Keiser v. DirecTv Inc.

Defendant has engaged in the deceptive practice of unilaterally extending its customers’ programming commitment term when its customers make a change in the equipment needed to obtain satellite TV service from DirecTV, Inc. (“DirecTV”). Such equipment changes can be in the form of simply adding new equipment or replacing faulty, broken or outdated equipment.

Moore v. Cellco Partnership

Verizon has been improperly assessing date charges on its wireless subscriber’s  bills without their knowledge and/or consent.

Demmick v. Cellco Partnership

Cellco has engaged in the deceptive practice of (1) misapplying its wireless telephone customers’ usage of included minutes and additional minutes and, as a result, (2) assessing excess additional per minute charges to its customers.

Laliberte v. Pacific Mercantile

Orange County Superior Court (Class Action). Class action seeking statutory damages and rescission on behalf of borrowers who obtained mortgages from Pacific Mercantile Bank but were not given a properly itemized closing statement.

Moore v. Toyota Sales, U.S.A.

Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (Class Action). Nationwide class action for damages and injunctive relief arising out of defects in the High-Intensity Discharge headlight system installed in Toyota Prius vehicles between 2006 and 2009. The defects cause the headlights to prematurely fail, creating a safety hazard and requiring the vehicle owners to spend hundreds of dollars in repair costs.

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.

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.