Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP

We Handle Cases throughout the United States

800-475-2570

Navigation

Class Action | Consumer Protection | Fraud | LARS

Gonsoulin v. LARS

Los Angeles County Superior Court (Class Action). Class action on behalf of students enrolled in The Los Angeles Recording School, LARS, alleging that LARS, in conjunction with the Los Angeles Film School, used fraudulent and deceptive practices to inflate graduation rates and misrepresent student job placement rates.

Class Action | Consumer Protection | Telecommunications | Time Warner

Calzada v. Time Warner

United States District Court—Central District of California—Western Division (Class Action). Class action on behalf of consumers alleging that Time Warner intentionally recorded telephone calls without the consent of the customers.

Class Action | Consumer Protection | H&R Block

Alvord v. H&R Block

Los Angeles County Superior Court (Class Action). Plaintiff class includes consumers who enrolled in the Income Tax Course through H&R Block but either withdrew from the class or did not attend when the course began. Plaintiff alleges that H&R Block failed to issue a refund for the price of the course.

Class Action | Auto Defect | Consumer Protection | Toyota

Gaal v. Toyota

United States District Court—Central District of California (Class Action). Class action on behalf of consumers alleging that defective inverters in Toyota Highlander HV and Lexus RX 400L vehicles cause engines to lose power while driving. If cars are no longer under warranty, drivers are responsible for the cost to fix the defective product. Drivers allege that Toyota has adopted a new warranty policy that extends the warranty period for problems with the defective inverter but has failed to notify or reimburse drivers. 

Class action | Consumer Protection | Travel Insurance

Trebbe v. Travel Insurance

Los Angeles County Superior Court (Class Action).  Plaintiffs allege that defendants sold phony travel insurance policies to thousands of Californians.

Class Action | Consumer Protection | The Welk Group

Martinez v. The Welk Group et al.

United States District Court—Southern District of California (Class Action). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants continued to market and sell time shares memberships at the Welk Resort in San Diego despite the presence of dangerous mold, mildew, and fungus in the time share units and throughout the resort. 


Class Action | Death Care | Consumer Protection | Grandview Memorial Gardens

Leathermon v. Grandview Memorial Gardens

United States District Court—Southern District of Indiana—New Albany Division (Class Action). Class action on behalf of family members of the deceased alleging that Grandview Cemetery improperly and negligently installed lawn crypts, specific types of burial vaults that encapsulate the coffin, by failing to establish proper drainage systems. Severe water damage and flooding resulted, but Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to notify them of these problems and did not take necessary steps to fix them. Plaintiffs further allege that on several occasions, Defendants failed to bury the decreased in lawn crypts, despite the fact that the family members paid for them.


Class Action | Consumer Protection | Wal-Mart

Johnson v. Wal-Mart

United States District Court—Central District of California (Class Action). Class action on behalf of consumers of lead-acid batteries alleging that Wal-Mart falsely represented to California consumers that an additional fee for purchasing a lead-acid battery was required when they do not bring back the old battery, and therefore unjustly charged them this fee in addition to the cost of the battery.


Class Action | Consumer Protection | EDebitPay

White v. EDebitPay

United States District Court—Central District of California Western Division (Class Action). Class action on behalf of consumers alleging that EDEBITPAY (EDP) unlawfully acquired consumer bank account information after they applied for online short term loans. After obtaining their bank account information, EDP fraudulently charged or debited the consumers’ accounts for unrelated products.

Class Action | Consumer Protection | Telecommunications | Facebook

Price v. Facebook Inc

US District Court--Northern Division--San Jose Division (Class Action). Facebook has engaged in the practice of charging its “pay per click” advertising customers for “clicks” that either: (a) never actually occurred; or (b) were generated by “robot” computer programs and/or other software programs used by Facebook and/or a third parties engaged by Facebook.  As a result, such advertising customers of Facebook are being charged and are paying monies to Facebook for “false clicks”.

Proudly serving Los Angeles area, throughout California and nationwide. Including residents of Long Beach, Torrance, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, Chula Vista, Irvine, Glendale, Modesto, Oxnard, Oceanside, Santa Clarita, Ontario, Pomona, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, South Bay, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, San Diego County, Alameda County, San Francisco County, Kern County, Santa Barbara County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, and Contra Costa County.  Search Engine Optimization by Omnipresent SEO