Understanding Class Action Lawsuits: A Guide

What is a Class Action?

Frequently Asked Questions About Class Action Lawsuits

(1) What is a class action?
(2) What are the advantages of class actions?
(3) What is the difference between a class action and “mass tort” litigation?
(4) When is a class action not an appropriate way to seek compensation?
(5) How can Audet & Partners, LLP help you pursue a class action claim?

What is a class action?

A class action is a process in which one or more persons or businesses represent a group of similarly situated individuals or businesses.
In federal court, the process is provided for under the federal rules of civil procedure, Rule 23.
Class actions in state courts are governed by similar procedures, with some variations regarding the process of obtaining certification.

What are the advantages of class action?

Aggregation of the class members claims will increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation for the class members. In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action will likely avoid the necessity of repeating “days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial.” (quote from oft cited case, Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos)).
As the United States Supreme Court has noted, a class action may overcome the reality of the fact that “small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual” to file an individual (cited in Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997)).
With the class action process, a corporate wrongdoer who engages in widespread harm, is obligated at the end of the day to in fact those individuals for their injuries.
The class action process not only provides a mechanism for restitution and other payments to the class members but also deters future wrongdoing by the same defendant (and even others).
Class actions also have the benefit of modifying behavior of not only a defendant, but of the others in an industry. Under the Rule 23, a defendant or set of defendants can be sued in an effort to protect certain rights of others. This tool has been used in a variety of cases and claims, including privacy rights, civil rights and discrimination-based claims.
In “limited fund” cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs have the potential to obtain monetary benefits on an equitable basis (as opposed to first to file, first to recover). In Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999), the United States Supreme Court emphasized that class actions provide for an orderly manner of allocation of limited funds. A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.
A class action, in some situations, avoids the situation where different court rulings could create “incompatible standards” of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

What is the difference between a class action and “mass tort” litigation?

The Advisory Committee Notes to federal class action rules note that mass torts are ordinarily “not appropriate” for class treatment. Class treatment may not improve the efficiency of a mass tort because the claims frequently involve individualized issues of law and fact that will have to be re-tried on an individual basis. See Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting nationwide class action against tobacco companies).
Mass torts also involve high individual damage awards; thus, the absence of class treatment will not impede the ability of individual claimants to seek justice.

When is a class action not an appropriate way to seek compensation?

Not every client’s case should proceed as a ‘class action.’
At Audet & Partners, LLP, our attorneys will provide you with an evaluation of the best way to proceed so as to maximize your compensation for injuries suffered.
In some cases, Audet & Partners, LLP, will represent business in an individual non-class basis in order to maximize the potential recovery for the client.

How can Audet & Partners, LLP help you pursue a class action claim?

Many law firms promote themselves as ‘class action’ law firms. If you are considering whether to retain a law firm, you need to not only look at their cases, but the results achieved and the philosophy driving the firm’s practice.
In reality, only a limited number of law firms in the United States have the resources, expertise and commitment to successfully prosecute class action cases.
The Attorneys at Audet & Partners, LLP have significant experience in reviewing, investigating and prosecuting class action cases, and as a plaintiff’s only law firm, the firm has no potential conflicts by representing ‘both sides’ on the same issue.
We avoid ‘coupon’ oriented settlements, instead focusing on monetary and non-monetary relief that benefit the class as a whole.

For more information about Audet & Partners, LLP, a nationwide plaintiff’s-only class action law firm, view our online firm resume below. To download a copy of our firm’s resume click here.

Review A&P’s Complex Class Action Litigation Experience

Privacy & Technology

In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litigation (MDL No. 2264)
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
William M. Audet served as one of two co-lead counsel in this nationwide case alleging privacy violations in Google’s Android operating system related to user data collection practices.
In re iPhone Application Litigation (MDL No. 2250)
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Appointed class liaison counsel, the firm represented consumers alleging Apple misused personal data through apps on iPhones and iPads.
In re Zynga Litigation (Sigala v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.)
San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-505324
Served as class counsel in a privacy-based class action against the game developer for allegedly sharing users’ private data with third parties.
Confidential Plaintiffs v. Finish Line (Case No. CV113874)
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Represented individual plaintiffs in privacy claims against Finish Line, alleging unlawful data collection.
Johns v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (MDL No. 2558)
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Participated in coordinated privacy investigations over Sony’s data practices affecting PlayStation users. Ongoing.

Employment & Whistleblower

Russell, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al. (No. C 07-3993 CW)
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Represented thousands of Wells Fargo employees in an overtime pay class action. Case resolved with millions paid to employees.
Confidential Whistleblower Case
Represented a former executive fired after reporting financial misconduct. Confidential settlement reached pre-trial.
Confidential Misclassification Case
Represented employees misclassified as “managers” to avoid paying overtime. Reached settlement after one year of litigation.
California IOU Litigation (Baird v. Chiang)
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2010-00081797
Filed a class action against the State of California for issuing illegal IOUs to small businesses during a fiscal crisis.

Product Defect Litigation

In re CertainTeed Roofing Shingles (MDL No. 1817)
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Court-appointed co-lead counsel for nationwide claims involving defective roofing shingles.
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Litigation (MDL No. 1958)
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Represented homeowners alleging defects in Zurn PEX plumbing systems installed in thousands of homes.
In re Kitec Plumbing Litigation
Filed in multiple U.S. district courts. Represented consumers in nationwide litigation alleging defects in plumbing components.
In re Uponor Plumbing Litigation
Nationwide class action involving faulty plumbing parts. Audet & Partners serves as class counsel.
Ross v. Trex Company, Inc. (Case No. 09-670)
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Represented consumers alleging Trex sold defective composite decking.
Weyerhaeuser Siding Litigation (Williams & Chambers cases)
Represented homeowners in CA and WA courts for defective wood siding manufactured by Weyerhaeuser.
Roy v. Cemwood Corp. (No. MSC99-00499)
Contra Costa County Superior Court, CA
Co-lead counsel in class action over defective roofing tiles.
In re Stucco Litigation (Ruff v. Parex)
New Hanover County, NC (No. 96-CVS-0059)
Represented homeowners who had defective synthetic stucco installed.

Consumer Products & Recalls

In re Menu Foods Pet Recall (MDL No. 1850)
Audet was appointed Co-Lead Counsel in the pet food recall litigation, resulting in financial relief and remedial action nationwide.
In re Thomas the Train Recall
Lead counsel in class action providing full refunds to families after a major toy recall due to safety issues.
In re Planet Toys Recall (08-CV-0592)
Despite Planet Toys’ bankruptcy, lead counsel secured compensation for affected consumers.

Mass Tort & Personal Injury

In re Zyprexa Litigation (MDL No. 1596)
Represented 300+ clients alleging diabetes caused by Zyprexa. William M. Audet served on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee.
In re Baycol Litigation (MDL No. 1431)
Audet appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for claims involving the cholesterol drug Baycol.
In re Vioxx & Bextra Litigations
Filed over 100 Vioxx cases; participated in multibillion-dollar settlement. Bextra: Appointed to MDL 1699 Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.
In re Metabolife & Intergel Cases
Represented women and individuals injured by unsafe products, resulting in substantial confidential settlements.
In re Chantix Litigation (MDL No. 2092)
Appointed to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee; represented individuals not adequately warned of psychiatric side effects.
PG&E San Bruno Explosion Litigation (JCCP No. 4648)
Filed first class action after a major utility-caused explosion in San Bruno, CA.
In re Baxter Heparin Litigation
Represented victims injured by contaminated heparin in coordinated MDL and state court actions.

Consumer Protection & Insurance

In re Unum Provident Litigation (MDL No. 1552)
Co-lead counsel in disability benefits denial claims.
In re Industrial Life & Life of Georgia Insurance Litigations
Nationwide settlements for racially discriminatory life insurance policies.
Lawson v. Liberty Life
Represented life insurance policyholders subjected to policy “churning.”
In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation (MDL No. 1456)
Executive Committee members in national case involving drug price inflation.
In re Tenet Healthcare Litigation
Represented consumers in overbilling claims against a major hospital network.

Antitrust Litigation

In re PRK/Lasik Overcharges
Liaison counsel in a class action against laser vision companies for price-fixing.
Flat Glass, DRAM, Vitamins, Carbon Fiber, Methionine, and Copper Tubing Antitrust Litigations
Represented consumers and businesses in major antitrust claims across multiple industries.
Toys “R” Us & L.A. Milk Antitrust Cases
Sued retailers and supermarkets for illegal price-fixing harming consumers.
California Auction House Cases
Represented consumers alleging commission-fixing by Christie’s and Sotheby’s.

Securities & Insider Trading

In re CNET, Adaptec, Informix, Imp, CBT Group, Oakley Tech, Sybase, and S3 Derivative Litigations
Represented shareholders in claims involving insider trading and backdating stock options.
In re Genesis, Horizon, Unison Healthcare, and Bay Networks Securities Litigations
Class counsel in multiple securities fraud and shareholder derivative lawsuits across various states.
In re Networks Associates Derivative Litigation
Liaison Counsel in derivative action alleging executives misled investors and improperly sold personal stock for $33M+.