Class actions level the playing field when the defendant is a large corporation with limitless resources who can afford the very best legal representation and services. The purpose of class action lawsuits is to give the individual, common, person the ability to take on the largest corporations or private entities to redress the wrong done by them. Uniting together hundreds or thousands of individuals, helps bring your issues in front of the Courts and ensures that the corporate defendant(s) take notice of their widespread wrongs. Moreover, untiting individuals together allows for the sharing of costs between many plaintiffs, making discovery and litigation economically feasible. People who participate in class action litigation not only help themselves and others, they also send a strong message that the continued wrongdoing has a price and needs to be remedied.
And Poulos LoPiccolo’s is well prepared to represent individuals and classes of plaintiffs, public companies, and private organizations in both federal and state class action litigation across the country. If you feel you have been harmed and would like your voice to be heard, please contact us immediately.
We are currently working on the following class actions and investigating numerous other class actions:
Kuzian, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 12-3341 (DNJ)
Poulos LoPiccolo, in conjunction with Nagel Rice LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Electrolux Home Products, Inc. seeking damages associated with refrigerators’ defective ice makers manufactured by Electrolux. The complaint alleges that Electrolux refrigerators contain a defect that causes the refrigerators’ to have a faulty control panel, fails to produce ice (despite advertising that one can have “ice at your fingertips”), and water leaks that damages the structures and substructures below the refrigerator. Further, the ice makers require numerous service calls, repairs, and upgrades without correcting the defect. The defective ice makers do not perform the essential function to make ice, and the leaking causes staining and damage to the consumer’s floor under and walls surrounding the refrigerator. The defect exists in the Electrolux Icon French Door and Side-by-Side refrigerators, including, but not limited to model numbers EI28BS56IS, EW28BS71IS, EI23BC56IS, EW23BC711S, and E23BC78IPS.
If you purchased an Electrolux refrigerator and are experiencing any of the problems described above, please call our office toll free at (800) 757-2304 or email us at email@example.com to discuss your claim.
Miller, et al v. Chrysler Group, Case No. 12-cv-00760.
Poulos LoPiccolo PC has filed, in conjuntion with Keefe Bartels and The Law Offices of Peter C. Lucas, a class action lawsuit against Chrysler for defective sunroof drainage systems. Chrysler vehicles known to have leaking sunnoofs include, but are not limited to the (1) Commander, (2) Jeep Patriot, (3) Liberty, (4) Compass, (5) Cherokee, (6) Town & Country, and (7) 300C.
If you purchased or leased one of the Jeep or Chrysler vehicles described on our Chrysler sunroof leak page after June 2009 through the present and have sustained water damage to your vehicle due to a defective sunroof, please call our office toll free at (800) 757-2304 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org to discuss your claim.
In re New Jersey Tax Sale Certificates Antitrust Litig., Case No. 12-cv-4050.
Class action filed on behalf of a New Jersey company and all others similarly situated against various individuals and companies involved in a bid-rigging scheme that allowed tax lien investors to charge the highest amount of interest allowed by law where several individuals have pled guilty in federal court to Sherman Act violations by conspiring to eliminate any competition at tax sales.
If you believe you are victim of a tax lien bid rigging scheme, please call our office toll free at (800) 757-2304 or email us at email@example.com for a free case evaluation.
Class Action Opinions / Cases of Interest for 2011 / 2012
Robinson v. Hornell Brewing Co., U. S. Dist. Ct. (Simandle, U.S.D.J.) (16 pp.) In this consumer fraud action, plaintiff seeks to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of New Jersey consumers who were misled by labels on bottles of defendants’ Arizona Brand beverages claiming “all natural” ingredients despite the presence of high fructose corn syrup. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from claiming that their products containing the corn syrup are all natural. The court denies plaintiff’s motion to certify because, where he testified that he has no intention of ever purchasing any Arizona product in the future, he cannot show that is likely to suffer future injury from defendants’ labeling practices and, under McNair, has thus failed to show that he has Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief and he is therefore not able to represent the proposed class. [Filed April 11, 2012]
Sullivan v DB Investments-class action - The Third Circuit, en banc, issued an opinion approving a classwide settlement in an antitrust case. At issue on appeal in this class action litigation is the propriety of the District Court’s certification of two nationwide settlement classes comprising purchasers of diamonds from De Beers S.A. and related entities (“De Beers”). The allegations arose from De Beers’s position as the dominant participant in the wholesale market for gem-quality diamonds. Plaintiffs brought suit complaining that De Beers’s business practices contravened state and federal antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws, and constituted unfair business practices and false advertising under common law and relevant state statutes. After granting plaintiffs’ petition for a rehearing en banc, the Third Circuit addresses anew the propriety of the District Court’s certification of the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), and also considers the objections raised to the fairness of the class settlement. The majority finds the District Court did not run afoul of the requirements of Rule 23(c)(1)(B) and properly certified the two classes of claims. Contrary to the dissent’s position, Rule 23(b)(3) does not require class members to individually state a valid claim for relief. [Filed December 20, 2011]
Hayes v Walmart – Certification Decision by J Simandle - Plaintiff seeks class certification in order to bring claims against defendant for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), as well as causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendant marketed and sold to its members Sam’s Club service agreements for “as-is” products, without disclosing to the purchaser that such products were expressly excluded from coverage. The court finds that, as defined, the class is readily ascertainable and has standing, and that plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) — numerosity, typicality, and fairness and adequacy. The court further finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b) are satisfied, because common questions of law predominate among the class members, and class action is superior to other methods for adjudicating the case, regarding unjust enrichment, breach of contract and the NJCFA claims. Class certification is granted.
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Dist. Ct. (Cecchi, U.S.D.J.) This matter involves several class actions filed by Plaintiffs against various insurance companies and broker firms. Plaintiffs allege violations of federal antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), various state statutes and common law. The class actions were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into MDL 1663, In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, and transferred to the District of New Jersey. Because the named Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court certifies the proposed class for purposes of this Settlement and grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Court also grants the applications of Class Counsel for attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive award payments. [Filed March 30, 2012]
D.O. v. Haddonfield Bd. of Educa., Dist. Ct. (Hillman, U.S.D.J.) In this challenge to the constitutionality of defendant’s policy punishing students for their off-campus involvement with illegal drugs or alcohol, plaintiffs move for class action certification. The court finds that although discovery is underway, plaintiffs’ support for each Rule 23(a) element is scarce and conclusory and that plaintiffs have not affirmatively shown their compliance with the rule, specifically the commonality requirement of 23(a)(2), and it therefore denies plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice to it being refiled in the future. [Filed March 21, 2012]
Maloney v. Microsoft Corporation, Dist. Ct. (Thompson, U.S.D.J.) Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in this consumer protection case. Defendant Microsoft Corporation opposes the motion. The Court previously denied Plaintiff‘s request for certification of a nation-wide class because it determined that individual questions of law would predominate at trial based upon the required application of all fifty states’ consumer protection laws. The Court reserved decision on the issue of whether a New Jersey-wide class could be certified. After additional briefing, the Court denies certification of a New Jersey-wide class. Plaintiff admits that she is not entitled to a presumption of causation and bears the burden of proof to establish a unifying theory of causation capable of class-wide proof at the class certification stage. A jury must be able to independently weigh whether each alleged design defect actually existed and whether that specific defect is the cause of each class-member’s injury. Defendant must have the opportunity to defend against each of these alleged defects. Plaintiff’s purported class-wide evidence, however, does not permit the Defendant to do so. Individual issues would undoubtedly predominate. [Filed March 5, 2012]
Wenger v. Cardo Windows, Inc., App. Div. (per curiam) - Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory civil penalties against defendants in connection with the sale of residential windows. Previously, the Appellate Division remanded to the trial court to reconsider its denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims under the Consumer Fraud Act, the Contractor’s Registration Act, and the Home Improvement Practices regulations. The panel reversed the dismissal of the claims arising under the Door-to-Door Home Repairs Sales Act of 1968, the Federal Trade Commission “Cooling-Off Rule,” the Home Repair Financing Act, and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act. On remand, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification, limited to the previously upheld legal bases. The Appellate Division denied defendants’ motion for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court summarily reversed and remanded. Here, the appellate panel affirms the order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The trial judge correctly found that the common issues predominated over individual questions and the class action offered a superior method for a fair and efficient adjudication.
Worthington v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, U. S. Dist. Ct. (Waldor, U.S.M.J.) - In these purported class actions, plaintiffs allege that defendant deceptively advertised and marketed several of its colon health products in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and common law breach of warranty principles. Before the court is a motion to intervene filed by Diana Stanley, a plaintiff in a putative nationwide class action pending in the Southern District of California asserting California and common law causes of action arising out of the same advertising and marketing practices for the purpose of filing a motion to dismiss or transfer under the first-to-file rule. The court denies the motion, finding that Stanley has not shown that she meets the requirements for intervention as of right since she has not sufficiently shown that her interest in this case – to be able to file a motion to dismiss or transfer notwithstanding that defendant has already filed a motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule – warrants protection under Rule 24(a)(2). Nor has she met the requirements for permissive intervention because her interests are already represented in the litigation and her appearance as an intervenor would not sufficiently add anything to the litigation. [Filed December 15, 2011]
Poulos LoPiccolo PC
1305 South Roller Rd.
Ocean, New Jersey 07712
PO Box 200
Oceanport, NJ 07757
Call Us Toll Free:
Poulos LoPiccolo PC
500 Old Country Road, Ste 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Call Us Toll Free: