Class Actions

Foley’s class action lawyers have defended clients in cutting edge class action cases, in a variety of subject matters and industries, including: product automobile manufacturers, food and beverage producers, health care insurers and providers, financial service providers, telecommunication companies, hotel and leisure companies, prescription benefit managers, propane distributors, REITS, appliance manufacturers, home and home product manufacturers and retailers.

Successfully and efficiently defending a class action takes a solid understanding of the law and facts, coupled with creative and effective strategizing.

Foley’s class action attorneys work directly with clients at every step in the process, from determining whether to change the venue (by removal to federal court or seeking to have the case transferred or managed as part of a multidistrict litigation), through creative, and cutting edge litigation strategies in response to a complaint. This can include dispositive motions, efforts to stay, compelling arbitration, an answer and appropriate limited discovery, engaging the right experts, opposing class certification, seeking decertification when appropriate, and/or moving for summary judgment. Foley’s team also has extensive trial experience, including trying class litigation, and in appeals, if that necessary to prevail in a case.

Not all class actions are alike; they require customized defenses and strategies for successful handling. Foley’s class action attorneys determine the right approach based on our knowledge of the law and industry and by working with each client to choose a strategy that fits the particular case.

Some of our latest class action victories include:

  • AllianceMed, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, No. 2:15-cv-171 (N.D. Ga.). Prevailed on motion to dismiss class action alleging improper reimbursement levels for health care providers.
  • In Re: Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation (MDL). In antitrust multidistrict litigation, defense of price fixing claims against companies engaged in the business of providing pharmaceutical benefits management services. See In re Pharm. Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6987 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2017) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification).
  • Junod v. NWP Services Corp., Case No. 8:14-cv-1734 (C.D. Cal.). Removed case to federal court under CAFA and obtained denial of class certification in a hotly contested consumer class action where plaintiff sought certification of a nationwide class based on claims of deceptive and unlawful utility billing practices.
  • Trade secret misappropriation, RICO, and Antitrust. Defending a Fortune fifty company in a series of proposed nationwide class actions relating to the alleged use of customer information, trade secrets, unfair competition, and other claims. Foley has already prevailed in most of these cases, including four successful rulings in the United States Courts of Appeals and the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
  • Product defect defense of a window and door manufacturer against class claims of deceptive practices and product defects. See, e.g., Porcell v. Lincoln Wood Prods., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (D.N.M. 2010) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification); Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., No. 14-cv-99, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169266 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2015) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification).
  • Defense of automotive product price fixing claims. Representation of a Fortune 1000 manufacturer in antitrust multidistrict litigation, with approximately fifty lawsuits consolidated and assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The matter included a purported direct purchaser class, two purported indirect purchaser classes, a qui tam claim, and a claim by the office of a state attorney general.
  • In Re: Pre-Filled Propane Cylinder Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. Defense of one of the two leading national distributors of propane cylinders in multidistrict litigation alleging violations of numerous state consumer protection statutes and slack fill laws with regard to reduction in the amount of propane contained in cylinders.
  • In re OnStar Litigation. Defense of consumer protection act and warranty claims against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. in nationwide class action, involving various defendants. See In re OnStar Contract Litig., 278 F.R.D. 352, 357 ( E.D. Mich. 2011) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification).
  • London v. RBS Citizens, N.A., et al., 600 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2010). Defense of a proposed class action asserting claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged violation of the plaintiffs’ due process rights; dismissal of claims.
  • Wysocki v. City National Bank, et al., No. 1:10-cv-3850 (N.D. Ill.). Successfully resolved class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois by plaintiffs who claimed certain financial products violated the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
  • Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Co., Inc. Defense of a proposed nationwide class action against home warranty plan provider for alleged false advertising and unfair competition. See No. 12-cv-1833 AG (OPx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175735 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2015) (denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification).
  • Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection Co., Inc., 775 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014). Defense of a proposed class action against a home warranty plan provider for alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Ninth Circuit held that the appeal from summary judgment ruling for the defense and denial of class certification was moot, with a concurrence affirming on the merits.
  • Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation. Defense of a national tax preparation service in consumer class actions filed in Maryland, North Carolina, Illinois, Florida, California, and Arkansas, alleging various consumer claims on behalf of putative classes in approximately forty states.
  • Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) Litigation. Foley has represented the largest GSE in more than fifty class actions and qui tams in federal district courts, and in numerous appeals, involving whether the GSE is exempt from transfer taxation under its federal charter. These actions, brought by hundreds of counties across the United States, span twenty-three states and the District of Columbia.
  • Title insurance class action litigation. Won dismissal, with prejudice, of a multi-million dollar federal court consumer class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that a real estate developer wrongfully required purchasers to buy title insurance.