The successful defense of a class action case requires expertise in a number of different areas. First, one must be a trial lawyer. Because many class actions are resolved on procedural grounds, the ability to go into court and try a case is often an overlooked skill in this area of practice. But, if the attorney is not capable and willing to take a case to verdict, the client’s position is severely compromised. Second, the attorney must understand and have the resources to handle the procedural aspects of the case. Attorneys without class action experience can fall into traps or miss opportunities due to the specialized and complex nature of this area of practice. Finally, the attorney must take a practical approach. A “win at all costs” attitude is sometimes appropriate. Other times, resolution of a matter in a way that minimizes the impact on a client’s business and reduces legal fees is a desirable result
At Fox Galvin, we have the qualities to successfully handle class action cases and the track record to prove it. Our opponents know that we are, first and foremost, trial lawyers. Our trial record shows that we are not afraid to take tough cases to verdict in tough jurisdictions. We also have the experience and technology to allow us to anticipate and take control of many procedural aspects of the case. Finally, we actively encourage our clients to take a hard look at the beginning of a class action case as to the wisdom of an all-out fight
Our lawyers’ class action experience includes:
- Morrow v. Seattle Bike Supply, Madison County Circuit Court. Putative nationwide class
alleging improper charges for shipment of bicycles and bicycle parts. Case was dismissed with prejudice on our motion. Appeal was dismissed and judgment is now final.
- Wiggs v. Seattle Bike Supply, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Companion case to the Morrow matter, but allegations involved RICO. District court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Case has not been refiled.
- Graham v. Perrigo. Madison County Circuit Court. Putative nationwide class on behalf of users of over-the-counter laxatives. Allegations involve claims of misleading labeling. Case is still pending.
- Graham v. Topco Associates, Madison County Circuit Court. Companion case to Graham v. Perrigo. Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed case.
- In re: MTBE Product Liability Litigation. MDL 1358, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. This is a series of class actions that have been brought against the oil refining industry, alleging that a gasoline additive, MTBE, is contaminating groundwater across the country. The claims alleged run into the billions of dollars. Two of the cases (England v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. and Mizukonis v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.)were originally filed in Madison County, Illinois. Cases are still pending.
- Godwin v. Nissan. St. Louis Circuit Court. Putative nationwide class on behalf of 300,000 to 400,000 vehicle owners claiming faulty exhaust manifolds. Damages alleged to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Case is still pending.
- Meyer v. Laclede Cab Company. St. Louis Circuit Court. Class action case brought against a local cab company, alleging drivers had tampered with meters. Class certification defeated in the trial court and the case was then voluntarily dismissed.
- May v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories. Inc.. Madison County Circuit Court. Putative nationwide class on behalf of patients alleging improper billing for clinical laboratory testing. Case has been settled.
For more information about our class action practice, contact John Galvin, Jon Garside, Suzanne Galvin, Bart Sullivan or Richard Korn.