Class Action | Unfair Business Practices

U.S. Green Card Lottery Facilitators, Inc. v. Card Service International, Inc., et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court (Class Action) on behalf of credit card merchants alleging that defendants concealed or failed to adequately disclose how to utilize credit card security services, thereby increasing the likelihood of fraudulent transactions, and consequently, “charge backs” for which defendants charged unreasonable fees. Class Action settlement was reached which allowed merchants to receive monetary compensation.

Class Action | Employment Law | Misclassification | Failure to pay overtime | Unpaid wages | Wage and Hour Claim

Alvarez, et al. v. The May Department Stores Company

Los Angeles Superior Court (Class Action) filed on behalf of hundreds of "Area Sales Managers" seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief for improper classification as exempt employees which required them to work excessive hours with no overtime compensation. Obtained a settlement in excess of $1,000,000.00.

Class Action | Consumer Protection

Sauceda v. United Autocare Center, LLC, et al. ['Midas']

Los Angeles County Superior Court - CCW (Class Action): Midas, a nationwide auto-repair chain specializing in mufflers and brakes, sells Midas-brand brake pads and shoes (sometimes described as "Midas VSD" [vehicle specific design]) to its customers. However, although customers pay for the Midas-brand brake and believe they are receiving that specific, premium brake pad or shoe with a lifetime guarantee, Midas franchises actually install an undisclosed, unapproved brake pad or shoe. While Midas prohibits its franchisees from selling non-Midas brakes without explicit, written authorization, Midas nevertheless knowingly permits its franchisees to sell non-Midas brake pads and shoes but describe them as Midas-brand brake pads and shoes. The proposed putative class consists of all California consumers who purchased what were described as Midas-brand brakes but were, in fact, an undisclosed substitute. Relief sought includes injunctive relief aimed at ending Midas’ fraudulent practices and the return of all monies paid to Midas and its franchisees for the falsely designated, non-Midas brake pads. Discovery leading to class certification is process.

Class Action | Employment | Wage and Hour Litigation

Draper v. Manhattan Brewing Company, et al

Los Angeles County Superior Court (Class Action) filed on behalf of employees seeking damages and injunctive relief for employer's failure to pay for overtime hours. Obtained settlement wherein all employees received all past due overtime pay.

Business Litigation | Fraud | Breach of Contract

Doe Development Owners

United States District Court filed on behalf of owners of commercial development damaged by various defendants' failure to comply with the terms of multiple agreements and subsequent representations. Obtained a confidential settlement in excess of $4,500,000.

Class Action | False Advertisement | Consumer Fraud | Los Angeles

Harder v. Blue Cross of California

Los Angeles Superior Court (Class Actions) filed on behalf of Dentists who contracted under a particular plan with Blue Shield of California won a settlement for $5,000,000 as a result of Blue Shield of California’s failure to market the plan.

Class Action | Employment Law | No Rest or Meal Breaks

Miller v. Ruth's Chris

An Orange County Superior Court (Class Action) granted relief to waiters and bus boy employees of this upscale steak house chain where they were being forced to work straight through their shifts without rest breaks and also forced them to pay for their own work uniforms in violation of California law. Defendants, Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse settled the claims for $1,625,000.

Class Action | Wage & Hour | Failure to Pay Overtime

Elias v. El Pollo Loco

Los Angeles County Superior Court (Class Action) on behalf of General Managers and Restaurant Managers of El Pollo Loco Restaurants resulted on a settlement for $8,000,000 for failure to pay them overtime, minimum wage and provide meal breaks by mistakenly classifying them “exempt” employees under current California law, even though they spent the majority of their work time performing non-managerial work.

Class Action | ERISA Violations | Liquidation of Shares in Employees 401K

Gottlieb v. SBC Communications Inc.

Central District of California (Class Action) on behalf of employees alleging ERISA violations in connection with defendant’s unilateral liquidation of shares of the Air Touch Stock Fund in its employees’ 401(k) plans. The case was settled in 2002 for $10 million.

Class Action | Telecommunications | Overcharging for Telephone Service | Santa Barbara

Roark v. GTE California Inc.

Santa Barbara Superior Court (Class Action) filed on behalf of customers seeking to recover for overcharges on long distance telephone calls erroneously carried by AT&T and improperly billed by Verizon California. The case was settled in 2003 for cash and Cash Equivalent Calling Cards totaling $20 million.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 .. 9 Next

Navigation