Class action practice involves a complex interplay between substantive law, the legal requirements for class certification, and the proposed class definition. Increasing that complexity is the rapid change impacting this practice area, whether it is the result of the 2005 federal Class Action Fairness Act or changes in standing requirements for class members under California’s consumer protection statutes. Substantial appellate expertise is needed to challenge orders of class certification. We understand the complicated rules and considerations in play when a class is certified, we are on top of the ever-changing legal landscape, and we are experts at challenging class certification orders in the appellate courts.
Our class action work is far-reaching. We consult with clients in the trial court to develop theories that maximize the likelihood that class certification will be denied. We also assist clients in preparing motions for class decertification when, for example, a change in the law renders an existing certification order suspect. Most importantly, we prepare writ petitions and appellate briefs challenging the propriety of orders certifying classes, both in state and federal courts.
Contact Felix Shafir or Peder K. Batalden for more information about our Class Actions practice.
Jones v. Ford
Ninth Circuit holds plaintiffs lack viable privacy claims based on using the infotainment system in their Ford vehicle.
Read MoreMontoya v. Ford
Court of Appeal reverses judgment for plaintiff in lemon law case, rejecting statute of limitations tolling based on plaintiff’s membership in successively filed class actions
Read MoreSarkisyan v. Newport Insurance Company
Court of Appeal affirms denial of class certification in favor of insurance company based on plaintiff’s failure to prove existence of ascertainable class and sufficient community of interest
Read MoreBruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. et al.
California Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeal opinion that permitted plaintiff to proceed with putative class action more than five years after filing complaint.
Read MoreKoszdin v. State Comp. Ins. Fund.
California Court of Appeal rejects class action against employers and workers compensation insurers.
Read MoreKavu v. Omnipak
Fax-blasting case settles on favorable terms after Horvitz & Levy petitions the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory appeal of class certification order.
Read MoreConsumer Advocates v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
California Court of Appeal reverses lemon law injunction against auto manufacturer.
Read MoreBryan v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
California Court of Appeal decertifies multi-state class action against mortgage lender.
Read MoreExxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire
United States Supreme Court brief arguing that the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula in state court representative actions.
Read MoreAugustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.
California Supreme Court brief arguing that on-call rest breaks comply with California law, as confirmed by the administrative and legislative history of Wage Orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission and relevant Labor Code provisions.
Read MoreAugustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula on either liability or damages issues in state court class actions.
Read MoreLubin v. The Wackenhut Corp.
California Court of Appeal brief arguing that the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause prohibits Trial by Formula on either liability or damages issues in state court class actions.
Read MoreChapala/All American Insurance Services, Inc. v. Superior Court
Petition for writ of mandate arguing that the trial court erred in certifying classes by applying an incorrect legal standard in determining whether the classes were ascertainable.
Read MoreDuran v. U.S. Bank National Association
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the use of statistical sampling to establish liability in a class action violates the defendant's fundamental due process right to present defenses to liability.
Read MoreWeinstat v. Dentsply
Petition for review from appellate decision reversing decertification of class of dentists who purchased ultrasonic scaling devices, and rejecting trial court's determination that "commonality" requirement was not met due to individualized questions of causation of injury.
Read MoreNelson v. Pearson Ford
California appellate brief explaining construction of the Auto Sales Finance Act and Unfair Competition Law; challenging a judgment in favor of class action plaintiffs who claimed that aspects of an auto dealer's purchase contracts constituted statutory violations that allowed buyers to both keep possession of their cars and obtain a windfall refund of the purchase payments for the cars.
Read MoreSoualian v. Int'l Coffee and Tea, LLC
Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing a district court properly denied class certification in an action under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) because certification would expose the defendant to staggering classwide statutory damages, even though putative class members suffered no actual harm.
Read MoreLewis v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.
Petition for review in the California Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of the "injury in fact" requirement for standing under California's Unfair Competition Law in the context of a class action alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act, and also seeking review of whether individualized inquiries required by due process render claims for punitive damages inherently unsuitable for determination on a class-wide basis.
Read More
