Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices

The Attorney General of Mississippi in a case presenting the question whether a state's parens patriae action is removable as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act when the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint. Mississippi ex rel Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (2014). See 2013 WL 3894136, 2013 WL 5532272 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

A putative class of consumers in a case presenting the question whether, after Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011), when a named plaintiff attempts to defeat a defendant’s right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by filing with a class action complaint a “stipulation” that attempts to limit the damages he “seeks” for the absent putative class members to less than the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction, and the defendant establishes that the actual amount in controversy, absent the “stipulation,” exceeds $5 million, the “stipulation” is binding on absent class members so as to destroy federal jurisdiction. The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S. Supreme Court).

Former FDA Commissioner as amicus curiae in a case presenting the question whether a private party can bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  Pom Wonder LLC, v. The Coca-Cola Company, 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014).  See 2014 WL 891762 (brief).

JPMorgan Chase for trial in a case involving a certified class alleging violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200) arising from allegedly deceptive adjustable rate mortgage loan disclosures.

JPMorgan Chase for trial in a case involving a certified class alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from changes in the minimum monthly payment due pursuant to the change in terms provision following a credit card promotion regarding balance transfer loans and promotional interest rates.

A group of amici medical researchers in a class action against a pharmaceutical company and three of its executives alleging that defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information regarding one of the company’s products. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S.Ct. 1309 (2011).

An enterprise-software and technology firm in defense of claims that its software caused its counterparty’s business to fail.

An amicus brief on behalf of non-profit citizens’ advocacy groups on behalf of a state attorney general pursuing discovery from Google regarding illegal acts advertised through Google and YouTube.  No. 14-CV-981 (S.D. Miss.).

A Fortune 100 corporation in connection with legal analysis and counseling regarding the constitutionality of Section 17200 of the California Bus. & Prof. Code, which prohibits any form of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and bestows standing to sue on “any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.”

A group of amici scholars in a case presenting the question whether, in the absence of any claim that an alleged violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 affected the price, quality, or other characteristics of the settlement services provided, a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue under Article III. First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, No. 10-708 (U.S. S.Ct.).

A group of motor fuel retailers in a multi-district litigation proceeding involving a series of class actions alleging that the sale of motor fuel without compensating for weather-related changes in volume and temperature was fraudulent. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 1840, Civ. No. 07-MDL-1840-KHV (D. Kan.).

Dean Witter, Discover in a trial court and on appeal in class action alleging certain debts are void against public policy. Cie v. Comdata Network, Inc., 275 Ill.App.3d 759, 211 Ill.Dec. 931 (1st Dist. 1995).

Life Fitness, a division of Brunswick, at trial and on appeal in an exercise treadmill patent and unfair competition dispute. Precor Inc. v. Life Fitness, a div. of Brunswick Corp., 13 Fed.Appx. 913 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See 2000 WL 34251125, 2000 WL 34251126 (briefs) (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).

A telecommunications company in a case involving unfair competition and other state-law claims. Straitshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2012 WL 727271, W.D.Wash., March 06, 2012 (NO. C10-268Z); Straitshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 6013829, W.D.Wash., December 01, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straitshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 2144238, W.D.Wash., May 27, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straightshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 1770930, W.D.Wash., May 09, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straightshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 1770935, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 12,046, W.D.Wash., May 09, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straightshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 813598, W.D.Wash., March 01, 2011; Straightshot Communications Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2010 WL 4793538, W.D.Wash., November 19, 2010 (NO. C10-268Z).

Warner Chilcott, a leading pharmaceutical company, in an antitrust case alleging monopolization in the market for Doryx (doxycycline hyclate), a treatment for severe acne.