Arthur Garabedian, et al. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 721144
Counsel for class of 2,000,000 cellular telephone users in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in antitrust case. Settlement of $175,000,000.
Jeff Lohman, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 03-419802
Counsel for consumer class of new car purchasers alleging antitrust violations in policies implemented to deter importation of less expensive Canadian automobiles to the U.S. Settlement of $30,000,000 finalized in 2012.
Brannning, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.1-05-CV-045719
Counsel for retail consumers who purchased Apple products that used an estimated purchase price and Apple resellers that were harmed as a result of Apple’s unfair trade and business practices.
Wallace, et al. v. Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc., et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Case No. 5:11-cv-00127-KSF
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel re multi-level marketing class action involving violations of RICO
Bruce Saucier, et al. v. United States Smokeless Tobacco Company
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 02CC00181
Co-Counsel for consumer class of indirect purchasers of smokeless tobacco alleging monopolization and antitrust violations by producer of 90% of the moist snuff sold in the U.S. Class certified in 2004. $96,000,000 settlement.
Telet Martin v. First International Bank, et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIN035066
Counsel for customer who alleged bank manager borrowed $20,000 in exchange for preferential treatment on loan application, and failed to repay same. Settlement $20,000.
Robert Waldon, et al. v. Arizona Public Service Company
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case No. 313-cv-02086-L-WVG
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel to recover losses sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the negligent operation by Defendants in maintaining and operating their electrical equipment in a reliable manner which resulted in the 2011 Southern California blackout.
Thomas Sprague, et al. v. Qualcomm
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 730565
Counsel for class of employees who were deprived the benefit of their stock options when a division of Qualcomm was sold to Ericsson. Settlement $11,000,000.
7-Eleven OFFF, et al. v. The Southland Corp., et al.
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 722272-6
Counsel for a class of approximately 1,200 California 7-Eleven franchise owners in a breach of contract/franchise dispute action against The Southland Corp., McLane and others. Settlement $32,000,000.
Lawndale Medical Clinic, et al. v. Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co., et al.
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 767832-9
Counsel for class of 900,000 cellular telephone users in San Francisco Bay Area in antitrust case. $35,000,000 Settlement.
Joseph Quattrini, et al. v. Pana-Pacific, et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 766649
counsel for eight businesses in complex antitrust litigation against numerous large corporations including Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company and AirTouch Communications. Confidential settlement.
Harry Betts, et al. v. Raymond James & Associates, et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. N71973
Counsel for a group of elderly investors in breach of fiduciary duty/elder abuse case. Class certified in the interests of justice despite only approximately 10-20 members. Case settled for $185,000.
Harvey Dunn v. Kirtland & Packard
Santa Monica Superior Court Case No. SC 024498
Counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice case relating to the failure to reasonably settle an accounting malpractice case which resulted in a substantial adverse judgment against the accountant. Girardi & Keese represented plaintiff in related insurance bad faith cases. Settled for $1,250,000.
Meilin Hua v. Southland Corporation
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.LC031658
Franchise dispute between parent company of 7-Eleven and franchisee relating to failure to follow procedures during the Northridge earthquake. Despite summary judgment, counsel was able to obtain a rare stay of execution of the commercial unlawful detainer ruling during the almost two year pendency of the appeal, allowing the franchisee time to transition her occupation while still supporting her family.
In Re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
United States District Court District of Minnesota, MDL No. 2522
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in consumer class action in connection with security breach of Target’s systems. Pending.
Represented client who served as lead Plaintiff in the largest data breach litigation to date.