Antitrust

Alakayak v. All Alaskan Seafoods, et al.

State Courts of Alaska
Defended alleged price-fixing claims brought by class of Bristol Bay salmon fishermen.

Class 8 Truck Transmission Antitrust Litigation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counseled defendant truck manufacturer in class action antitrust litigation relating to heavy-duty truck transmissions.

Dental Works v. Vesta Corporation

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
Lead trial counsel defending Vesta against putative class action in which named plaintiffs alleged they were charged for wireless phone services that they never authorized in violation of the California Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed action with prejudice after Vesta filed motion to dismiss.

Olean v. Tri-Marine International, Inc. and Mathews v. Tri-Marine International, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Representing Tri-Marine in multidistrict class action litigation alleging collusion between manufacturers of packaged seafood products to fix prices.

Stafford d/b/a Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Successfully defended Starbucks in antitrust class action alleging monopolization of retail coffee store locations. Obtained an agreement by counsel to drop the class action claim, greatly narrowed the scope of e-discovery and ultimately resolved the case by mediated settlement.

Consumer Protection

Blue Moon / MillerCoors

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Achieved the dismissal of a consumer class action regarding the advertising and packaging of Blue Moon beer, alleging that MillerCoors falsely markets Blue Moon as an independently brewed, craft beer and charges a premium price. Plaintiff alleged that MillerCoors engaged in a number of practices to produce the “wholesale fiction” that Blue Moon is a craft beer produced by a small, independent brewery. Plaintiff alleged that the use of the term “craft” indicates Blue Moon is microbrewed and that use of the Blue Moon Brewing Company trade name, when the beer is brewed by MillerCoors, is false and misleading. MillerCoors’ motions to dismiss were granted on all claims.

Carnahan v. Big Fish Games

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defended Big Fish Games, Inc., in a purported nationwide class action alleging unfair and deceptive practices and fraud in connection with auto-renewal and free trial aspects of online subscription program. Achieved confidential settlement and stipulated dismissal, after filing motion to dismiss and prior to discovery.

Campbell Soup Company

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Obtained a dismissal in a putative consumer class action alleging violations of California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL in connection with representations of the Prego line of spaghetti and pizza sauces labeled as “100% Natural.”

In re Cheerios Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Served as national counsel for General Mills in defense of purported class actions alleging false and deceptive marketing of the health benefits of Cheerios. Obtained summary judgment dismissal of most of the individual plaintiffs' claims for failure to establish any damage and summary judgment dismissal of the class action allegations of the remaining plaintiffs.

Turek v. General Mills Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Obtained affirmance of the dismissal of a putative class action against General Mills on grounds that the plaintiff’s deceptive advertising claims were preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which sets forth uniform standards for food labeling.

In re Nest Labs Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Nest Labs, Inc., a Google subsidiary, in consolidated class actions involving the cutting-edge Nest Learning Thermostat. These are a series of class actions alleging that the Nest Learning Thermostat was designed improperly and does not provide energy savings and other benefits promised.

First Data Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Represented First Data Corporation in multiple consumer class actions related to credit card and processing equipment and services in California, New York and New Jersey. Defeated class certification in New Jersey case.

In re T-Mobile Sidekick Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented T-Mobile in defense of putative nationwide class action alleging breach of warranty, consumer protection act and related claims in connection with alleged data loss in connection with Sidekick mobile devices.

Employment

Ginsburg v. Comcast

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Achieved denial of class certification in a putative wage-and-hour class action involving an alleged class of call center employees.

Sotelo, et al. v. MediaNews Group Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, Alameda County
Won classwide summary judgment for MediaNews Group, finding independent contractor status for all class members. Trial court denied certification on the wage-and-hour Labor Code claims, resulting in limited claims for expense reimbursement, record keeping and unfair business practices section 17200, on which final judgment was entered for defendants.

Nouri v. The Boeing Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Obtained a complete defense jury verdict in a case involving a class of Asian engineers and technical workers alleging discrimination in the company’s compensation and retention systems. We successfully limited the size and scope of the certified class, dismissed several claims before trial and then tried the remaining class case to a defense verdict before a federal jury. The verdict was affirmed on appeal.

Minter v. OfficeMax and companion case Gonzalez v. OfficeMax

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Achieved denial of class certification in a putative wage-and-hour class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) case related to alleged missed meals and rest periods.

Strange & Morris v. Les Schwab Tire Centers Inc. and EEOC v. Les Schwab Tire Centers Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defeated class certification of a private putative gender discrimination class action and negotiated a favorable consent decree in a consolidated pattern and practice discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Adolf v. Les Schwab

Superior Court of California, County of Butte
Defeated class certification and achieved PAGA claim dismissal in a putative wage-and-hour class action related to meals and rest periods.

Privacy

Rivera/Weiss v. Google, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Defended Google in landmark class action alleging that aspects of Google’s face clustering technology violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Following discovery, obtained full dismissal on the ground that Plaintiffs had not suffered an injury sufficient to establish Article III injury.

Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et.al.

Circuit Court of Illinois, Lake County
Represent defendants in putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the alleged use of finger scan technology for season pass holders.

Shamblin v. Obama for America, DNC Services Corp., and New Partners Consulting, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Achieved denial of class certification for defendants Obama for America and DNC in putative class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for robocalls made during the 2012 campaign to reelect President Obama.

Maghen v. Quicken Loans Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Defended a putative class action alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act for call recording. Appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit.

Carroll v. Crème de la Crème, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Represent defendant in putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the alleged use of finger scan technology for secure access to its facilities.

In re Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Sprint in putative class actions asserting claims under federal and state privacy laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Rudgayzer v. Google Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in the defense of a purported class action challenging settlement of In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation, and alleging violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in connection with the launch of Google Buzz social networking application. Obtained dismissal of all claims.

Opperman, et al. v. Path Inc., Twitter Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Defending Twitter in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of federal privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and related state torts.

Securities

TriQuint Merger Litigation

Delaware Chancery Court
Oregon Circuit Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Represented TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. and its directors in five stockholder class action lawsuits filed in Delaware and Oregon following the announcement of its merger with RF Micro Devices. Plaintiffs alleged that TriQuint’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to TriQuint’s shareholders in conducting the merger process, approving the merger and making public disclosures to shareholders regarding the merger. In Delaware, the plaintiff’s efforts to seek an injunction with respect to the merger vote failed, and the lawsuits were dismissed. In Oregon, TriQuint sought to dismiss the claims based on TriQuint’s bylaw provision establishing Delaware as the exclusive venue for corporate governance litigation. After the trial court failed to enforce the exclusive venue provision, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in TriQuint’s favor and ordered that the Oregon cases be dismissed. The Oregon matters were of particular importance, as they resulted in the only state appellate court decision outside of Delaware addressing the enforceability of Delaware exclusive venue provisions in a company’s forum selection bylaw.

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. The Boeing Company

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Represented Boeing and two of its senior executives in a securities fraud class action relating to the delay of first flight of the 787 Dreamliner. Plaintiffs' operative complaint relied on the alleged statements of a confidential source, who purportedly possessed high-level knowledge. After plaintiffs revealed the identity of their source, defendants secured a declaration and deposition from the source, in which he refuted the allegations attributed to him. Defendants subsequently moved for and won dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. The court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs' counsel failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry and made material misrepresentations of fact concerning the source's position and personal knowledge. Plaintiffs appealed and defendants cross-appealed, seeking sanctions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court affirmed dismissal and remanded for consideration of sanctions.

Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
King County Superior Court (Washington)
Represented all of the outside directors of Washington Mutual Bank and its holding company Washington Mutual, Inc. in all of the lawsuits, enforcement proceedings, investigations and other inquiries arising from the largest bank failure in United States history. The securities litigation began in the Southern District of New York in 2007, was consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with a number of related securities, derivative and ERISA class actions filed in the Western District of Washington and other districts, and was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933 related to a number of securities offerings issued by Washington Mutual and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for securities fraud. The class alleged damages of more than $20 billion for those who purchased Washington Mutual securities between 2005 and 2008. After more than four years of litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a final order approving the settlement of the securities litigation, which was the largest federal securities class action litigated in the Western District of Washington and one of the largest securities cases resulting from the credit/financial market collapse. None of the lawsuits or any of the other matters resulted in any judgments or damages awards against the outside directors we represented.