701 Camp Street | New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Phone: (504) 524-5777 | Fax: (504) 524-5763

Representation of Public Entities

K&W has extensive experience and success representing public entities on various levels including school boards, counties, municipalities, and states in a variety of litigation. This experience gives us a direct understanding of the complexities faced by public entities and the challenges they face to balance various interests while protecting their citizens and the public fisc.

Representative Cases:

K&W currently represents the Attorney General of New Mexico, the New Mexico Environment Department, and the New Mexico Natural Resources Trustee in their investigation and litigation of claims related to PFAS contamination in the State. PFAS are a family of man-made chemicals that repel heat, oil, stains, grease, and water, that were a popular choice for a variety of household and industrial products, but are now known to be toxic and pose significant threats to public health and the environment. Due to their widespread use, these chemicals are now ubiquitous in the environment. K&W is currently litigating New Mexico’s claims against dischargers of PFAS and Aqueous Film- Forming Foam (“AFFF”), a PFAS-containing fire suppressant often used in fire training efforts and in emergency response efforts, in connection with specific contaminated sites and advises the State on regulatory matters relating to PFAS and AFFF.
K&W also represents water providers in claims against the manufacturers of AFFF, which have received $12 billion in nationwide settlements in the multidistrict litigation In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C.).
K&W represents the City of Baltimore, Maryland, in two novel cases concerning plastic pollution. The first case, Mayor and City of Baltimore v. Phillip Morris, et al., No. 24-C-22-004904 (Cir. Ct. Balt. Cty. 2022), seeks to hold the tobacco industry accountable for environmental damages resulting from littered cigarette butts (which are made from plastic). A motion to dismiss was denied in large part and pretrial litigation is in process. The second case, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Pepsico, Inc., et al., No. C-24-CV-24-001003 (Cir. Ct. Balt. Cty. 2024), seeks to hold the manufacturers of single-use plastic accountable for the environmental harms of their products and resulting microplastics.
K&W has also achieved the largest governmental recovery for natural resource damages against a single defendant as Special Counsel and Trial Counsel to the State of Louisiana in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL 2179, State of Louisiana v. BP, et al., 1:10-cv-01790 (E.D. La 2010; consolidated in MDL No. 2179) (representing the State of Louisiana in its response efforts, natural resource damage assessment, and litigation, to recover for both economic and natural resource damages following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, including 41 days at trial). In 2015, the parties reached a global settlement under which the State of Louisiana received approximately $10 billion, the single largest natural resource damage recovery by a state.
K&W’s natural resource damage litigation on behalf of the State of New Jersey resulted in a settlement of $225 million in 2015, the then largest natural resource damage settlement in the State’s history. New Jersey Dep’t of Envt’l Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. UNN-L-3026-04 c/w No. UNN-L-1650-05 (N.J. Super. Law Div.) (representing New Jersey for over 10 years in hard fought litigation, which included a 66-day trial, to recover for natural resource damages at the sites of two former refineries under the New Jersey Spill Act, nuisance and other common law theories)
- (8/25/15 Letter Opinion pp. 4-5, Hogan, M.) “The Firm has labored in the high weeds of this litigation for eleven years, and during that time it received no compensation or reimbursement, . . . Likewise the high difficulty of conducting discovery and defending the State’s prerogatives from a more-than-able adversary demonstrates to this court a high level of competence and skill. There were many novel and untested questions that the Firm had to address at various stages of the proceedings, such as expert evidence questions, loss of use over time damages under the Spill Act, retroactivity of the Spill Act, the role of physical improvements, the application of the Public Trust Doctrine over private uplands, and the applicability of Habitat Equivalency Analysis methodology in NRD litigation, to name a few of the issues that required experienced, motivated, and highly skilled counsel. The Firm was up against a determined adversary who created a daunting ten year defense that a less experienced, less determined, or less skilled effort would not have been able to timely, professionally, and, for the most part, successfully meet the challenge. . . The K&W Firm is, under any definition, a small law firm. It is dwarfed by the firms that it opposed in this case. Yet by having the focus of those attorneys assigned to the case devote the majority of their time to their client’s efforts, they undoubtedly were precluded from taking on numerous new clients particularly because of their limited size. The Attorney General’s Office, having worked with the firm for over a year on a non-compensation basis before formally retaining the firm, was most certainly well aware of the limitations their retainer agreement and subsequent litigation would place on the economics of the firm and it is no doubt a reason for their support of the Firm’s application.”
K&W has also successfully represented local governments in pollution cases, such as City of Independence, et al. v. Amoco Oil Co., No. 95-0019 c/w Christopher Petrovic, et al. v. Amoco Oil Co., No. 95-0121 (W.D. Mo. 1995) (representing the City of Independence and a class of property owners for environmental contamination claims against Amoco Oil) and in property damage litigation such as In re School Asbestos Litigation, No. 83‑0268 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
K&W achieved a settlement of over $49 million on behalf of the State of Louisiana in a state Medicaid fraud case for Avandia sales in Louisiana. The Avandia settlement was the largest single recovery received to date by the State of Louisiana in Medicaid fraud litigation. State of Louisiana v. GlaxoSmithKline, et al., Civ. Act. No. 599353, Div. D (19th JDC, East Baton Rouge Parish, La. 2010), (Avandia). The firm has represented the State of Louisiana in a number of other Medicaid fraud and unfair trade practices cases achieving multi-million dollar settlements, in many multiples beyond that which was offered in national settlements, including:
- James “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General, ex rel. State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 620978, Div. D (19th JDC, East Baton Rouge Parish, La. 2013), (Depakote).
- State of Louisiana, ex rel. James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General v. Shire, PLC, Civ. Act. No. 603091, Div. D (19th JDC, East Baton Rouge Parish, La. 2009), (Adderall).
- State of Louisiana, ex rel. James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 624672, Div. D (19th JDC, East Baton Rouge Parish, La. 2012), (Lidoderm).
In Lemmings v. Second Chance Body Armor, et al., No. CJ-2004-64 (Mayes County District Court, Okla. 2004) and In re: SCBA Liquidation, Inc., f/k/a Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., No. 04-12515 (W.D. Mich. 2004), K&W successfully represented law enforcement officers and police departments in seeking reimbursement for monies spent on defective bulletproof vests.
K&W also represents several local government clients in multiple states to recover damages incurred as a result of the opioid crisis, including health insurance and prescription drug costs, as well as the costs associated with social services, emergency response and other community losses including Monmouth County, NJ, Monmouth County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., MDL-003010-18 (N.J. Super. Law Div. 2018); Northampton County, PA, Northampton County, Pennsylvania v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., C48-CV-2017-11557 (Northampton County CCP 2017); Cumberland County, NJ, Cumberland County v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., CUM-L-000567-19 (N.J. Super. Law Div. 2019); and Vineland, NJ, City of Vineland v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al., CUM-L-00 422-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2022).
K&W represented the State of New Mexico in its litigation against Dollar General for the deceptive and misleading marketing and advertising of obsolete motor oil. State of New Mexico, ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General v. Dolgencorp, LLC (d/b/a Dollar General Corporation, No. D-101-CV-2017-01562 (First Jud. Dist. Ct., Santa Fe Cty., New Mexico 2017) and also represented the State of Mississippi in similar litigation against Dollar General. State of Mississippi, ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-801-LG-LRA (S.D. Miss. 2017).
K&W’s expertise in first party insurance claims and litigation has often been used by local governments. Following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike and Superstorm Sandy, K&W was retained by several governmental entities in Louisiana, South Texas, the Gulf Region, and New Jersey to investigate and/or pursue claims against their insurers for property damage, loss of use, extra expense coverage, and business interruption, as well as agent and broker claims, when applicable, each involving multi-million dollar recoveries beyond what was originally paid by the insurer. These clients include the City of Gretna (Louisiana), Plaquemines Parish School Board (Louisiana), Cameron Parish School Board, (Louisiana), the City of Pasadena (Texas), Barbers Hill Independent School District (Texas), Laporte Independent School District (Texas), and Woodbridge Township (New Jersey).

Litigation is not always the best answer for a government agency in a particular situation, and the lawyers of K&W take pride in being good counselors as well as good trial lawyers, putting our clients’ best interests first. We take seriously our responsibility to act solely at the direction of its public entity clients and maintain dialogue and transparency throughout the litigation.