Current Cases
The following is a summary of some (but not all) of our pending cases:
Multi-District Consolidated 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.
In re Toyota Motor Cases, Cal. Super. Ct. JCCP No. 4621, Brian R. Strange is appointed Co-Lead Counsel in this coordinated class action proceeding pending in California state court. This coordinated proceeding arises out of Toyota recalls and the alleged existence of a defect in Toyota vehicles purportedly causing unintended acceleration.
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.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of the Multi-District Litigation entitled In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, putative class actions on behalf of all consumers who purchased gift certificates for products and services from Groupon, Inc. The gift certificates, referred to and marketed as "groupons," are sold and issued with expiration dates that are deceptive and illegal under both federal and state laws. Plaintiffs in these cases allege that Groupon imposes illegal expiration dates, among other conditions, on each "groupon" gift certificate it sells. Groupon's scheme to sell and issue gift certificates that promises consumers discounted deals on various products and services is to the detriment of consumers.
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.
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee of the Multi-District Litigation: In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust case brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased polyurethane foam from one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, from at least as early as 1999 to the present. This MDL arises out of an alleged conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators with the purpose and effect of fixing prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane foam products. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants contracted, combined or conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices and allocate customers for polyurethane foam in the United States, the purpose and effect of which is to maintain supracompetitive prices.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of the Multi-District litigation entitled In Re Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, a class action on behalf of all persons or entities that have or had a PlayStation Network, Qriocity and/or Sony Online Entertainment account containing Financial, Personal ID or Usage Data at the time Defendants suffered a security breach on or about April 17-19, 2011. This action arises from Defendants' failure to adequately safeguard certain financial, personal identification, and related data belonging to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated who provided this data as part of Defendants' PlayStation Network and Qriocity and Sony Online Entertainment services. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, unauthorized third parties breached Defendants' security systems and were able to access the Financial, Personal ID and Usage Data of an estimated 101 million user accounts.
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.
Bajana v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., a putative nationwide class action on behalf of persons who have or had credit card accounts with Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ("Citibank") and who (1) paid additional finance charges as a result of a rate increase, not attributable to a default, which first appeared on a billing statement issued on or after September 24, 2009, and for which Citibank provided no clear and conspicuous notice; and (2) were given no clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to opt-out of the increase by closing their accounts and paying off the existing balances at the old rates.
Defective Windows
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
Gram v. Intelligender, LLC, a putative nationwide class action arising from Intelligender's marketing and selling of its Gender Prediction Tests, which Intelligender represents will predict the gender of unborn children at a high accuracy rate well before an ultrasound or sonogram can do so. Plaintiff has alleged that the Test is scientifically incapable of producing a predictive accuracy that is better than chance, and as such, all purchasers of the Test have been injured by their purchases of useless products.
Kaplan v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al., a putative nationwide class action on behalf of all persons with billing addresses in the United States of America who entered into cellular telephone service contracts with AT&T Mobility and Asurion for AT&T Mobile Backup ("Backup") service and who have paid a monthly fee for Backup service between July 2007 and the present and who failed to receive Backup service for all or any part of that time.
Lucia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., a putative nationwide class action on behalf of
all borrowers whose loans have been serviced by Wells Fargo, who have been eligible for a trial modification under the terms of the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), and whose loan Wells Fargo has not permanently modified either because 1) Wells Fargo has not offered them a trial period plan, or 2) because they did not receive a permanent loan modification after they complied with their obligations under HAMP as conveyed to them by Wells Fargo either orally or in writing.
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.
Couch, et al. v. Space Pencil, Inc. d/b/a Kissmetrics and Hulu, LLC, a putative consumer class action on behalf of Internet users who were victims of unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices wherein Defendants wrongfully tracked and monitored Plaintiffs by accessing Plaintiffs' computers or Internet-enabled mobile devices and transmitted an electronic "cookie" or ETag that allowed Defendants to persistently track Plaintiffs, even when Plaintiffs deliberately deleted cookies or took steps to avoid web profiling, surveillance or tracking. Such tracking and/or surveillance would provide Defendants with online behavioral data obtained from Plaintiffs' online searches, revealing personal information, personal identifying information and/or sensitive identifying information.
Apostol v. Eastman Kodak Company, a nationwide consumer class action on behalf of persons who purchased color inkjet printers and replacement cartridges for those printers manufactured and designed by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that its All-In-One inkjet printers use significant amounts of color ink even when the consumer prints black text or black and white graphics. As a result of the printer using significant amounts of color ink, consumers end up spending substantially more.
Dowell v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., a California class action on behalf of all non-exempt employees, employed by, or formerly employed by Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. and any subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Plaintiff alleges that defendant did not pay its non-exempt employees minimum wages and/or overtime wages for all hours worked; altered or changed existing time data to decrease the amount of time reflected on time sheets; and failed to ensure that its non-exempt employees were actually relieved of all duty at meal periods.
Van der Maas v. Nvidia Corporation, et al., a nationwide class action against defendants Nvidia Corporation, Asus Computer International and Asustek Computer, Inc. on behalf of those who purchased at retail an Asus computer equipped with a defective Nvidia graphics processing unit ("GPU") and/or media communications processor. Plaintiff alleges that Nvidia's defective GPUs cause consumers' computers to underperform, to display corrupted images (including distorted images, lines, garbled characters, and artifacts), to overheat, and even to suffer complete monitor/display and system failure. Plaintiff alleges that Nvidia and Asus are aware of hundreds (if not thousands) of consumer reports and complaints about the graphics, video, heat and performance problems plaguing the computers. Plaintiff also alleges that although Nvidia admits its GPUs are defective, Nvidia has failed to remedy the harm consumers suffered.
Kennedy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. dba Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of all borrowers whose loans have been serviced by Wells Fargo, who have been eligible for permanent modification under the terms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), and whose loan Wells Fargo has not permanently modified, because 1) they did not receive a permanent loan modification after complying with their obligations under HAMP, as conveyed to them by Wells Fargo either orally or in writing; or 2) they received a permanent modification, but Wells Fargo withdrew it after the permanent modification already was in effect.
Aviation
Stewart, et al. v. American Eurocopter Corporation, et al., negligence and wrongful death litigation alleges one or more of the rotor blades on a 2000 Eurocopter Deutschland helicopter failed and separated from the helicopter which resulted in a fatal helicopter crash. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Eurocopter was on notice of the defects and failed to warn the public or its customers about the defects. Partner, Brian R. Strange is a licensed pilot with first hand flying experience and knowledge of aircraft safety requirements and procedures.
