Source: https://www.foley.com/consumerclassaction/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:11:12+00:00

Document:
Whether a company is facing a class action, experiencing a state or federal investigation, enforcement action or examination, or simply navigating the many statutory and regulatory requirements covering consumer interactions, Foley is well positioned to assist. Foley has the experience, geographic footprint, and substantive knowledge to protect our clients in high-stakes matters. The attorneys in Foley’s Consumer Law, Finance, and Class Action Group have defended clients in hundreds of class and mass actions, attorney general actions, and in matters before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, State Attorney Generals, as well as many other federal and state agencies. Our team has experience across all industry sectors, including consumer products, financial services, healthcare, real estate, hotel and leisure, multifamily housing, electronics, car rental, technology, automotive, and retail.
Home Services of America, Inc.
A variety of manufacturing and retail companies in industries such as auto parts, clothing and apparel, electronics, windows, and home products.
A variety of other statutes including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal and state antitrust laws, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Our team also regularly counsels and advises clients in various industries on compliance programs, best practices and class action risk management.
You can learn about some of Foley’s key successes and experiences in these areas by clicking the links below, or by checking out our blog for current legal developments.
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.
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.
Foley has been counseling and litigating in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Truth In Lending (TILA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) arenas for over thirty five years.
Our attorneys counsel some of the nation’s leading real estate brokerage companies, mortgage lenders, title insurance providers, casualty insurers, and home warranty companies, as well as providers of data/analytics, multiple listing services, and technology platforms, regarding the creation and operation of joint ventures, marketing and advertising agreements, lead sharing, co-marketing, and consumer disclosures relating to the foregoing practices, as well as loan servicing, secondary market sales, and virtually every business practice that may have RESPA/TILA implications.
Foley attorneys have defended and successfully resolved numerous RESPA class action suits, often through defeating class certification, decertifying classes initially certified, or prevailing on the merits. Our experience includes trying a four-week RESPA class action in which plaintiffs’ potential damages approached a billion dollars and obtaining a successful defense jury verdict in federal court, where the plaintiffs attempted to challenge a mortgage joint venture between a large lender and a large real estate brokerage.
Likewise, Foley lawyers regularly counsel clients on Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) matters and defend TILA-based class actions. We advise and represent clients in connection with TILA matters involving the “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rules and other TILA consumer disclosures and documents, loan advertising, rescission rights, the ability to repay/qualified mortgage rules, loan originator qualification and compensation requirements, and other issues arising under TILA. We have helped many clients to draft policies, procedures, and agreements to address TILA compliance (for example, TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures, disclosures of interest rates and other fees, internal policies, and agreements for the sale of consumer mortgage obligations) and to work with lenders to develop best practices.
With respect to FCRA, we represent a variety of financial institutions and creditors (furnishers and users of consumer information) as well as credit reporting agencies, including resellers, background screeners and data wholesalers . Our experience includes handling nationwide portfolios of litigation for national banks, state banks, mortgage lenders, timeshare finance lenders, and credit reporting agencies. Additionally, Foley has substantial knowledge of the practical aspects of the day-to-day operations of its clients, which aids in our ability to provide compliance and regulatory counseling, in addition to traditional litigation defense. Foley attorneys understand the industry and the regulators. We have represented dozens of clients in various CFPB and other agency investigations, sometimes resolving the matter with no enforcement action; and in other instances, we have worked to resolve enforcement allegations efficiently and on satisfactory terms.
For example, we defended a major mortgage insurer in a series of nationwide RESPA class actions involving captive reinsurance and successfully resolved Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) allegations and state insurance department complaints regarding the same practices. We previously defended a major title insurer in a series of state insurance department investigations regarding captive title insurance practices in the title arena. Our attorneys also have helped many clients successfully respond to regulatory inquiries by the CFPB, HUD, and FHA and by other state entities such as real estate commissions, and mortgage licensing bodies. We likewise have assisted a consumer reporting agency and larger participant in self-disclosing potential violations to the CFPB, and represented the company in the resulting investigation, which concluded with the CFPB’s no charge determination.
Our litigators also possess strong experience in compliance, having designed compliance programs for numerous clients and regularly auditing agreements and practices to identify potential compliance gaps, in addition to recommending solutions. We regularly draft policies, procedures, and agreements to address consumer compliance with all kinds of consumer law issues including those regularly posed by RESPA/TILA and FCRA.
Foley’s practice includes extensive amicus work on cutting-edge RESPA issues for such trade associations as RESPRO, NAR, the U.S. Mortgage Insurers, ALTA, and the American Escrow Association. One of our attorneys also acts as counsel to the National Consumer Reporting Association (NCRA).
Below is a representative list of Foley’s recent RESPA/TILA/FCRA and other mortgage-related litigation.
Baehr v. The Creig Northrop Team P.C., No. 13-cv-0933 (D. Md.) and Wade, et al. v. The Creig Northrop Team, No.: 1:14-cv-02456-JFM (D. Md.). Defense of pending RESPA referral fee claims in proposed class action involving challenges to a marketing services agreement and sales employee arrangement.
Cantlin v. Smythe Cramer Co., No. 103339, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 2105 (Ohio Ct. App. May 26, 2016). Obtained reversal of class certification in pending class action alleging fraud-based claims associated with real estate brokerage company’s charge of percentage commission and flat fee.
White v. JRHBW Realty Inc., No. 2:14-cv-01436-RDP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123432 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 16, 2015). Secured judgment on the pleadings in proposed class action against real estate brokerage company and title company alleging RESPA Section 8 claims modeled after CFPB settlement complaint.
Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-2131, 762 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014). Won a jury verdict, affirmed on appeal, on behalf of real estate brokerage clients in class action that tried certified RESPA “sham” joint venture claims.
Petry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-1869, 2014 U.S. APP LEXIS 13064 (4th Cir. Jul. 10, 2014). Secured judgment, affirmed on appeal, for real estate brokerage clients in class action with certified claims under the Maryland Finder’s Fee Act.
Bolinger v. First Multiple Listing Service, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2012). Prevailed on summary judgment for multiple listing service in proposed class action asserting that fees to real estate brokers were essentially charged to consumers and that alleged referrals to MLS and discounting of MLS fees violated RESPA Section 8.
Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., No. 04-cv-2799, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145037 (N.D. Ala. June 14, 2012). Prevailed on summary judgment for real estate brokerage company in class action alleging RESPA mark-up violations.
Noall v. Howard Hanna Co., No. 09-cv-25102012, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111829 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2012). Prevailed on the pleadings for real estate brokerage company in proposed class action alleging RESPA mark-up violations.
McCullough v. Hanna, No. 09-cv-2858, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29788 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2010. Prevailed on motion to dismiss for real estate brokerage company in proposed class action alleging RESPA referral fee violations.
Hannan v. Weichert South Jersey Inc., 2007 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1238 (App. Div. May 22, 2007). Successfully opposed class certification, affirmed on appeal, for real estate brokerage company in connection with claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act regarding brokerage’s charge of percentage commission and flat fee.
Snow v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 332 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2003). Represented title insurer in consolidated appeal from rulings for the defense on limitations grounds, leading to a landmark RESPA statute of limitations decision.
Guise v. BWM Mortgage, LLC, 377 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2004). Prevailed on summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, in defense of mortgage brokerage against allegations of unlawful lending practices.
Foley attorneys have handled numerous TCPA cases nationwide, both large and small. We work with clients to proactively audit TCPA compliance and then draft internal compliance policies to address new developments. A representative list of list of TCPA matters are below.
Sauter v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy (S.D. Ohio): Nationwide TCPA claim, voluntarily dismissed after positive rulings on an early motion to strike.
Kingston v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy (N.D. Ill.): Nationwide TCPA claim.
Astrahan v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp., (C.D. Cal.) (obtained early voluntary dismissal of nationwide TCPA class action).
Hinds v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, (W.D. Wis.): Nationwide TCPA claim based on calls.
Brown v. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics (S.D. Ohio): Nationwide TCPA claim based on calls.
Marcus v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy (D.N.J.): Nationwide TCPA class action involving text messages, dismissed after summary judgment briefing completed.
Story v. Chargers Football Company, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC566896 (obtained voluntary dismissal with prejudice of TCPA class action after lengthy negotiations regarding merits of claims.
Lowe v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy (N.D. Ill.): Nationwide TCPA class action involving healthcare calls.
Dairyland Animal Clinic v. HomeoPet, LLC (W.D. Wis.): Nationwide TCPA class action based on fax messages.
Brady v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy (M.D. La.): Nationwide TCPA class action involving texts and calls.
St. Louis Heart v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy Benefit Management Company (E.D. Mo.): Nationwide TCPA class action involving faxes.
Charvat v. National Guardian Life (W.D. Wis.): Nationwide TCPA class action.
Youngman v. A&B Financial and Insurance (M.D. Fla.): Nationwide TCPA class action.
Vaccaro v. Fortune 50 Pharmacy (S.D. Cal.): TCPA class action.
Foley attorneys have significant experience representing companies in the food and beverage industry. With a deep understanding of the substantive laws and regulatory framework at issue for food, beverage and supplement manufacturers and retailers, we have assisted clients with both compliance counseling and defending class actions.
Our team has handled a wide variety of consumer challenges, including: cases asserting product mislabeling allegations based on “all natural,” “organic,” or “no artificial preservatives” claims, and other alleged false advertising on consumer packaged goods; cases involving genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling; cases challenging nutrient content or health claims on product labels; and slack fill suits dealing with allegations of intentionally underfilled product packages.
A list of recent representative food and beverage class action matters can be found below.
Representing a national dry tea product manufacturer in false advertising class action in federal court alleging product mislabeling claims based on ingredients list panel. Motion to dismiss pending.
Represented a global beverage manufacturer in product mislabeling class action removed to federal court under CAFA. Defeated class certification of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 and CLRA claims brought by consumers in California.
Represented a global cheese and dairy company in class action asserting claims under UCL, FAL and CLRA for alleged “all natural” mislabeling based on use of Xanthan Gum as product ingredient. Obtained nuisance value settlement after class certification briefing.
Represented a national food and snack manufacturer in slack fill class action alleging defendant intentionally under filled packages of snack food product. Obtained dismissal through pre-certification motion for summary judgment. No appeal filed.
Represented Italian global beverage manufacturer in alleged “all natural” mislabeling class action asserting claims under UCL, FAL and CLRA based on use of citric acid as product ingredient. Negotiated early nuisance value settlement.
Represented national coconut water beverage manufacturer in class action for alleged product mislabeling based on “organic” claims. Through mediation settled on class wide basis on favorable terms.
Represented national food producer in alleged “no artificial preservatives” product mislabeling class action asserting claims under UCL, FAL and CLRA based on use of citric acid as an ingredient in salad dressing product.
Represented a major retailer in defeating a class action alleging misleading labelling of salmon.
Foley’s Privacy Practice was ranked in the top three practices in the world by Computerworld, has been recognized by Chambers USA, and was ranked by The Legal 500 in the area of privacy and data security (2015). Foley regularly defends class actions in the privacy area.
To learn more, follow the links for our Privacy and Cybersecurity practice.
The antitrust laws define how businesses must compete and provide stiff penalties for violations.
A variety of business activities — from acquisitions and licensing intellectual property to entering exclusive arrangements and interacting with competitors — can raise antitrust issues.
Foley’s Antitrust attorneys can provide the guidance you need to help you manage your business issues before they become antitrust problems, and the litigation skills to represent you in court, as necessary, to protect your interests.
To learn more about our experience in antitrust and defending class actions in this area, click here.
The electronic payments area faces a variety of issues in an environment of constant change.
New technologies, payment applications, virtual currencies, as well as threats of criminal disruption or regulatory enforcement must all be managed with a consistent strategy and industry understanding.
Our electronic payments and transaction services are tailored to the evolving needs of electronic payments companies. We represent financial institutions, payment processors, emerging technologies companies, independent sales organizations (ISOs), agents, startups and other service providers in the payments space, in matters ranging from contract drafting and negotiation, to mergers and acquisitions, and to dispute resolution.
For more information on our Payments Technology practice, please click here.
We also have the firm resources to offer guidance in related areas such as privacy issues, state and federal banking laws, money-laundering, and payment card laws relating to credit, debit, gift, and virtual cards.
In addition to this diverse range of services, we also offer businesses without an in-house counsel (or one lacking this level of specific practice) a Contract General Counsel program. For a fixed monthly fee, we can provide this range of experience and coverage in an advisory capacity to better serve your particular business needs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.