The following is a summary of some (but not all) of our pending cases:
Multi-District Litigation and Potential Multi-District Litigation
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of the Multi-District Litigation entitled In Re: Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, putative class actions brought on behalf of persons in the United States who purchased defendants' polycarbonate baby bottles and/or sippy cups containing BPA and/or infant formula packaged in cans lined with BPA. Plaintiffs in these cases allege that BPA is harmful for children and that defendants concealed these harmful effects from consumers.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of the Multi-District Litigation entitled, In re Apple iPhone 3G and 3G-S "MMS" Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, a putative class action on behalf of all consumers residing in the United States who, since July 2008, have purchased a 3G or 3G-S iPhone from either AT&T Mobility L.L.C. or Apple, primarily for personal, family, or household use. Plaintiff in this case alleges that defendants concealed from the public material facts related to the iPhone 3G and 3G-S mobile phones' MMS features.
Gaskins v. BP, plc, et al., (potential Multi-District Litigation: In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010"), a putative class action on behalf of all commercial fishing persons or entities who have incurred an economic loss as a result of the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig fire, explosion, and consequent Oil Spill. There are a wide variety of commercially valuable fish species in the Gulf of Mexico that will be harmed by the Oil Spill.
Madden v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al. (Multi-District Litigation: In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation), a putative class action on behalf of all persons who reside in California and in the United States and who presently own a Toyota vehicle equipped with an electronic throttle control system Plaintiff in this case alleges that certain Toyota and Lexus branded vehicles have suffered a diminution in value due to accidents, press reports and recalls related to sudden, unexpected acceleration. One of Toyota's main selling points for vehicles is that such cars are reputed to be safe and reliable. Toyota failed to disclose that its vehicles are susceptible to incidents of sudden, unintended acceleration, and thus, such vehicles posed a significant risk of injury and death to vehicle occupants, other motorists and pedestrians.
Kyle v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (Multi-District Litigation: In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litigation), a putative class action on behalf of all persons in California and in the United States who contracted with AT&T Mobility to purchase Internet access through either a cellular phone service plan or through an AT&T Mobility datacard, and were charged a fee by AT&T Mobility that was represented on the bill to be a state or local tax on such Internet access. Plaintiff alleges AT&T Mobility made this representation even though it knew that state and local governments imposed no such taxes on internet access because such a tax was preempted by federal legislation and/or certain state statutes pertaining to such taxation.
Cases Against Dell Inc.
Alvarez v. Dell Inc., et al., a putative class action on behalf of all individuals in the State of California who received an onsite warranty from Dell, Banctec, or QualxServ, who, at any time between July 29, 2000 and August 31, 2008, actually received onsite warranty repair service and/or replacement parts, but not on the next business day after their initial call to Dell reporting their computer problem.
Fiori, et al. v. Dell Inc., et al., a putative class action on behalf of all individuals in the State of California who purchased a Dell desktop or notebook computer system and who also received the right to have onsite warranty repair service during the first year after purchase. Plaintiffs in this case allege that defendants improperly charged plaintiffs and plaintiff class members for their first year on-site service without telling them that there was a charge or that the service was optional.
Newport v. Dell Inc., et al., a putative class action similar to Fiori v. Dell, but brought on behalf of Arizona residents.
Adler v. Dell Inc., et al., a putative class action similar to Fiori v. Dell, but brought on behalf of Michigan residents.
Cases Against Credit Card Issuers
Anderson v. HSBC Nevada, N.A., a putative class action on behalf of all consumers with billing addresses in the United States of America, who have or had credit card accounts with the defendant and whose interest rates were retroactively increased within the applicable statutes of limitations. Plaintiff in this case alleges that, as a result of account "defaults" (such as late payments, overlimits, etc.) defendant improperly raised plaintiff's and plaintiff class members' interest rates retroactively and without giving proper advance notice that the interest rate would be increased.
Kapelner v. U.S. Bank National Association ND, a putative class action similar to Anderson v. HSBC, but brought on behalf of U.S. Bank National Association ND's credit card holders.
Mesi v. American Express Centurion Bank, a putative class action similar to Anderson v. HSBC, but brought on behalf of American Express Centurion Bank's credit card holders.
Boehr v. Discover Bank, a putative class action on behalf of all persons with billing addresses in the state of California who currently have or have had credit cards with Discover Bank which they used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whose payments were not credited on the day they were received by Discover, and who suffered damages in the form of excess finance charges, late fees, and/or other penalties as a result of Discover's failure to credit their payments on the day they were received.
Cases Involving Defective Windows
Porcell v. Lincoln Wood Products, Inc., a putative class action on behalf of all persons, proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and other business and legal entities in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington whose homes, condominiums, apartment complexes, commercial buildings, and/or other structures contain Lincoln windows and doors that were installed with breathing devices and were purchased in or after 1992. Plaintiff in this case alleges that defendant's practice of installing breathing devices in its windows allows moisture to enter into the product, impairing visibility and ultimately decreasing the product's life expectancy. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant's practice of installing breathing devices in its windows allows any argon gas inside the product to leak out, so that the end-user does not receive the argon's energy-saving benefits, making the performance data Lincoln touts in its advertising materials inaccurate and false.
Yancey v. Andersen Corporation, et al., a putative class action on behalf of all persons in the State of California whose homes, condominiums, apartment complexes, commercial buildings, and/or other structures contain defendants' inert-gas-filled windows, doors, and/or skylights which were modified by the installation of breathing devices. Plaintiff in this case alleges that defendant's practice of installing breathing devices in its gas-filled windows allows any gas inside the product to leak out, so that the end-user does not receive the argon's energy-saving benefits, making the performance data Andersen touts in its advertising materials inaccurate and false.
Other Putative Class Actions
Herrington, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., et al., a putative class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased cosmetics (including certain shampoos and lotions intended for use by children and babies) manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the defendants that contained 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde, and/or ingredients that have not been proven safe and who were accordingly damaged thereby.
MWPlus, LLC v. Transfirst, LLC, et al., a putative class action on behalf of all persons, businesses, and organizations who have entered into merchant credit card transaction agreements with either (a) Defendants Transfirst, LLC, Transfirst Holdings, Inc., and/or any of their parent, subsidiary, commonly controlled, commonly owned or otherwise related companies (except for persons, businesses, and organizations who were included in the settlement of the class action Case No. 07CC1202, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, entitled Benchmark, Inc. v. Payment Resources International, LLC, with Final Approval Order and Judgment entered June 26, 2009) (collectively, "TransFirst") or (b) any other parties when such agreements have been subsequently assigned to, or assumed by, TransFirst, which included provisions for account termination fees in the event the agreements were terminated prior to expiration of the terms or renewal terms of the agreements. Plaintiff in this case alleges that defendants improperly charged excessive, unfair, and unconscionable penalties for merchants who terminated their credit card transaction agreements prior to the expiration of their contractual term.
Grisman v. Warner Music Group Corp., et al., a putative class action on behalf of all persons or entities who are parties to contracts with Defendants Warner Music Group (WMG), Rhino, and/or their predecessors or subsidiaries, and who own, or are the beneficial owners of, copyrighted musical works or portions thereof which were either (i) reproduced by digital service providers and/or (ii) sold by digital service providers as digital phonorecord transmittals, for which the copyright owners have either: (i) not been paid by WMG and/or Rhino; or (ii) been paid by WMG and/or Rhino only after May 3, 2007 (the filing date of another putative class action against WMG).
Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, et al., currently on appeal, a putative class action on behalf of all individuals (or their guardians or representatives) who (a) received medical treatment at a Sharp Hospital; and (b) were uninsured at the time of treatment. Plaintiff in this case alleges that defendants improperly charged uninsured patients more than they charged insured patients for the same services.
