Class Actions

Overview

Being served with a class action complaint is every company’s worst fear. Such lawsuits are high stakes, complicated and costly to defend. Some recent settlements have been in the tens of millions of dollars. And they’re being fueled by an aggressive plaintiffs bar and a growing number of statutes creating private remedies.

We’re ready to move decisively from the first call.

Many of our lawyers have backgrounds in the public sector, bringing with them trusted government relationships at the FTC, FDA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and every level of the court system; relationships that will help to ensure your position is clearly heard and given fair consideration.

If your case is in California, you’ll benefit from our insight into the state’s Unfair Competition Law, having represented defendants, plaintiffs and amicus curiae in many such cases. Not only are we well versed in the law’s legislative history and 70 years of case law, we’ve argued a number of first-impression cases before the California courts of appeal and Supreme Court.

The biggest victories come outside the courtroom

In class actions, court is your last option. To help prevent class actions from even being filed, we provide prelitigation counseling so you can proactively address possible issues before they arise. If a class action is filed, we have an exemplary record in defeating class certifications. If the case moves forward, we will explore every option for advantageous settlement unless trial becomes your most favorable option.

Who we work with

Our trial lawyers work seamlessly with the firm’s nationally recognized lawyers in a range of areas, including health care, insurance, financial services, environmental law, advertising and marketing, consumer products, employment, and technology.

What we do

We represent clients in complex federal and state class actions that span a wide variety of claims, including:

Copyright and database infringement
Employment discrimination
Wage and hour law
False and deceptive advertising
Antitrust and California’s Unfair Competition Law
Violations of the Securities Exchange Act
Unfair business practices

Team

Brad W. Seiling

Partner, Litigation

bseiling@manatt.com
Phone: 310.312.4234

Nathaniel L. Bach

Partner, Manatt Entertainment

nbach@manatt.com
Phone: 310.312.4204

Christian E. Baker

Partner, Litigation

cbaker@manatt.com
Phone: 415.291.7463

Sharon B. Bauman

Partner, Employment and Labor

sbauman@manatt.com
Phone: 415.291.7425

Ronald G. Blum

Senior Counsel, Litigation

rblum@manatt.com
Phone: 212.830.7186

Experience

Morris v. California Physicians’ Service (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Manatt successfully won an appeal affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that Blue Shield of California did not properly calculate the rebate required by the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) medical loss ratio (MLR) provision. The victory is the first federal appeals court decision to interpret the MLR. The plaintiffs argued that Blue Shield improperly included as part of its MLR the payments it made in settling a dispute with some of its enrollees. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, stating that the inclusion of these payments was consistent with the language, history and intent of the ACA.
Cooper v. Tawa Supermarket, Inc. (Superior Court of Riverside County) and Lu v. Tawa Supermarket, Inc. (Superior Court of Orange County). Manatt defended Tawa Supermarket in two related wage and hour class actions. We filed and won three separate motions to compel arbitration, overcoming the lack of class action waivers in the arbitration agreements, completely defeating plaintiffs’ ability to pursue the matters on a classwide basis. Thereafter, we persuaded the respective arbitrators that the actions could proceed only on an individual basis.
Cabral v. Supple LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Manatt successfully persuaded the Ninth Circuit to set aside a class certification in a false advertising case. Class counsel alleged that Supple had misrepresented that its supplement-enhanced beverage was clinically proven to treat joint pain. Although the ads made no such express claims, the district court found that the ads conveyed a single, uniform net impression of clinical support to all members of the class and that this common issue was sufficient to certify the class. In setting aside the class certification order, the Ninth Circuit rejected the lower court’s approach and accepted Manatt’s argument that the trial court wrongly interpreted the ads to justify class certification. It found that nothing in the record could support a conclusion that the ads conveyed a single, uniform message to all members of the class or that all members “saw or otherwise received the misrepresentation” on which the plaintiffs relied.
Gannon vs. Network Telephone Services, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Central District, California; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit). Manatt achieved a significant victory for client Network Telephone Services, Inc. (NTS) by defeating the plaintiff’s attempt to certify a nationwide class in a suit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for text messages sent to the plaintiff and putative class members after they called NTS. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court decision.
Garfield v. Heritage Oaks Bancorp (Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County). Manatt defeated a last-minute injunction to stop the shareholder vote in Heritage Oaks’ merger with Pacific Premier Bank. Two months after the merger announcement, an individual shareholder with a lengthy record of bringing similar merger challenges filed a state court class action complaint challenging the merger, seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the vote through discovery and trial. Manatt completed expedited document and deposition discovery and two rounds of briefing in an approximately two-week period, allowing the $482 million deal to close. Despite his failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiff continued his action post-closing. Manatt challenged class certification on grounds that the named plaintiff was not an adequate representative. Shortly before the hearing on the motion, the matter settled favorably.
Robinson v. Beverly Hills Properties (Superior Court of Los Angeles County). Manatt represented Beverly Hills Properties at trial in connection with a class action lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged failure of a landlord to provide an operational fire protection system for the tenants. The plaintiffs sought reimbursement of all of the rent they paid during the class period. After a one-week trial, the court issued a verdict in favor of Beverly Hills Properties on all causes of action.
Fila v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Southern District, New York). Manatt secured a victory for client Pingtan Marine Enterprise (PME), the second-largest fishing and marine company in China, in a securities class action alleging that the company was improperly accounting for the profits of its Chinese operating subsidiary. Manatt filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that PME’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings were accurate and that the plaintiffs couldn’t allege “loss causation” because the purported “corrective disclosure” in the case was based entirely on public information. The district court granted our motion, dismissing the case entirely, without giving plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint.
Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District, New York). Manatt represented Pingtan Marine Enterprise (PME) in a putative securities class action related to a highly critical article published by a short seller of PME’s stock. Based on the article, the plaintiff claimed that allegedly misleading statements made by PME about its licenses to fish in the waters of Indonesia and Timor-Leste had caused damages to the proposed class of shareholders when the company’s stock fell significantly in value. Noting PME’s numerous disclosures that it relied on third parties to secure fishing licenses, Manatt moved to dismiss the action. The Court granted the motion and denied plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.
Cochoit v. Schiff Nutrition International Inc. (U.S. District Court, Central District, California). Manatt represented Schiff Nutrition International in a putative nationwide class action alleging that it misleadingly labeled its probiotic supplements in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. This was the second class action handled by the same plaintiffs’ attorney, making nearly identical allegations about the same products. Manatt successfully defeated class certification and, shortly after filing a motion for summary judgment, secured an individual settlement for a nominal sum.
Dolemba v. Fidelity Security Life Insurance, NFS Insurance Agency (U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois). Manatt represented two insurance companies in a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case involved issues of vicarious liability, in which NFS made prerecorded voice message calls about insurance quotes on behalf of Fidelity, without Fidelity’s knowledge or approval and against policies and procedures. The case settled favorably on an individual basis before a responsive pleading was due.
Allen v. AMC (Superior Court of Alameda County). Manatt defended AMC Theatres in the first “suitable seating” class action to make it to trial in a California state court. Filing under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, the plaintiffs alleged that AMC violated the state’s suitable seating law by failing to provide seats to box office and guest services employees. After a one-week bench trial, the court returned a full defense verdict, including an award of $133,903 in court costs, in favor of AMC.
Escalante v. Blue Shield of California (U.S. District Court, Central District, California). Manatt defended Blue Shield of California in an ERISA class action challenging Blue Shield’s medical policy stating that lumbar artificial disc replacement (ADR) was investigational and therefore not covered. The plaintiff sought a classwide clarification of rights under ERISA and sought injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Blue Shield to change its coverage position on lumbar ADR, give notice to class members and “reprocess” previously denied claims under a new medical policy. The court, however, agreed with Blue Shield that it was not contractually bound to cover all FDA-approved devices and that the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard should be applied to Blue Shield’s medical policy determination. After Blue Shield filed a motion to decertify, the parties entered into a classwide settlement that did not require any monetary payments to the class.
Garcia v. CashCall, Inc. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County). Manatt attorneys defeated the certification of a 1,000-employee class action suit in an overtime and meal and rest break case for CashCall. The win came after the case had been pending for nearly five years and after no fewer than four hearings on certification and multiple rounds of briefing.
Pietrantonio v. New York & Company (Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County). Manatt represented national retailer New York & Company in a Massachusetts-based class action filed under a statute that prohibits the improper collection of personal identification information by retailers in the context of a credit card transaction (in this case, the putative plaintiff’s ZIP code). Manatt reached a successful settlement on a classwide basis.