A steadfast supporter of consumers’ rights, Michael F. Ram has devoted his career to providing class action representation to those who have suffered financial losses as the result of defective products. Backed by 38 years of experience, Michael has served as co-lead counsel on a number of national and statewide consumer class actions.
Michael is a 1982 graduate of Harvard Law School. Prior to joining Robins Kaplan, he was a founding partner at a San Francisco law firm, where he focused his practice on the representation of plaintiffs in consumer class action disputes and other complex business litigation.
Michael’s experience in this area covers a wide range of industries and products. His past cases include the representation of homeowners who suffered losses due to leaky KITEC piping, owners of Ford vehicles that use faulty intake manifolds, and owners of defective Monier roof tiles.
Michael is admitted to practice in a number of state and federal jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court. His published cases include Lowell v. American Cyanamid 177 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 1999) Chamberlan v. Ford 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) and McAdams v. Monier 182 Cal. App. 4th 174 (2010).
Fowler v. Wells Fargo: Obtained a $30 million settlement of a nationwide class action alleging Wells Fargo improperly charged FHA mortgage borrowers interest on loans already paid.
Garcia v. Sun West: Obtained certification of a class of California homeowners in an action alleging Sun West Mortgage Company improperly charged interest on loans already paid.
Representing consumers of a protein supplement in class action litigation alleging that the supplement’s manufacturer, MusclePharm Corp., overstated the amount of protein in the product. In 2018, we secured a favorable ruling in the Ninth Circuit clarifying the law on false advertising claims concerning nutritional content. Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28771, 2018 WL 4938190 (9th Cir. 2018):
In McAdams v. Monier (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 174, Mr. Ram represents a class of consumers who allege that the defendant/manufacturer failed to disclose its colored roof tiles would erode to bare concrete despite statements that the tiles had a 50-year lifetime, that their color was permanent, and that they were maintenance-free. Id. In reversing the denial of class certification, the Court of Appeal held that an inference of common reliance was adequate to show causation as to each class member. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
In Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d at 952, Mr. Ram represented a class of consumers with allegedly defective intake manifolds in their Ford vehicles. The Ninth Circuit denied Ford’s petition to appeal class certification in a case alleging that Ford had made material omissions to consumers, and underscored that review of district courts’ rulings certifying class actions should be a “rare occurrence.” Id. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.