Class Action Litigation

Our class action attorneys represent our corporate clients nationwide in commercial, securities, and employment class actions for claims involving:

• Consumer fraud, including claims under statutes like Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.86-70), Minnesota’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Minn. Stat. section 325D.43, et seq.), California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Civil Code §§1747, et seq.), and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §§1750, et seq.)
• Unfair competition, including claims asserted under statutes like California's Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq.)
• Securities and securities fraud, including claims asserted against corporations and auditors in Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
• Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA) claims
• Deceptive trade practices
• False advertising, including claims asserted under statutes like California's False Advertising Law (Business & Professions Code §§17500, et seq.)
• Antitrust
• RICO
• Insurance-related claims

Our class action lawyers represent clients in a wide range of industries and sectors, including:

• Direct and Telemarketing
• Equipment Leasing
• Financial Instrument, Securities, and Pension Funds
• Food and Beverage
• Health Care
• Retail

Commercial Class Actions

• Secured denial of class certification in action alleging false advertisement of product characteristics in over 900 models of consumer product under California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and 17500.


• Obtained denial of class certification in an action alleging false advertising of battery life representations concerning hundreds of models of laptop computers under California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).


• Secured dismissal of class action against national retailer asserting that the retention of drivers’ license information violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721, et seq. That Act provides for liquidated damages (statutory damages) of $2,500 per person. 18 U.S.C. § 2725. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.


• Defeated class certification in the Northern District of Illinois where plaintiff alleged claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law false advertising, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. As a result, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.


• Defeated class certification in the Central District of California where plaintiffs alleged claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750; the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; the False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; for common law advertising; for unjust enrichment; and declaratory and injunctive relief.


• Represented Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) in defending against class-action counterclaims which sought to invalidate arbitration awards in which the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) acted as the arbitration organization. After the Minnesota Attorney General sued the NAF in 2009, alleging that the NAF was secretly owned by a hedge fund that held a large stake in the debt-collection industry, the NAF settled and numerous consumers filed class actions against the NAF which were consolidated as part of multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL).  PRA opted out of the MDL. NAF and other defendants in the MDL ultimately settled by dismissing pending NAF arbitrations and paying over $3 million in cash. The NAF's MDL settlement agreement confirms that the value of the consumer arbitration claims dismissed following the 2009 settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General is at least $1,090,000,000.  In November 2010, PRA obtained a dismissal of Defendant/Counterclaimant Freeman's counterclaims with prejudice on the pleadings, as well as an order confirming the arbitration award.  After extensive briefing and oral argument, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Freeman, 717 S.E.2d 43 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).


• In re Imagitas, Inc. DPPA Litigation: Obtained summary judgment affirmed by Court of Appeals in defense of alleged class actions that the insertion of advertising into motor vehicle registration mailings violated the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act.  


• Defeated class certification in a nationwide consumer class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of large national corporation.  Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and declined to appeal.


• Defeated class certification in consumer class action brought in the Southern District of Florida alleging claims under the Florida Deceptive Uniform Trade Practices Act.  Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case with prejudice.


• Obtained dismissal of class action alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq.) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §§1750, et seq.) arising out of charging of sales tax on retailer's mail-in rebate program.


• Obtained dismissal of class claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq.) and False Advertising Law (Business & Professions Code §§17500, et seq.), and Minnesota’s Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.86-70) and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Minn. Stat. section 325D.43, et. seq) relating to provision of satellite television service.


• Defended client in this class action lawsuit brought on behalf of its subscribers.  The plaintiffs claimed over $400 million that our client had previously recovered from the tobacco industry.  The claims of the individual plaintiffs were dismissed, and the claims of the plaintiff fully insured groups were then settled for $41 million (which included $30 million already designated for payment to the groups by the Minnesota Commerce Department).  The Court reduced plaintiffs’ request for lawyers' fees by $1.5 million following our client’s objection.


• Defended national equipment leasing company in numerous lawsuits filed in state and federal court alleging fraud.  Initially removed state court cases to federal court jurisdiction as a result of the pending bankruptcy of equipment supplier, and then acted as lead counsel in moving the Judicial Panel to transfer and consolidate all cases to an MDL proceeding in Tampa, Florida.  The bankruptcy and MDL proceeding led to a global settlement.


• Defended antitrust lawsuit against Minneapolis Association of REALTORS®, securing a defense verdict following nine-week trial.


• Obtained voluntary dismissal of two class action lawsuits brought against casualty insurance carrier in Madison County, Illinois arising from medical reimbursement paid under policies.


• Defended health insurer in ERISA class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty to self-insured plans.  Obtained dismissal of the vast majority of plaintiffs' claims which were outside the statute of limitations period and for which plaintiffs did not have standing, which led to voluntary dismissal of the few remaining claims.


• Represented corporation in a nationwide class action case filed in federal court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Plaintiff alleged breach of contract; violations of the Ohio and Kentucky Deceptive Business Trade Practices Act; and violations of the Ohio and Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.  In September 2007, the Court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing the case.  The Sixth Circuit later affirmed.


• Represented large corporation in class action venued in Texas.  Certification was denied on the nationwide class action claim concerning product leases, which denial order was reversed on grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction; obtained settlement subsequent to the appellate decision.


• Obtained denial of class certification for brick and mortar retailer in Song Beverly Credit Card Act (Zip Code) claim, California Civil Code Section 1747.08, holding requests for personal identification information as part of Reward Program enrollment and member lookups are special purposes incidental to the transactions and do not violate the Act.


• Obtained denial of class certification in coordinated action alleging failures to redeem gift cards in violation of California Civil Code Section 1749.5, along with dismissal of claims for violations of False Advertising Law (California Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq.) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code §§1750, et seq.)


• Secured exclusion of plaintiff's expert witnesses and obtained Summary judgment for national retailer in certified class action arising out of alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq.) and False Advertising Law (Business & Professions Code §§17500, et seq.) relating to the Company's extended warranty / service plans.


• Defended national insurance carrier in class action filed in federal district court in Florida arising from alleged substitution of non-OEM parts in automobile repair.  Argued against class certification in district court and helped formulate McCarran Act argument that eventually led to the dismissal of the class action.


• Represented large corporation in a matter that involved class-wide false advertising claims which were dismissed after the class representative deposition was completed.


• Represented national retailer in nationwide consumer class action alleging breach of contract and unlawful merchandising practices.  Defeated class certification, and obtained summary judgment on behalf of corporation; subsequently obtained affirmance of both rulings from the Missouri Court of Appeals.


• Obtained decertification order from Texas Supreme Court on behalf of large corporation in a statewide consumer class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.


• Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of a nationwide class action alleging claims of fraud and rescission and restitution.


• Obtained summary judgment in Ohio state putative class action on behalf of national corporation in which plaintiff had alleged fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act.


• Defending a client against claims of violations of California consumer protection laws, including Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and various common law claims based on alleged charges associated with redeeming rewards on credit cards.


• Represented manufacturer in a purported class action alleging consumer fraud in connection with the sale of product without certain technological features.


• Represented manufacturer in defense of class action claim asserting RICO and state law claims based on alleged deceptive marketing and advertising campaigns.  Obtained dismissal of claims under 12(b)(6).  Ninth circuit affirmed that dismissal.

Securities Class Actions

• Represented large corporation in a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 securities class action; obtained summary dismissal.  The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to disclose the problems it was encountering in the integration of an acquired company.


• Represented a large company involved in the marketing of office equipment in a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 securities class action; obtained summary dismissal.  The case was settled while on appeal.  The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to make a timely disclosure of the difficulties it was having in integrating the operations of an acquired business unit.


• Represented the auditors of a large financial corporation in a securities class action; obtained summary dismissal and sanctions against the plaintiffs’ lawyers (they paid a large portion of the fees incurred by our client).  The plaintiffs attempted to assert state common law claims, but company removed the case to federal court under SLUSA and demonstrated that the claims were really federal securities law claims and should be dismissed.


• Represented large retail corporation in a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 securities class action; obtained summary dismissal.  The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to disclose deficiencies in its inventory control system.


• Represented the auditors of a large software corporation in a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 class action.  The case was dismissed during trial after a motion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove loss causation.   Although the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed (and the case subsequently settled), the grounds for the motion were recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in its most recent decision on loss causation.


• Obtained settlement prior to trial in a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 securities class action on behalf of the auditors of a bio-tech company.  The principals of this company were convicted at a later criminal trial of perpetuating a fraud with the help of their non-US customers.


• Represented the auditor of a mutual fund in a Section 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 securities class action that was dismissed on the pleadings.  The dismissal was reversed after appeal, and the case settled before trial.  The plaintiffs claimed that the auditors failed to disclose, through their audit opinion, facts that would have revealed the highly risky nature of the mutual fund’s derivative strategy.

Employment Class Actions

• Represented a large national retailer in a matter venued in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, before Judge Phyllis Hamilton. Ten named plaintiffs brought a purported national class action (and a California sub-class) asserting claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on race, gender, color and national origin regarding all terms and conditions of employment, including recruitment, testing, hiring, job assignments, allocation of hours, transfers, promotions, compensation and termination.  Plaintiffs sought class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay and punitive damages.   After successful motion practice, the case resolved under terms that provided no damages or backpay of any kind to the putative class.


• Represented employer in a nationwide class action involving gender discrimination and hostile environment claims.  The Court denied class certification of hostile work environment/sexual harassment claims and granted limited certification of compensation and promotion claims as to liability and injunctive relief only, reserving the question of damages certification to a later time.  Employer obtained summary judgment dismissing the individual claims of hostile work environment/sexual harassment of 10 of the 12 named plaintiffs. Our firm’s trial team prepared the case for an anticipated month-long trial.  The certified pay and promotion claims were settled the night before jury selection.


• Represented employer in age discrimination class action resulting from reduction-in-force in company’s IS Department; case settled just before trial.


• Represented employer in a class action brought by employees working in branches across the nation who claimed that they had been misclassified as employees exempt from overtime pay.  Approximately 700 employees opted into the litigation.  Employer obtained summary judgment on the lead plaintiff’s claim, finding her job duties were exempt from overtime requirements.  The employer also defeated plaintiffs’ class-wide motion for summary judgment.  The Court granted the employer’s motion to decertify the class and dismissed all but the remaining named plaintiffs' claims.  The case subsequently settled.


• Represented employer in an action brought by general and assistant managers in 65 stores located in California who claimed that they had been misclassified as employees exempt from overtime pay.  After initial discovery and motions, the general managers’ claims were dismissed and the class period was restricted to February 2003 (plaintiffs had sought a class definition without any ending date).  The case also involved Title VII claims of gender discrimination and harassment.  While employer’s motion to decertify the classes was pending, the matter settled.


• Represented national retailer in a matter commenced in March 2006 in United States District Court, Northern District of California, before Judge Marilyn Patel. This class action seeks unpaid wages and penalties related to alleged employee searches upon entry at the beginning and exit after the workday.  A mediation was held after  the  Ninth Circuit declined to review a class certification order, and settlement was reached on favorable “claims made” terms.


• Represented employer in a California statewide class action (Alameda County Superior Court) alleging claims for off-the-clock, overtime, meal and rest break violations and waiting time penalties for all store non-exempt employees after an audit by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) resulted in a settlement.  Mediated settlement prior to class certification resulted in substantial employer retention of compromise settlement fund.


• Represented employer in a statewide class action (removed to United States District Court, Central District of California) alleging off-the-clock work, meal and rest break violations, failure to properly calculate “regular rate” for overtime pay, and failure to pay for all accrued vacation, absence and personal holiday time off.  Two of three plaintiffs have dismissed their claims and the remaining named plaintiff refiled only on the claim regarding improper calculation of “regular rate of pay” for overtime related to incentive payments.  Case was dismissed without prejudice.


• Providing assistance to in-house counsel and an audit team in responding to audit order from the California DLSE. At issue are exempt classification of managers and administrative personnel, meal and rest break compliance, overtime calculation and payment, and documentation of payroll. Enforcement action is being held in abeyance pending completion of audit.


• Represented employer in audit order from the California DLSE regarding exempt classification of managers and administrative personnel, meal and rest break compliance, overtime calculation and payment, and documentation of payroll.  Compromise settlement was reached with DLSE on meal break compliance and salaried overtime only (other issues being abandoned).


• Represented employer in class action venued in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, against class claims for wages and penalties resulting from the employer’s purported failure to issue paychecks without an in-state bank for presentation at no cost.  The case settled on favorable terms following mediation.

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.