Class Actions

From chemical exposures to product malfunctions to employment practices, Fox attorneys are experienced in tackling class action claims with an aggressive approach that aims for quick dismissals, denial of class status and cutting overblown lawsuits down to size.

We defend major pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies, electronics and technology manufacturers and financial service providers, as well as apparel, retail, furniture, hospitality and transportation companies.

Our approach is pragmatic and cost-conscious. Customizing the strategy to each case, we routinely move to block class certification and secure dismissal of flawed claims as soon as practical. We also work with clients to anticipate emerging threats and put preventive measures in place.

Public relations issues often arise in class actions and Fox attorneys are experienced in crafting smart strategies to minimize the inherent risks in any publicity.

Our litigators have experience in responding to class actions in:

  • Antitrust
  • Business torts and unfair competition
  • Consumer protection statutes, including TCPA and FACTA
  • Corporate governance and mismanagement
  • Environmental
  • ERISA and other employment-related claims
  • Franchise standards
  • Insurance
  • Product liability
  • Securities fraud
  • Wage and hour

Representative Matters

Our attorneys are defending or have defended:

  • Esurance in statewide class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging improper denial of PIP auto insurance benefits based on maximum medical improvement. Defeated class certification, then successfully resolved remaining claims in individual settlement.
  • Commerce West in statewide class action in Pierce County (Washington) Superior Court alleging improper failure to pay insurance benefits for diminished value after the insured’s vehicle was damaged in a collision. Successfully resolved through settlement.
  • CLS Transportation in the pivotal wage and hour class action captioned Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, where the California Supreme Court held that its own prior decision in Gentry v. Superior Court had been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion v. AT&T. The ruling confirmed that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable.
  • Cheers Health in TCPA class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Obtained full, voluntary dismissal of claims. 
  • DirectSAT, the largest subcontractor of DIRECTV, in a statewide, multiyear Rule 23 class action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Act. Secured a class decertification.  Case settled favorably after the court ruled on a critical damages issue in DirectSAT’s favor.
  • DirectSAT in a nationwide collective action under the FLSA, alleging that managers were misclassified as exempt employees.  Secured a class decertification and summary judgment.
  • Harleysville Insurance Co., in a putative consumer class action under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act in which the plaintiff alleged that a store printed more than the last five digits of the plaintiff’s credit card number, we obtained a favorable settlement for the client.
  • James Hardie in a multidistrict litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of several state consumer protection statutes and breach of express and implied warranty claims in connection with advertising and allegedly defective siding.  The court denied plaintiff class certification and granted summary judgment in James Hardie’s favor.
  • Lockheed Martin in a number of mass tort cases arising from claims of exposure to chemical by persons living in the vicinity of the company’s Burbank facility. Resolved the matter in arbitration.
  • Lululemon Athletica, Inc. in a putative nationwide employment class action and collective action alleging violation of wage laws. Secured a dismissal with prejudice.
  • McAlpine & Co. in a class action in Minnesota alleging negligence and breach of warranty in connection with allegedly defective plumbing valves.  Settled case on terms very favorable to clients with no discovery and no class certification.
  • Retail Properties of America, Inc., a public company, and its directors and officers in five related shareholder class actions in the Northern District of Illinois alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  Secured dismissal of all five cases with prejudice.
  • Sleep Number Corporation , a bed manufacturer and retailer, against a putative class action alleging violations of New Jersey furniture sales laws. Secured dismissal of the complaint at district court. Plaintiff’s appeal is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  • Sleep Number Corporation against a nationwide putative class action alleging violations of advertising laws.  Secured dismissal without prejudice and anticipate that plaintiff will re-file.      
  • Sony, in a putative nationwide consumer class action in which the plaintiffs allege that Sony misrepresented certain functionality of its PlayStation 3 console. Successfully dismissed the warranty claims, which was upheld on appeal.
  • Sony, securing a dismissal of a putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the enforceability of Sony’s arbitration clause and class action waiver contained in its terms and conditions and warranty.
  • SPX Corporation in  a consumer class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of several state consumer protection statutes and breach of warranty claims in connection with its advertising and allegedly defective plumbing systems. Obtained early dismissal of claims. 
  • TIER REIT, Inc. and its board of directors in two putative shareholder class actions in the Northern District of Texas alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violation of federal securities laws.  Secured judgment and dismissal of all claims.
  • UniTek et al. in a putative FLSA collective action and putative Rule 23 class action under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Law. Secured summary judgment.
  • U.S. Legal Services Group in its successful defense regarding a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Minnesota Debt Settlement Services Act in connection with alleged advertising and solicitation of debt settlement services.
  • Westfield Insurance Co., in an ERISA class action in which the plaintiffs unsuccessfully alleged that Westfield breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA in terminating a profit sharing plan and reducing life insurance benefits for all employees and retirees. After a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the jury rejected all claims  and specifically found that Westfield did not breach its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs.
  • Westfield Insurance Co. in securing a unanimous ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upholding summary judgment in a $50 million garnishment proceeding arising out of an environmental nuisance class action in Indiana.
  • Westfield Insurance Co. in an antitrust class action suit brought by a group of auto repair shops against numerous insurance companies premised on claims that the direct repair programs created for the benefit of insured consumers have unfairly reduced the profits of auto repairers.  After the class action suit was consolidated with other similar actions around the nation and transferred to the Middle District of Florida, the district judge dismissed all claims as they relate to Westfield and found that Westfield’s practices did not violate any state or federal laws.
  • A group of plaintiff-side law firms and individual firm partners in Garey, et al. v. Farrin, et al., in the Middle District of North Carolina, threatening staggering statutory damages under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Defeated class certification.
  • A thermostat manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against a putative nationwide class consisting of 740,000 thermostat purchasers alleging breach of warranty and violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act arising from thermostat recall. Defeated class certification, leading plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss remaining claims.
  • A national bank in a class action on behalf of the victims of a $100 million Ponzi scheme. Successfully moved for dismissal of one class representative and ultimately secured a dismissal of all claims on summary judgment by the federal judge.
  • A global electronics manufacturer, in securing a dismissal of a nationwide class action filed in the Northern District of California alleging consumer fraud, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, and breach of express and implied warranties.
  • Two private equity defendants against federal securities class action claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and state common law relating to the purchase of Life Time Fitness, Inc.
  • A manufacturer in a putative ERISA class action in which former employees alleged that they were eligible for full early retirement benefits based on oral discussions with the company.  The court found that oral statements to the plaintiffs did not form the basis for a claim under ERISA.
  • A large window manufacturer in successful defenses against several federal consumer class actions in federal courts in Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, and Massachusetts alleging violations of state consumer protection statutes andbreach of warranty claims in connection with its advertising and allegedly defective windows. 
  • A national retailer in a wrongful death and personal injury case involving thousands of workers injured in a foreign factory building collapse. Obtained dismissal of class action in Delaware. 
  • A national retailer in District of Columbia in defense against consumer protection action alleging misrepresentations in corporate social responsibility statements.
  • Honey producers and packers in defense against consumer protection and class action claims relating to alleged deceptive labeling on food products. Defenses include issues of federal preemption, primary federal jurisdiction and the reasonable and ordinary meaning of certain labeling terms, including “natural” and “pure.”
  • Obtained dismissal of District of Columbia consumer protection claims alleging deceptive labeling on behalf of food producers and distributors.
  • A class of victims of apartheid in South Africa in proceedings in the Southern District of New York, and drafted appeals before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • National and international retailers in antitrust class action against credit card companies.