Shiotsugu v. Stronghold Engineering

Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (Class Action). We represent multiple Internal Revenue Service employees, as well as the family of a deceased IRS employee, who worked in the Los Angeles Federal Building and suffered serious health injuries when they were exposed to hazardous substances as the result of seismic retrofitting construction work that is alleged to have been negligently performed by Stronghold Engineering, Inc.

Billings v. BP West Coast Products, LLC

We represent over 240 residents of the Carson/Wilmington area who suffered a wide range of illnesses – including leukemia and other types of cancer – as a result of their exposure to toxic chemicals released from the BP/ARCO refinery in Carson, California.

Gutierrez v. American Honda Motor Company

US District Court--Central District of California (Class Action). Nationwide class action for damages and injunctive relief arising out of defects in the side airbag system of Honda vehicles. The defect causes the side airbags to spontaneously deploy without a collision, causing significant damage to the vehicle interior and creating a serious safety hazard.

Babayan v. BLS Limousine Service of Los Angeles, Inc.

Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (Class Action). Plaintiff alleges that BLS consistently and systematically failed to pay its limousine drivers the gratuity which the customer paid BLS when making a reservation. Plaintiff alleges that BLS charged its customers a twenty percent (20%) “driver gratuity” up front, and that the customers were informed that the gratuity would be paid to the driver.  Plaintiff also alleges that BLS did not pay the drivers the gratuity which the customer paid BLS when making the reservation. Plaintiff further alleges that the limousine drivers are entitled to the entirety of the gratuity paid by the customers.

Johns v. En Pointe Technologies, Inc.

Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (Class Action). Plaintiff alleges in this class action lawsuit that En Pointe failed, and continues to fail, to pay Account Executives the commissions, wages, and expense reimbursements to which they are entitled. En Pointe has, intentionally, employed a number of illegal, unfair, and improper practices to withhold payment of commissions and wages due to Account Executives.

Leone v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges in this class action lawsuit that Defendants misrepresented that there would be secured parking at the “Promenade,” located at 13044 Pacific Promenade, Playa Vista, California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used a sales brochure with false and misleading information regarding the “secured” nature of the parking. Plaintiff alleges that the parking at the Promenade is, and has never been, secured. Plaintiff further alleges that the conduct of Defendants was unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent, in violation California Unfair Competition Law. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that since the Promenade did not have secured parking, as represented, the market value of the Promenade condominium units at the time originally purchased was lower than those comparable condominium units sold with secured parking. In this regard, Plaintiff seeks restitution of money and other equitable relief in this Class Action lawsuit.

On November 13, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. The Court certified a Class defined as follows: All persons who are original purchasers of condominium units at the “Promenade,” located at 13044 Pacific Promenade, Playa Vista, California. Notice of Class Action has been sent to Class members.

After the notice period expires, this case will proceed to arbitration before a single arbitrator pursuant to the Purchase Agreement.

Wells v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc.

Superior Court for the County of Los Angles (Class Action). Plaintiff alleges in this class action lawsuit that Defendants manufacture, distribute and sell high carbohydrate, high calorie snack bars, which are deceptively and inaccurately characterized by Defendants as "low-carbohydrate" products. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ use of certain phrases in marketing material and on the front of the product packaging, such as “impact carbs,” “low-carb,” “carb sense,” “net carb,” and “carb control,” along with certain numerical factors associated with those terms (e.g., “4 net carbs”), is misleading and likely to deceive consumers.

The disclosure of the total carbohydrate content is located on the back of the packaging for these products and concealed under the flap so that the consumer cannot see it. These products were marketed under the brand names "Advant Edge Carb Control Nutrition Bar," "Advant Edge Carb Control," and "Myoplex Carb Sense Nutrition Bar."  Discovery is currently being conducted. A Motion for Class Certification is anticipated to be filed in the near future.