Indiana Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA)

• Member Since: 2014

Indianapolis Bar Association

• Member Since: 2006

American Association for Justice (AAJ)

• Member Since: 2015

JURISDICTIONS ADMITTED TO PRACTICE

• Indiana, 2006
• U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 2006
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, 2006
• United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2010
• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2012
• United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2018
• United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2018
• United States District Court,  Northern District of Illinois, 2018
• United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2019
• United States District Court, Northern District of New York, 2021

FEATURED CASES & MATTERS 

Moss v. Indiana Department of Child Services, No. 46D02-1406-PL-1025 (LaPorte Superior Court)

• Lynn worked on the team representing Hoosier families that adopted special needs children out of DCS foster care who alleged that DCS failed to pay an adoption subsidy allegedly promised in a State Adoption Subsidy contract DCS entered into with the families. The case settled with DCS agreeing to provide $15.1 million to more than 1,800 children who were adopted from DCS’s foster care system. The settlement provides funds for adoptive parents of children who were on the state adoption subsidy waitlist between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014.

Raab v. R. Scott Waddell et al., No. 49D12-1303-PL-008769 (Marion Superior Court)

• Lynn worked on the team representing Indiana drivers who had been systematically overcharged by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles for driver’s licenses. Achieved a $30 million recovery providing either credits or refund checks to over 4 million drivers in amounts that equaled the agreed overcharge amounts.

Wilmoth v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., No. 46D07-1310-PL-036806 (Marion Super. Ct. Apr. 23, 2014).

• Lynn was appointed class counsel and obtained a summary judgment for the class in a class action lawsuit on behalf of owner-operators of long-haul trucks seeking the return of millions of dollars in allegedly improper withholdings from their compensation. The class action lawsuit asserted that Celadon breached its Contractor Operating Agreement with the owner-operators by deducting from their compensation more in fuel charges than Celadon paid to Pilot Flying J for those fuel charges because Celadon had a deal with Pilot Flying J that Celadon would only pay a lower “discount price” for fuel purchased by the owner-operators. The lawsuit also asserts that despite only paying Pilot Flying J the lower discount price for the fuel, Celadon withheld from the drivers’ compensation the higher price “pump price” of the fuel. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an opinion you can read here.

Warren v. Town of Speedway, 2013 WL 6729655 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2013).

• Lynn was appointed class counsel and achieved a settlement in a class action lawsuit on behalf of taxi operators who had their taxi operator licenses seized by Town of Speedway employees on Indianapolis 500 race day. The lawsuit asserted that the actions of the Speedway Police Department constituted conversion and violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because seizure of the permits was not warranted, justified or reasonable, and violated due process. The lawsuit requested damages for the taxi drivers’ missed work time because the drivers were deprived of the possession of their taxi permits for several days.

Roberts v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2013 WL 1233268 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2013).

• Lynn represented a homeowner that brought a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo, American Securities Insurance Company, and Assurant. The lawsuit alleged that Wells Fargo force-placed insurance on her property and charged excessively high premiums to the homeowner in violation of the mortgage contract. The Southern District of Georgia found that the lawsuit involved unsettled questions of Georgia law surrounding the applicability of the filed-rate doctrine in the insurance rate setting context and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Selburg v. Virtuoso Sourcing Group, 2012 WL 4514152 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2012).

• Lynn was appointed class counsel in a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of individuals that received a debt collection letter from Virtuoso Sourcing Group. The lawsuit alleged that the debt collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it failed to identify the creditor to whom the debt was allegedly owed. The lawsuit requested damages under the Act for the class of individuals that received the debt collection letter.

Goldberg v. Farno, 953 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

• Lynn worked on a team representing the plaintiff in a class action on behalf of Indiana residents who had prepaid for cemetery goods and services and whose money was looted from trusts designed to ensure the goods could be purchased and provided at death. The trial court approved a class-action settlement that put millions of dollars back into the trusts, and one of the non-settling defendants appealed. In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that a non-settling defendant has no standing to appeal a settlement unless he can show “plain legal prejudice” to his rights, which is more than an injury-in-fact.

Wilson v. AT&T Inc., 2010 WL 987737 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2010).

• Lynn was one of the lawyers that represented a retired employee of AT&T that brought ERISA claims against AT&T and Fidelity Employer Services. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants failed to honor pension plan terms, as described by the plan administrator and a retirement services coordinator in a report presented to the employee. The lawsuit alleged that after the employee signed the paperwork accepting the benefits stated in the report, and as required for accepting the benefits, she terminated her employment with AT&T. The lawsuit alleges that later, the Plan Administrator notified the now former employee that the report was erroneously calculated and that her benefits would be substantially reduced. The lawsuit alleges that after receiving this news, the retired employee requested that AT&T reemploy her, but AT&T instead allegedly informed the retired employee that she should not have relied on the report in deciding to retire and that her job had been terminated and she could not be reemployed. The Southern District of Indiana ruled that the retired employee stated a claim against AT&T and Fidelity under an ERISA estoppel theory.

ARTICLES