Consumer Class Actions

For over a decade, our lawyers have been committed to helping consumers, insureds, employees, borrowers, and other individuals who have been wronged by corporations but do not have the resources to pursue lawsuits on their own. Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade has prevailed in nationwide class actions against leaders in a multitude of industries, including consumer products, insurance companies, retailers, pharmaceutical companies and financial institutions. Our class action practice spans a variety of subject areas, including false and misleading advertising, unfair competition, deceptive business practices, consumer fraud, product defects, civil rights and employment matters.

As the law evolves and companies find new ways to maximize profits at the expense of consumers, employees and insureds, our firm has the knowledge and resources to quickly respond and protect our clients. Below are some of the types of cases our lawyers handle on a routine basis:

  • False and misleading advertising of consumer products, including pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements, food and beverages, cosmetics and personal care
  • Automatic renewal of paid subscriptions resulting in ongoing charges to consumers’ credit card and payment accounts without the consumers’ explicit consent
  • Defective products, including component parts in new construction, defective windows and siding, automobile parts, home and garden products and consumer electronics
  • Employees who have been discriminated against, denied their meal and rest periods, denied overtime compensation and have been wrongfully terminated
  • Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including barriers to wheelchair accessible entrances and inaccessibility to  transportation
  • Antitrust matters that directly impact the consumer, including alleged “pay for delay” of generic pharmaceuticals and unlawfully tying the sale of two products
  • Bait-and-switch tactics by telemarketers and door-to-door solicitors
  • Unsolicited telephone calls to mobile phones and “junk” faxes
  • Misrepresentations by tax preparation companies, including refund anticipation loans and unreasonable hidden fees
  • Privacy and data security, including security breaches and unauthorized disclosure of personal information
  • Insurance bad faith and allegations of consumer fraud and financial abuse of the elderly in the sale and marketing of long-term care insurance policies

This experience enables us to provide insightful, strategic, and practical solutions for our clients and groups of similarly-situated individuals.

We regularly serve as court-appointed class counsel in California and federal courts across the country, including cases coordinated through the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.

Notable Class Action Cases

Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in the certified cases:

  • Klotzer, et al. v. International Windows, (Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCS021196) (Injunctive and monetary relief benefit of $32 million for alleged product defects on behalf of owners of certain windows);

  • Deist, et. al. v. Viking Industries, (San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. CV 025771) Injunctive and monetary relief benefit of $18 million for alleged product defects on behalf of owners of certain windows

  • Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1497 (2009), (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC288536) (Injunctive and Monetary relief of $10 million, $1 million charitable distribution for alleged false and deceptive promotion of the drug Paxil).

  • Oliver, et al. v. Atmos Corporation (San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. CV 0119362), Injunctive and monetary relief benefit of $9.3 million for alleged product defects on behalf of owners of certain windows;

  • Shaffer V. CNA (USDC Central District California, Case No. Cv06-2235 (Injunctive and Monetary Relief)

  • Denise Wally v. CCA Industries, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
  • BC422833) (Injunctive relief for alleged false and misleading advertising, Monetary fund of $2.2 million, charitable distribution of $1 million)

  • Abigana, et al. v. Rylock Company Ltd., (Alameda County, Case No. 2002 076625) (Injunctive and monetary relief benefit of $2.1 million for alleged product defects on behalf of owners of certain windows);

  • Kathy Greiner et al. v DirecTV (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC398431) (Certified California class);

  • Douglas Sloan Melnick & Marisa Spartelli, et al. v Aluminum Technology, Inc, et al. (Riverside Superior Court, Case No. RIC 492792) (monetary relief for product defects on behalf of owners of certain windows);

  • Smith v. ABC Windows, (Superior Court for the State of California, Riverside County, Case
  • No. CV025771) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for product defects on behalf of owners of certain windows);

  • Rocelle Penos, et al., v. Sam Zell, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC398686) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for former and current employees alleging wage and hour violations and other employment benefit violations)

  • Weeks, et al. v. Kellogg, et al., (United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. CV-09-08102(MMM)(RZx)) (Injunctive and monetary relief nationwide class);

  • Thompson, et al., v. Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
  • BC414808) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for nationwide class of purchasers of the product ExtenZe);

  • Ceballos v. Fuze Beverage, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 394521) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for California purchasers of Fuze Infuzions Slenderize Beverages for alleged false and misleading advertising);

  • Salcido v. Iomedix (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 387942) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for nationwide class of purchasers of ColdMD dietary supplement);

  • LaRosa v. Nutramerica Corp. (“Trimspa”), (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC
  • 309427) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for California purchasers of the nutraceutical Trimspa for alleged false and misleading advertising);

  • Klyachman, et al. v. The Vitamin Shoppe, et al., (New Jersey Superior Court Case Number L-1739-07) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for nationwide class of purchasers of Vitamin Shoppe brand “Especially for Women” Multivitamins);

  • Butler v. Rydell Enterprises (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC389166) (Injunctive and Monetary relief for employees for alleged wage and hour violations);

  • Saenz v. SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West (Alameda Superior Court, Case No. RG09478973) (injunctive relief for over 29,500 individuals against labor union for data security breach);