24 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Pa. 1998)

The Firm co-counseled this five day bench trial on behalf of four low-income plaintiffs against a sub-prime home equity lender for violations of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Plaintiffs prevailed on virtually all their claims, achieving rescission of the mortgages and awards of money damages.

2003 WL 1847695 (Pa. Com. Pl. January 15, 2003)

The Firm is co-counsel to the plaintiff and class in this action to recover unpaid wages earned by Wal-Mart employees for overtime work and missed or shortened meal and break periods. Plaintiff has obtained a court ruling prohibiting Wal-Mart from conducting ex parte interviews with current and former employees who are class members. Discovery is currently proceeding.  On December 27, 2005, the Court certified a class consisting of all current and former Wal-Mart employees in Pennsylvania from 1998 through the present.   Trial is scheduled for September 5, 2006 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  To view the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and other pertinent materials, please click on the links below.

Complaint:  Braun v. Walmart

Briefs:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court:  Brief of Appellees  March 22, 2013
United States Supreme Court:  Brief in Opposition  April 20, 2015

Court Orders & Opinions:
Court of Common Pleas – Order Approving Class Certification  December 27, 2005
Judge Bernstein’s Opinion on Damages  October 3, 2007
Judge Bernstein’s Order, Opinion and Findings of Fact  November 14, 2007

Pennsylvania Superior Court Opinion  June 10, 2011

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion  December 15, 2014

United States Supreme Court Denies Wal-Mart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari  April 4, 2016

Notice to Class:  Notice to Class

305 F.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 2002)(appeal vacated and dismissed, March 10, 2003)

The Firm co-counseled this class action involving over 186,000 Pennsylvania consumers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case involved cutting edge issues involving the intersection of Rule 68 offer of judgments and Rule 23 class actions. The case was argued twice before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, once before a panel of three judges and subsequently on rehearing en banc before all thirteen judges of the Court. Following a successful remand of the case to the district court, plaintiff eventually reached a settlement that resulted in a payment to the class members in the maximum amount they would have won had the case gone to trial.

The Firm served as co-counsel to the plaintiff and a class of twelve thousand Pennsylvania residential homeowners who were victimized by practices and policies of a sub-prime home equity lender. Following vigorous litigation, the case settled in consideration of a $2,500,000 payment to the class, as well as substantial relief for class members whose homes were in the midst of foreclosure as a result of the defendant’s actions.

This was a consumer class action in which the consumer alleged that Erie collected premiums for the time period before life insurance coverage went into effect.  In particular, the action alleged that the insurance policy did not take effect until it was delivered to the insured, but that Erie received premium payments from consumers covering days or weeks before policy delivery, when no insurance was in effect.  The action settled in 2005, with consumers receiving either a cash payment or extended and increased death benefits.

This case is a consumer class action brought on behalf of individuals who Plaintiffs allege were subjected to Defendants’ violations of the Pennsylvania Health Club Act, which regulates health clubs operating within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sell contracts for health club services to Pennsylvania consumers that are in material violation of the HCA because Defendants impose initiation fees that are not reasonably related to Defendants’ costs for establishing the initial health club membership.

After many briefings and hearings a settlement was reached on March 28, 2012.

Bally’s – Order – Denying Motion to Dismiss

Ballys Order & Memo Approving Class Certification

Final Judgment

The past 15 years have seen cell phone use evolve from a mere convenience to an all out necessity.  Increased usage without proper testing of the required equipment has led to adverse reactions within the makeup of the human body.  The biological harm is further manifested when a unwitting person talks on their cell phone without the use of a proper headset.  For close to 40 years it has been widely known that exposure to RFR, within the frequency common to cell phones, can cause adverse biological effects due to such exposure.  Scientific studies dating back to the early 1920’s are more reinforcement that these large corporations like Nokia, LG and Motorolla ignored the warning signs that cell phones posses and marketed them to consumers anyway.

This suit seeks to acquire 1 handsfree headset for all consumers who did not receive one with their original purchase.  It also seeks statutory damages on behalf of each class member for receiving less then what they paid for.  While this case may last many years it is hopeful that a resolution can be reached before anymore people use a cell phone without the proper protection.

Complaint: Cell Phone Litigation

This suit was initiated by purchasers of GM automobiles equipped with the 3800 series engine (VN K-RPO L36).  The engine powers a multitude of GM cars  engine was fitted with a faulty stove pipe manifold that lead to an increased loss of coolant, premature internal engine wear, and/or internal engine problems.  These cars were purchased from 1995 through 2003, and included but not limited to the   Relief will be sought for not only a replacement manifold but coverage of any and all inconsequential and/or substantial damages.  To view the Complaint and other related documents please click below.

Buick:  Riviera, LeSabre, Park Avenue, & Regal
Chevrolet:  Lumina & Monte Carlo
Oldsmobile:  Intrigue, Ninety-Eight & Eighty-Eight
Pontiac:  Bonneville & Grand Prix.

US Bank is a national provider of credit cards and other financial services directed at consumers through various forms of solicitation.  Each card was issued with specific terms and agreements, however US Bank decided the terms were not sufficient and so they enacted a “change in terms”, specifically altering way APR was calculated.  As a result US Bank cardholders have brought suit for violations of the Truth in Lending Act which mandates that credit card solicitations disclose, clearly and conspicuously, all required cost of credit information.  Their TLA violations include a lack of disclosure that APR was not determined by calculating “Prime +1%”, but instead by adding a “margin” to the prime rate, “margins” range from 9.99% for purchases to 14.99% for cash advances.  Additionally their “change in terms” took on a more deceptive role allowing for US Bank to conduct a subjective review of a cardholder’s credit score or report  in order to adjust (raise) their APR.  The suit seeks damages both actual and treble along with restitution of the revenue US Bank attained illegally.