- Howard v. Ford Motor Co. (Alameda Super. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in 30-million-member class action based on defendant’s violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law by concealing safety-related defect from government regulators and millions of consumers. Case was one of six related actions pending throughout the United States, which involved appearances before several federal courts, including the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the California Court of Appeal (three times) and the California Supreme Court (twice). Equity phase of trial resulted in the first judicially-mandated automotive recall in a private lawsuit in U.S. history, and an order requiring Ford to provide restitution to all California class members. Case was resolved on favorable terms in nationwide settlement, including full reimbursement of all repair and replacement costs without the need for receipts or other proof of purchase, a warranty extension (from five years or 50,000 miles to 10 years or 100,000 miles), and the establishment of a $5 million fund for use in conducting safety research by George Washington University’s National Crash Analysis Center.
- Wilson v. Airborne Health, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
Co-lead counsel (along with Wasserman Casselman & Comden of Los Angeles and the Center for Science in the Public Interest of Washington, D.C.) in nationwide class action involving false-advertising and consumer-deception claims against seller of Airborne, a product that has been marketed as a “Miracle Cold Buster” that can prevent colds if taken just before boarding a crowded plane or any other environment that expose people to “germs,” and that the second-grade school teacher who “invented” Airborne has actually cure the common cold -- something that still eludes the rest of the scientific community. After approximately a year of hard-fought litigation, the parties resolved the case by entering into a settlement agreement that creates a fund of more than $23 million, which will be used to reimburse consumers who purchased Airborne, and if any portion of the fund remains after all claims are paid, it will be donated to non-profit organizations that benefit consumers. The case was featured recently on ABC’s Good Morning America, which characterized the result as “a pretty amazing settlement.”
- Daniel v. American Honda Motor Co. (L.A. Super. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in nationwide class action based on violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law in connection with sale of vehicles with defective windshields (which crack spontaneously or with slight impact), costing up to $500 to repair. Case was resolved on favorable terms in nationwide settlement: All class members entitled to full reimbursement for windshield repairs and to a warranty extension that virtually doubled class members’ coverage.
- Trew v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (E.D. Cal..)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in nationwide class action based on fraudulent concealment of safety defect in Electronic Throttle Module (“ETM”) in nearly half a million Volvo cars and light trucks, in violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Case was resolved on favorable terms for plaintiffs: Volvo agreed to reimburse all current and former owners of affected vehicles with 100 percent of all costs they incurred in connection with repair or replacement of ETMs (which costs up to $1,200 each), for up to $50 in towing or car-rental charges, and an extension of the ETM warranty from four years or 50,000 miles to 10 years or 200,000 miles.
- In re Tobacco Cases II (Cal. Supreme Court)
Represented Public Citizen, Inc. as amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs/appellants in appeal challenging order dismissing claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law on grounds that Proposition 64 imposed strict new standing and reliance requirements, and mandated that named plaintiff’s claims must be identical to those of proposed class members. Case pending.
- Carden v. General Motors Corp. (Santa Clara Super. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in statewide (240,000-member) private-attorney-general action based on defendant’s violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. Case was resolved on favorable terms for plaintiffs.
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Cal. Supreme Court)
Represented Friends of the Earth as amicus curiae in support of the plaintiff involving challenge to the application of catalyst theory of recovery in cases that benefit the public at large. Plaintiff prevailed.
- Davis v. American Honda Motor Co. (Placer Super. Ct.)
Represented Center for Auto Safety and two law firms as co-counsel with Trial Lawyers for Public Justice in challenge of order sealing record containing sanctions decision. Sanctions were imposed against defense expert in product liability case; expert was found to have destroyed evidence, which led to striking of defendant's answer. Sanctions decision was sealed as part of global settlement with plaintiff, but sanctioned expert then used sealing order as a basis for refusing to answer questions about destruction of evidence and as a threat against lawyers asking questions about sealed sanctions order. Motion granted, record unsealed, and order issued clarifying that sanctions order cannot be used offensively.
- Wornow v. Register.com, Inc. (New York Sup. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in worldwide class action based on defendant’s unlawful and deceptive billing practices. Case was resolved by settlement, which provided for a $2 million claims fund for reimbursement of class members, and established cy pres fund that resulted in distribution of approximately $700,000 to Computers for Youth, a New York-based non-profit organization that provides computers and technology education to under-privileged children in the New York area.
- Mattison v. eBay, Inc.. (Santa Clara Super. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in nationwide class action based on alleged billing fraud and termination of membership without providing proper notice and opportunity to defend against charges that led to termination. Case settled on behalf of individual representatives only, and resolution included changes in certain disclosure statements, satisfaction of named plaintiffs' claims, and establishment of charitable fund on behalf of individual named plaintiffs only. Plaintiffs' counsel donated approximately $250,000 in fees and litigation expenses to non-profit consumer-advocacy organizations.
- Hernandez v. [Anonymous] Bank (Milwaukee Cir. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in action alleging financial institution engaged in fraud and breached mortgage agreements by terminating interest payments on tax and insurance impound accounts. Case was resolved by settlement that reinstated interest payments and provided 100 cents on the dollar for all missed interest payments to all affected mortgagees.
- CNX Media, Inc. v. Travelocity, Inc. (San Francisco Super. Ct.)
Co-counsel for plaintiff media company in case against former corporate parent involving claims of unfair competition, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Case was resolved on favorable terms by settlement.
- Legal Staffing Partners, Inc. v. LookSmart Ltd. (San Francisco Super. Ct.)
Lead counsel for plaintiffs in nationwide (90,000-member) class action based on defendant’s breach of contract, fraud, and violations of Unfair Competition Law in connection with internet advertising. Firm withdrew from case before settlement became final.
- McDermott v. Mark Nutritionals, Inc. (San Francisco Super. Ct.)
Lead counsel in statewide class action based on defendant’s violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law in connection with marketing and sales of “overnight” weight-loss product. Case stayed after Food and Drug Administration intervened as a plaintiff and defendant filed petition for bankruptcy.
- In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation (N.D. Ill.)
Co-counsel in antitrust/unfair competition action filed in California and later consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation venued in Northern District of Illinois. Case was resolved on favorable terms by settlement.
