, she started her own firm, which now accepts about 400 new cases a year.

Arnold said she takes only legitimate complaints. She criticizes lawsuits that provide fodder for tort reformers – such as the 270-pound Bronx man who sued McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and other fast-food chains last year for selling food that made him obese.

“The rule in this office is we don’t eat fish,” she said. “If a case smells fishy, we don’t do it.”

Of course, her targets think otherwise.

Bally’s Total Fitness aggressively defended itself against the man who broke his neck in their pool in Englewood Cliffs. The company said 32-year-old Imran Lehra of Bergenfield entered the pool after closing time and dove into the 4-foot-deep water despite numerous signs forbidding diving.

“It could not have been clearer as to what the risks were for diving in the pool,” Brian Heermance, Bally’s attorney, told the Hackensack jury. “He should have known better.”

Arnold argued that Lehra fell into the pool after slipping in a puddle that should have been cleared from the pool’s edge. She also said the health club had been told several times that it needed to lock the entrance when the pool area was closed. Five days into the trial, Bally’s settled.

Arnold said such cases protect people from irresponsible business practices – for instance, those involving pharmacies that dispense the wrong medicine or tobacco companies that mislead consumers.

“It’s a litigious society,” she said. “But it keeps people in line.”

Among several high-profile cases Arnold has pending in Bergen County is a lawsuit that accuses Toyota of having faulty seat belts that contributed to the injuries of a 2-year-old girl who was paralyzed in a 1999 accident involving a drunken driver.

Her passion for her clients poured out when Arnold wept as a judge sentenced the driver to five years in prison Aug. 8.

Another case seeks damages from Exxon for the killing of a gas station attendant in Oakland. The suit contends that Exxon’s policies forced the owner to keep the station open all night, leaving the attendant vulnerable to a knife attack at 4 a.m.

Arnold and her firm pocket plenty of money from these cases. By law, they can collect up to one-third of the payout to their clients, a quarter if the client is a minor.

But Arnold said her true reward is on a wall covered with thank-you notes in her office.

One letter contains a poem titled “Justice” from a teenage girl who was injured when her family’s apartment caught fire and the building’s alarm system failed. Arnold got the family a $1.4 million settlement from the landlord.

“Today, I can say the truth was heard. Our stories have been told,” the poem says.

“Those stories that made us cry … And I and my family can go on and live.”