With decades of experience defending our clients in class actions in state and federal courts across the United States, our attorneys know that priority number one in these cases is to prevent a class action case from even being certified, and secondly, to dramatically limit claims. That experience enables us to efficiently evaluate questions such as:
- numerosity requirements
- individual issues vs. class issues
- law vs. fact
- typicality
- fair and adequate protections of class interest
With these answers clearly defined, our attorneys can attack the class certification status appropriately. Persistent and vigorous actions in the beginning is the key to success.
Our experience defending class action litigation includes handling claims involving fraud and misrepresentation, employment, product liability, and construction defect. We have represented clients as both local and national counsel involving statewide, nationwide, and regional class actions. Additionally, our capabilities extend far beyond defending class action claims and include the management of documents and coordination of multiple cases in complex and multi-district litigation. Our attorneys are your counsel on risk management issues to minimize your exposure to potential class litigation.
In addition to defending individual lawsuits and pattern litigation nationally, Bowman and Brooke has extensive experience managing mass torts, MDLs and class actions. Here is an overview of some of our firm's recent class action and mass tort work:
CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE.
In re: Yamaha Rhino, MDL; and In re: Yamaha Rhino, JCCP 4561
Paul Cereghini of our Phoenix office was lead defense counsel for Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. national litigation regarding allegations of product defect with respect to the Yamaha Rhino, a side-by-side utility vehicle introduced to the off-road motor vehicle market by Yamaha in 2003. We directed the defense strategy of hundreds of cases nationwide, including cases consolidated in the JCCP in Orange County, California and in the MDL in the Western District of Kentucky. I was brought in as lead counsel at Yamaha's request in an effort to mount a strong defense against an ever-growing plaintiffs' bar attack on the Yamaha Rhino. To date, seven Rhino cases have been tried to defense verdict.
Analysis of Certification Standards in Ninth Circuit
Susan Burnett, from our Austin office, has prepared an analysis for a similarly situated client involved in mass tort litigation regarding the standards by which federal courts have determined whether to certify consumer fraud class actions in the context of pharmaceutical and medical device products, with a particular emphasis on the Ninth Circuit. While this work would need to be updated, it may serve as a helpful blueprint for Breg's defense of Cold Therapy products.
Zavala v. Takata Corporation, et al. (No. 277327, Superior Court of the State of California)
On January 16, 2009, Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed that Takata Corporation did perform proper testing on its TK-52 seat belt buckles and that plaintiff failed to show he suffered actual injury, potentially ending a seven year legal battle. Brought under the California Unfair Competition Law, plaintiff and class representative Lupe Zavala sought restitution of the purchase price of millions of seat belt buckles, plus an injunction potentially requiring re-testing and replacement of those buckles in California vehicles. The restitution amounts claimed ranged as high as $247 million prior to trial. Plaintiffs were represented by five different law firms, including the Susman Godfrey firm, in this certified class action. Our partner David Kelly was lead product defense counsel, while Mark Berry and Rob Robinson (partners in our Southern California office) opposed class certification, plaintiff's proposed class notice and prepared a writ to the California Court of Appeal on the class notice. We tried the case as a class action and prevailed at trial. After which, we negotiated a settlement with the class post-trial at the earliest stages of the appeal; negotiated and obtained approval by the trial court of the class action settlement notice that was published nationally; and we assisted in obtaining approval from the trial court of the class settlement.
White v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., (No. 35296, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia)
Our partner Randy Christian participated in the planning, strategy, and taking of key depositions in a West Virginia Consumer Fraud Class Action filed against a pharmaceutical company alleging unfair and deceptive practices in the promotion and marketing of a prescription pharmaceutical drug. He took the lead in deposing the prescribing physicians for the putative class representatives and obtained key testimony from the physicians that they did not prescribe the subject drug based on any representations of the company. Just recently, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued its opinion, and relies on the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs and their prescribers effectively put an end to this pending class action.