Class Action Defense

While defending any lawsuit can place a strain on a business, confronting a class action magnifies this risk. Class actions not only disrupt business operations and drain financial resources; they can also destroy a company’s good name and future prospects.

Recognized nationally for our success in class action defense by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, many companies come to Dykema when they are hit by a class action. We mobilize quickly to effectively and efficiently protect them in some of the most challenging venues in the United States.

Recognized nationally among top firms in consumer class actions

Clients note our class actions team is “responsive, with deep subject matter knowledge and great judgment.” Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business.

We handle all aspects of class action defense—from initial analysis and investigation to pleading challenges, pre-emptive motions to strike, discovery, opposing certification, trial, and appeal. We have a proven record of developing and employing strategies to resolve class actions before certification and trial. For those matters not resolved, we use solid strategies to achieve settlements favorable to our clients, while keeping client expense at a minimum.

When it is not possible to end a class action before trial on terms satisfactory to our clients, we have lawyers with experience trying multiple class actions nationwide, experience that that few firms can match.

As one of the nation’s preeminent trial law firms for business, our lawyers routinely try cases to successful defense verdicts in the most challenging venues across the country.

Financial Services

With a national class action defense practice devoted to lenders, we have successfully represented many major financial institutions—including the nation’s largest reverse mortgage lender—in multiple high-profile class action lawsuits.

Collaborating with our nationally recognized financial services team, we vigorously defend banks, thrifts, residential and commercial mortgage lenders, automotive finance companies, and credit card companies against class actions alleging:

consumer fraud
deceptive business practices
wrongful foreclosure
inflated title insurance premiums
credit discrimination under the Fair Housing Act

We also defend clients in class actions alleging violations of the various fair credit-related statutes such as the:

Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
Fair Credit Reporting Transactions Act (FCRA)
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

Product Liability

Our product liability class action defense team has represented product manufacturers of all types, including:

appliances
chemicals and cleaners
consumer products
food products
industrial and construction equipment
motor vehicles (in all aspects of product design, development and marketing)
pharmaceutical and medical devices such as breast implants, hip implants and TMJ devices
power tools
sporting goods
tobacco
watercraft

We have defended these companies in courts across the country against a variety of claims, including:

consumer fraud
deceptive business practices
breach of express and implied warranty
unjust enrichment

We also counsel clients in class action avoidance by developing programs for product assessment, safety design, labeling, warnings, advertising, and warranty programs.

Antitrust, Consumer, and Trade Matters

We represent automotive industry clients, major retailers, insurers and others in antitrust, consumer and trade class actions related to rebates, insurance coverage, credit card collection practices to warranty issues, in cases alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws, state consumer protection acts the FDCPA, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other claims.

We also frequently handle class actions involving consumer protection issues and deceptive trade practices, such as false advertising, deceptive charges or bundling, and steering claims.

Labor and Employment

We defend employers in wage and hour, discrimination and harassment and putative class actions and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions.

Our labor and employment team has seen exceptional success in opposing class certifications and securing early dismissals in such cases.

Insurance

A deep knowledge and understanding of the insurance industry coupled with extensive class action experience is what sets Dykema apart. Our lawyers effectively and efficiently handle all aspects of class action defense, often developing and employing strategies to resolve class actions before certification and trial.

We have a proven record of representing our insurance industry clients in a wide variety of class actions, including coverage disputes, consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, fees and valuation claims, market conduct claims, vanishing premiums, and ERISA claims.

State and Local Governments and Municipalities

Dykema has represented state and local governments in class actions brought in state and federal courts on a variety of claims, including constitutional challenges to statutes, eminent domain, takings, tax, and public finance issues.

As part of our defense of these putative class action matters, and in collaboration with our government solutions team, we have worked with regulators, administrators, and industry groups, along with state and local elected officials to draft and pass legislation to promote resolution of these issues.

Contact

John M. Thomas
Member

View All Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Trade Regulation Labor and Employment Product Liability Defense

Industries

Automotive and Transportation Automotive Product Liability and Class Action Defense Financial Services Food and Beverage

Latest News and Insights

Webinars12.4.24

Char's Corner: Employee Mobility in California (Session 4)

This program will provide an overview of the unique challenges in California when attempting to…

Learn more

Dykema Litigation Institute Webinars9.24.24

SCOTUS Review and Preview

Join Dykema for our annual Dykema Litigation Institute (DLI) United States Supreme Court Review and…

Learn more

Legal Alerts8.16.24

One Minute Matters [Video]: Is NHTSA About to Update Seatback Standards for the First Time in 60 Years? (with Clay Cossé)

In response to safety concerns regarding rear seat occupants, NHTSA just issued an Advance Notice of…

Learn more

Ninth Circuit Appellate Win for Harley-Davidson, Making New Law Involving Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
Greene v. Harley-Davidson resolved an unsettled question in the Ninth Circuit about a removing defendant's burden under CAFA and held that our client, Harley-Davidson, met its burden of showing the amount in controversy exceeds the amount necessary for federal court jurisdiction.
Complex Automotive Antitrust Class Action Matter Includes 100+ Defendants, 45 Parts
We defended ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. in an antitrust class action brought by two separate classes that alleged ZF TRW and other competitors conspired to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Hydraulic Braking Systems, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and related state antitrust and consumer protection laws. This case was part of the In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Lit. class action matter, which involved 45 separate parts and well over 100 different defendants.
10 Consistent Class Actions Wins for Harley-Davidson in Alleged Defect Cases
We have defended Harley-Davidson in more than 10 putative class actions that involved alleged defects in various model motorcycles. The cases were filed in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania, and involved allegations of alleged defects including, excessive engine heat, charging systems, coolant leaks, ABS brake lines, ABS module wiring, clutches, saddlebags, and fuel pumps. None of the cases resulted in a class being certified.
Precedent Setting Ninth Circuit Nationwide Class Action Victory (En Banc). In Re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation. The Ninth Circuit granted Dykema’s petition for rehearing en banc and, upon rehearing by the en banc court, sided with Dykema’s automotive client in an 8-3 decision, while settling an important rule of law that affects class action settlements across all industries.
Food Labeling Class Action Involving “All-Natural” Claims
Gross v. Vilore Foods Co. We represented Vilore Foods Company in a class action in S.D. Cal. brought by purchasers of fruit-flavored drinks distributed by Vilore. Plaintiffs alleged the labels on the cans misleadingly suggested the drinks contained “all natural” ingredients, even though the words “all natural” did not appear on the cans and the ingredients were listed on the cans as required. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class consisting of all consumers who purchased the drinks after May 2016.
Seventh Circuit Overturned Denial of Midland’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Putative Class Action. Nettles v. Midland Funding, LLC. Although the issue of arbitration was the subject of appeal, Dykema raised Article III standing as a threshold issue. The Seventh Circuit agreed and held the plaintiff did not have Article III standing to raise claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (and state consumer law claims) and, thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to be dismissed.
Helped Costco Achieve Putative Class Action Dismissal in Case Involving Membership Program
Kunin v. Costco. We represented Costco in this case where plaintiff alleged Costco violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and breached its contract with him and putative class members regarding the Executive Membership program. The court denied class certification of a putative class, holding that plaintiffs could not meet Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. The court later rejected plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend their complaint and ordered class allegations be stricken pursuant to Rule 23(d).
Decade-Long Putative Class Action Case Ends in Successful Dismissal for Financial Services Client
Gray et al. v. Suttell & Assocs. We represented the defendant in this putative class action case spanning a decade, which included years of discovery, numerous dispositive motions, and a certified question regarding a Washington licensing statute, addressed by the Washington Supreme Court (after the statute had been amended). The federal court where the class was brought granted summary judgment in our client’s favor and dismissed the state and federal consumer finance and protection claims.
Three Class Action Wins in Three States on Behalf of Software Company Client
We represented Mitchell International and JD Power in three putative class action cases filed against Progressive Insurance, Mitchell and JD Power. These cases were filed in South Carolina, Texas, and Colorado state courts, and each was removed to federal court under CAFA. The key allegations in the complaints assert that co-defendants knowingly undervalued Progressive insureds’ “total loss” automobile claims by relying on Mitchell’s statistically invalid “Work Center Total Loss” (WCTL) software product, which in turn is powered by algorithms and data provided by JD Power. We filed FRCP 12(b) motions to dismiss and associated briefing in each case. In the South Carolina case, the judge had granted Mitchell and JD Power’s motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants under FRCP 12(b)2). In the S.D. of Texas case, the court partially granted Mitchell and JD Power’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing certain claims, but then also stayed further proceedings under the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine and required plaintiff to file an administrative complaint with the Texas Department of Insurance regarding the validity of the WCTL product to determine total loss valuations. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims. In the Colorado case, the judge issued a “Recommendation,” after protracted jurisdictional discovery and follow-on briefing, that Mitchell and JD Power be dismissed based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
FLSA Collective Action Cases for One of the Largest Banks in Texas
We first represented International Bank of Commerce in a 2015 lawsuit filed by a former employee alleging IBC did not properly compensate Reyna pursuant to FLSA. The former employee attempted to certify a class of purportedly similarly situated individuals but IBC filed a motion to dismiss because employee failed to grieve his complaint pursuant to IBC’s Open Door Policy and, in the alternative, filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court denied IBC’s motion, we won a Fifth Circuit appeal and the case was dismissed. We continue to represent IBC in similar cases regarding alleged violations of the FLSA and attempted collective actions pursuant to their Open Door Policy.
Ford Appellate Win in Michigan Involving Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
Jordan Cyr. v. Ford Motor Co. We represented Ford Motor Company in “mass actions” containing more than 12,000 plaintiffs claiming breach of warranty and fraud in connection with the purchase of certain Ford automobiles. Among the claims made was an alleged violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). Ford moved to dismiss the MCPA claims on the grounds that Ford fell within an exception to the Act that prohibited statutory claims against regulated products or services. Ford also moved to dismiss the claims of non-Michigan resident plaintiffs on forum non conveniens grounds. The trial court denied both motions. Dykema filed an application for interlocutory review with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was granted, and the Court of Appeals reversed and agreed with Ford’s arguments on both points. The plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which denied review. Thus stands the Court of Appeals’ decision, which is favorable not just to Ford, but to the entire industry.