Consumer and Securities Class Actions
The Firm's primary practice is in the areas of consumer, securities, and other commercial litigation. This includes consumer and securities class actions, individual business disputes, shareholder derivative actions, and whistleblower (False Claims Act) actions.
The firm has served as Plaintiff's counsel, including local counsel or liaison counsel, in the following pending or recently concluded consumer class action litigations alleging false advertising or unfair business practices:
- Hapner v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (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-
- Carper et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (PAX tire system), U.S. Dist. Ct. Central Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 2:07-CV-01481-MMM-AJW
- Sypher v. Soleus, Inc. ("Evaporative Technology" air conditioners), Los Angeles County Superior Court, Inc., Case No. BC 395530
- In Re Land Rover LR3 Tire Wear Litigation, U.S. Dist. Ct. Central Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 09-MDL-2008 AG
- Tomkins v. Basic Research, LLC ("Akavar 20/50" dietary supplement), U.S. Dist. Ct. Eastern Dist. Of Cal., Case No. 2:08-CV-00244-LKK- DAD
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 that case, the Court held that Proposition 64 does not impose a reliance requirement in a consumer class action filed under California Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200.