Class Actions

Horvitz & Levy LLP has frequently assisted clients facing class action litigation. The firm’s class action practice includes counseling clients in the trial court, helping to oppose motions for class certification and to craft motions for decertification. Our practice also includes challenging orders of class certification by writ petition in the Court of Appeal. We have also successfully represented defendants in connection with plaintiffs’ appeals following the denial of class certification. In addition, we have fashioned arguments on behalf of amicus curiae for the purpose of briefing important or novel class action-related issues in the California Supreme Court.

Opposing motions for class certification

Our class action practice is substantively diverse. Cases we have handled include such varied matters as product liability claims, allegations of improper insurance practices, mortgage lending practices, alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and claims asserting statewide violations of California’s wage and hour laws.

For example, in Ameriquest Mortgage Co., et al., v. Superior Court (2003) [unpublished], the firm prevailed on a writ petition challenging an order certifying a multi-state class that would have applied California law to the claims of a class of tens of thousands of mortgage borrowers in dozens of states, though those class members’ own contracts with Ameriquest provided that the laws of their home states would govern any dispute. After extensive supplemental briefing, we persuaded the Court of Appeal to hold that, with limited exceptions, there was no constitutional or contractual basis for extending California law beyond California’s borders. As a result, the court issued an alternative writ of mandate drastically narrowing the geographic scope of the class from 33 states to four states.

In another case, Seitz v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1998) [unpublished], Horvitz & Levy LLP persuaded the Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court's ruling denying class certification on plaintiffs' claims that Farmers Insurance Group and its affiliated companies failed to comply with statutory notice and offer requirements for earthquake insurance, leaving them without coverage for damage to their property caused by earthquake. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding there were insufficient common questions of fact and law to warrant certification.

Counseling clients in the trial court

Horvitz & Levy LLP regularly consults with trial counsel on procedures and strategy in class actions involving such claims as: (1) the alleged collection of improper fees in real estate transactions, which plaintiffs claimed constitute a violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (2) the alleged early termination of rental car benefits under automobile insurance policies, as a result of which plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, bad faith, misrepresentation and a violation of section 17200; and (3) the alleged improper consideration of the lack of prior insurance when determining whether insureds are entitled to certain automobile insurance rate discounts, which plaintiffs contended was a violation of Proposition 103 and section 17200.

Amicus curiae briefing

Horvitz & Levy LLP often represents clients appearing as amicus curiae in appellate proceedings involving class certification issues.

For example, in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 434, plaintiff policy holders brought an action against State Farm, an insurance company incorporated and headquartered in Illinois, alleging that State Farm’s board of directors had failed to pay promised dividends. The trial court certified the class as a nationwide class and ruled that California law governed. Horvitz & Levy LLP provided amicus briefing in support of State Farm’s writ petition, resulting in a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal requiring the trial court to apply Illinois law to the controversy. (See also Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868 [amicus briefing by Horvitz & Levy LLP in class action by friends and relatives of decedents against mortuaries and crematoria who allegedly had negligently and intentionally mishandled decedents’ remains].

Speaking and writing on class-action issues

The firm's lawyers have also been active in speaking and writing on class action-related issues. Chief among them are issues arising from the recently enacted federal Class Action Fairness Act, a new law that has dramatically altered the class action landscape. Horvitz & Levy LLP is ready to handle the appellate challenges of class action practice in this dynamic environment.

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map