Consumer Class Action Litigation

Read Video Transcript

The Firm has served as plaintiffs’ counsel, including interim class counsel, liaison counsel, and local counsel, in dozens of consumer class action litigations in state and federal courts alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, or defective or fraudulent products and services.

The Firm’s consumer class action cases have included, but have not been limited to, the following cases:

• Wilcox v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (Loan modification fraud), U.S. District Court, Santa Ana, Case No. 8:10-CV-01923-DOC-JCG (consolidated in the U.S. District Court, Dist. Mass, 1:10-cv-10380-RGS)
• Gass v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., (violation of Song-Beverley Credit Card Act for requesting and recording customers’ personal identification information), U.S. Dist. Ct. Central Dist. Of Cal.,Case No.: 2:11-CV-01507-SJO (JCGx)
• In Re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (breach of privacy regarding customer personal information), U.S. Dist. Ct. Southern Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
• Hoang et al. v. Ralph’s Grocery Company (underweighting and overcharging for prepared foods), Case No. 439213, Los Angeles Superior Court
• Elaine Miller v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (defective automobile braking system), Case No. BC431344, Los Angeles Superior Court
• In Re Land Rover LR3 Tire Wear Litigation (defective automobile alignment geometry), U.S. Dist. Ct. Central Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 09-MDL-2008 AG
• Tomkins v. Basic Research, LLC (false advertising of dietary supplement), U.S. Dist. Ct. Eastern Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 2:08-CV-00244-LKK-DAD; transferred to and pending in District of Utah, as Miller, et al. v. Basic Research, Case No. 2:07 cv 00871
• Galvez v. TouchTel USA, LP (calling cards fraudulently sold and marketed to the Hispanic market), U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, Case No. CV08-05642-RGK (JCx)
• Montanez v. Gerber Childrenswear, LLC, et al. (“tagless” clothing labels), U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, Case No. 2:09-cv-07420 DSF(DTBx)
• Weeks v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al. (Enfamil baby formula), U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, Case No. CV09-05835 DSF (CW)
• Laudicina v. Toyota Motor Corporation (sudden vehicle acceleration), U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, Case No. CV 10-01030
• Hapner v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (soldering defect in Vaio laptop computers), San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC 839244
• Rosenfeld v. Gateway, Inc. (CX210X Convertible Notebook Computers), U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, CA, Case No. CV 08-03381 SVW (CTx)
• iPod Nano Cases (first generation Nano), Los Angeles County Superior Court, JCCP No. 4469
• In Re Hewlett Packard Power Connector Litigation (defective power plugs on HP Pavilion), U.S. District Court, San Jose, CA, Case No. C 06-1221-R
• Sypher v. Soleus, Inc. (defective “Evaporative Technology” air conditioners), Los Angeles County Superior Court, Inc., Case No. BC 395530
• Carper et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (PAX run flat tire system), U.S. Dist. Ct. Central Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 2:07-CV-01481-MMM-AJW

Among the published opinions the Firm has achieved as class counsel are Annunziato v. eMachines, Inc., 402 F.Supp.2nd 1133 (C.D. Cal. 2005)(Selna, J.), in which the Court held that Proposition 64 does not impose a reliance requirement in consumer class actions filed under California Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200.