Current Cases
R.J. REYNOLDS – MISREPRESENTING “LIGHT” CIGARETTES
Date Filed: 10/13/09 in Arizona; 08/05/09 in New Mexico
Court: U.S. District Court
Locations: Arizona, New Mexico
Practice Area: Consumer Fraud Class Action
Shaffer, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Cause No. 4:09-CV-649
and
Vandyke, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., In the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Cause No. 1:09-CV-765
Both of these class action suits seek remedies for Defendants’ alleged consumer fraud in the manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of cigarettes labeled and represented as “Light” or “Ultra-Light” (light cigarettes) as delivering less nicotine to consumers and as being less harmful to consumers than regular cigarettes. Plaintiffs claim on behalf of the class that R.J. Reynolds purposefully used these representations and massive marketing campaigns to create positive health attributes to Light Cigarettes, portray them as delivering less tar and nicotine, and create a pervasive consumer belief that Light Cigarettes are less harmful alternatives to regular cigarettes, and that R.J. Reynolds did so to increase demand for and sales of Defendants’ products, despite their knowledge that their representations, and perceptions they created with consumers, were misleading, false, deceptive and unfair.
INTEL CORPORATION – MISREPRESENTING LAP TOP BATTERY LIFE
Date Filed: 06/29/09
Court: U.S. District Court
Locations: California
Practice Area: Consumer Fraud Class Action
Mendez, et al., v. Intel Corporation, Cause No. 5:09-CV-2889, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Plaintiffs bring this class action suit to stop Defendant Intel Corporation from engaging in what Plaintiffs allege is unfair business practices by unfairly capitalizing on consumers’ willingness to pay for longer battery lives. The suit alleges that by measuring battery life through fixed, programmed conditions which are not representative of any reasonable consumer’s computer usage, the battery life measurements are misleading to consumers and to the marketplace.
WELLS FARGO BANK – FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND TRUSTEE RIGHTS
Date Filed: 11/20/07
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Texas
Practice Area: Fiduciary Litigation/Consumer Rights Class Action
Clower, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Cause No. 2-07-CV-510, In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
This is a suit by trust beneficiaries for removal of a trustee, alleging that the trustee, Wells Fargo, has no privity of contract to the beneficiaries’ trusts and is not court appointed. It is alleged that the trustee acquired its de facto status without providing due process to the beneficiaries. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class, seek the repayment and disgorgement of trustee fees wrongfully collected by Wells Fargo.
REPROS THERAPEUTICS – SECURITIES LAW
Date Filed: 08/14/09
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Texas
Practice Area: Investor Fraud Class Action
Medina, et al., v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Cause No. 4:00-CV-2594, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
This was a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Repros Therapeutics, Inc. between July 1, 2009 and August 3, 2009. Plaintiffs claimed to have been damaged from relying upon the false and misleading integrity of the market price of the Repros’ securities and market information causing investors’ losses, where Repros knew that adverse facts had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from the public, and that certain positive representations misrepresented the truth about Repros’ business, operations, and financial prospects.
NAACP – PREDATORY LENDING
Date Filed: 7/11/07
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: California
Practice Area: Lending Fraud Class Action
NAACP, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al., In the United States District Court, Central District of California, Cause No. SACV07-0794
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the “NAACP”) filed this action in its representative capacity and as a class action seeking injunctive and other relief against numerous mortgage lenders alleging institutionalized, systematic racism. At the center of the lawsuit was the fact that African-American homeowners who received subprime mortgage loans from Defendants were over 30% more likely to be issued a higher-rate loan than Caucasian borrowers with the same qualifications.
The lawsuit claims that these statistical disparities were not mere coincidences, but instead were a result of systematic and predatory targeting of African-Americans borrowers. The goal of the lawsuit is to stop these subprime lenders from continuing their discriminatory practices, and to compel their compliance with federal laws including the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act.
EA SPORTS – RETIRED NFL PLAYERS’ RIGHTS TO PUBLICITY
Date Filed: 7/29/10
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: California
Practice Area: Consumer Rights Class Action
Davis, et al., v. Electronic Arts; In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Cause No. 3:10-CV-03328
This class action is on behalf of retired NFL players’ whose likeness have been used without permission or consent in versions of EA’s Madden NFL video game franchise sold from July 29, 2008 through the present. Compensation is sought against EA for the alleged unauthorized use of the likenesses and rights of publicity of retired NFL football players.
AARP – HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
Date Filed: 11/09/09
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: District of Columbia
Practice Area: Insurance Fraud Class Action
Halpern, et al., v. AARP, et al., In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Cause No. 1:09-CV-2104
This action seeks to redress alleged deceptive and otherwise improper business practice that Defendants AARP, AARP Services, Inc., and AARP Financial, Inc. have perpetrated against thousands of Americans over age 50 by luring them into enrolling in AARP’s health insurance program. Specifically, the suit alleges that Defendants have marketed personal health insurance that AARP claims is “primary health coverage” that is in fact, contrary to the marketing materials, is a fixed benefit indemnity policy that covers only a small fraction of health care costs.
This suit is brought pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code §28-23901 et seq. (“CPPA”) and common law on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons in the United States who purchased an AARP Medical Advantage Plan from Defendants during the period from January 1, 2006, to the present.
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE — RENTAL CAR BENEFITS
Date Filed: 04/29/08
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Ohio
Practice Area: Insurance Fraud Class Action
Van Horn, et al., v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Cause No. 1:08-CV-605
This class action arises from Defendants’ alleged breach of its automobile policies with Plaintiffs by prematurely terminating rights to thirty days of automobile rental benefits when they experience total losses on their cars. Plaintiffs claimed that they were induced to purchase insurance services from Defendants, and accepted payment based on the false belief that Plaintiffs would be adequately supplied with car rental benefits, as warranted. Plaintiffs further alleged that Nationwide terminated coverage prematurely with the intention of saving costs related to paying rental car benefits.
Feazell & Tighe LLP was appointed class co-counsel, and a class of almost 200,000 policyholders was certified. On April 30, 2010, a federal court in northern Ohio approved a class action settlement including available compensation of $27.5 million dollars to class members.
VALIC – ANNUITY SALES/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS
Date Filed: 12/21/09
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Arizona
Practice Area: Investor Fraud Class Action
Hall, et al., v. The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, et al., In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Cause No. 4:09-CV-712
This class action is brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Plaintiffs have entered into combination fixed and variable deferred annuity contracts with defendant The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company (“VALIC”) and sold to Plaintiffs through VALIC’s agents as retirement investments. The covered retirement plans include IRAs, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans for teacher, hospital, and non-profit organization employees, state government employee plans, and others.
The suit alleges that VALIC nevertheless targeted sales of deferred annuities to persons seeking to fund tax-qualified retirement plans, resulting in economic injuries to the class as a result of paying fees and other detriments, including surrender penalties, associated with the insurance aspects of these hybrid insurance and investment products that class members would not have agreed to pay if VALIC had made full and fair disclosure in the sale that the tax-deferral feature of the annuity is unnecessary because the tax-deferral benefit is already provided by the retirement plan.
Plaintiffs seek for the class rescission and restitution of the insurance charges paid by Plaintiffs to VALIC, or reformation and damages of Plaintiffs’ investment contracts to place them in the investment positions they would enjoy if they had not been, as has been alleged, deceived into purchasing unnecessary deferred annuities.