Consumer Class Action Litigation
Pestotnik LLP attorneys have extensive experience in consumer class action litigation involving a variety of products, services or claims, including those relating to consumer fraud, false advertising, unfair competition, and unfair business practices. We have significant experience in defending and prosecuting a variety of advertising and business practice claims. Our partners have counseled clients and litigated consumer class actions in industries, such as food and beverage, retail, telecommunications, construction, high tech, manufacturing, and transportation, among others. The firm’s cases often include high-stakes litigation seeking millions of dollars in damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and interest. We shape our strategy to the particular needs of each client and their goals, including appropriate “exit” strategies.
Perry v. Truong Giang Corp.
Pestotnik LLP represented a defendant tea maker in a consumer class action alleging mislabeling and other consumer remedies. We negotiated a favorable settlement for our client and helped them realign their labels and marketing for future growth of the brand.
Gleason v. City of San Diego
Our lawyers represented the City of San Diego in complex class action litigation alleging deliberate underfunding of the City employees’ pension system. We negotiated a settlement with 5,000 member class in a highly publicized action. We also opposed plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee petition in which plaintiffs’ counsel achieved less than one-fourth of the fees sought from the City in the lawsuit.
C.L. Trustees, et al. v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al.
One of our partners was co-lead trial counsel for a government contractor in three simultaneously tried class actions and two representative actions alleging that red light intersection cameras were operated unlawfully in violation of California’s unfair competition law (Business & Professions Code Section 17200). The Plaintiff classes, demanded more than $85 million before trial and sought $27 million at trial. A complete defense judgment was rendered after trial, so Plaintiffs recovered nothing. The California Supreme Court, affirmed the victory on appeal..
Rice v. Harbor View Medical Center & OrNda HealthCare
One of our partners was trial counsel in the defense of a representative class action by consumers/patients alleging under Sections 650 and 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code that Harbor View Medical Center and OrNda HealthCare (acquired by Tenet Healthcare during the case) paid unlawful kickbacks to physicians for the referral of patients. Plaintiffs demanded more than $5 million before trial. Following a ten day trial, the court rendered a complete defense judgment.
Moore v. T-Mobile et al.
One of our partners represented Flycell, Inc., a provider of premium cell phone content (e.g., ringtones, text messages, etc.), in a consumer class action alleging that T-Mobile, Flycell, and other such providers engaged in false advertising, “crammed” cell phone bills with allegedly unauthorized charges, and failed to comply with rules and regulations imposed on cell phone providers by the California Public Utilities Commission and Code. Following early motions and preliminary discovery, Plaintiffs abandoned and dismissed their case without any payment by the defendants.
Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
One of our partners represented Cingular Wireless, LLC in a putative class action lawsuit alleging false advertising of cellular phones at prices that did not disclose that sales tax would be calculated based on gross retail price, not on the discounted sale price. The court granted Cingular’s motion to dismiss the case in its entirety, and the judgment in favor of Cingular was affirmed on appeal.
Palacios v. Billing Concepts, Inc.
Our lawyers represented Billing Concepts, Inc. a long distance billing service provider, which was sued in a class action alleging fraud and unfair competition in connection with collect telephone calls placed from Mexico. With our motion attacking class certification pending, plaintiffs settled the case for a nominal amount, a tiny fraction of what was sought.
Smith et al. v. AT&T Mobility et al.
One of our partners defended AT&T Mobility in putative class action lawsuit alleging false advertising and unfair competition related to collection of sales tax reimbursement on gross retail price of lost or damaged replacement cellular phones, even though such products were not related to the establishment or extension of a cellular service contract. The case was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend on Cingular’s first demurrer, on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim.