Monthly Archives: May 2019

In re: Yahoo! Litigation

The firm was co-lead counsel. This case was brought about in May of 2006 against Yahoo! on behalf of pay-per-click search advertising customers who claim Yahoo! breached its contract by allowing Yahoo! ads to be displayed in spyware, domain name parking sites (also known as bulk registration sites), pop-ups, pop-unders, and typosquatting sites. After participating in four mediation sessions the parties finally reached a settlement of this class action, documentation found below:

Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

In The News

5/22/2025Michael D. Donovan Selected to Pennsylvania Super Lawyers 2004-2025

2/17/2021PA Supreme Court upholds strict liability for violations of PA Consumer Protection Law, agreeing with the friend-of-the-court brief filed by DLG & others

11/05/2019Michael Donovan and a team of consumer lawyers file an amicus curiae brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of consumers

09/25/2019Has the Debt Collection Industry Captured the CFPB?

09/18/2019Voices of the NCLC – “Here’s a lesson I’ve learned in my career…”

08/10/2018Chesapeake Reaches Settlement with Large Class of Pa. Landowners in Royalty Dispute

07/18/2018In 17-Year-Old Class Action, $6.3 Million Award Against Kia Reinstated – NJ Law Journal

2/26/2018Non-Pennsylvanians Can Sue PA. Businesses for Out-of-State Transactions Under UTPCPL

2/22/2018Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law Applies to Non Residents

11/28/2017Pa. Consumer Law Protects Nonresidents, State Justices Hear

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States Denies Wal-Mart’s Appeal of $187.6M Class Action

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun

4/4/2016High Court Won’t Review Wal-Mart’s $188M Loss In Rest Break Suit

03/15/2016Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Awards Michael D. Donovan the 2016 Excellence Award in Cy Pres Advocacy

10/1/2015Class Action Hero – Vermont Law School Loquitur Magazine Fall 2015

4/21/2015Plaintiffs File Opposition to Wal-Mart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

2/9/2015The Low Spark of Motions to Strike Class Allegations

1/22/2015Pa. Supreme Court Rules Dukes Does Not Apply to Wage-and-Hour Verdict

6/24/2013Consumers Send Thank You Notes

6/25/2012United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear KIA Motors America’s Appeal in KIA v. Samuel-Bassett, Shamell

Vacek, Jr. v. Walter Investment Management Corp.

Leave a reply

This case is a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Walter Investments against certain officers and directors who breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched between May 3, 2016 and June 22, 2017. Walter Investments is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans.

After submitting false claims related to reverse mortgage servicing and deceiving homeowners regarding loan servicing and modifications, Walter settled two lawsuits with Federal Agencies for $92 million in fines.

Presently Walter is continuing to perform similar conduct by making false misleading statements and failing to disclose that (a) the Company was involved in fraudulent practices that violated the False Claims Act; (b) the Company’s Ditech subsidiary had a material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting; and (c) resultantly, the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting.

In The News

5/22/2025Michael D. Donovan Selected to Pennsylvania Super Lawyers 2004-2025

2/17/2021PA Supreme Court upholds strict liability for violations of PA Consumer Protection Law, agreeing with the friend-of-the-court brief filed by DLG & others

11/05/2019Michael Donovan and a team of consumer lawyers file an amicus curiae brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of consumers

09/25/2019Has the Debt Collection Industry Captured the CFPB?

09/18/2019Voices of the NCLC – “Here’s a lesson I’ve learned in my career…”

08/10/2018Chesapeake Reaches Settlement with Large Class of Pa. Landowners in Royalty Dispute

07/18/2018In 17-Year-Old Class Action, $6.3 Million Award Against Kia Reinstated – NJ Law Journal

2/26/2018Non-Pennsylvanians Can Sue PA. Businesses for Out-of-State Transactions Under UTPCPL

2/22/2018Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law Applies to Non Residents

11/28/2017Pa. Consumer Law Protects Nonresidents, State Justices Hear

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States Denies Wal-Mart’s Appeal of $187.6M Class Action

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun

4/4/2016High Court Won’t Review Wal-Mart’s $188M Loss In Rest Break Suit

03/15/2016Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Awards Michael D. Donovan the 2016 Excellence Award in Cy Pres Advocacy

10/1/2015Class Action Hero – Vermont Law School Loquitur Magazine Fall 2015

4/21/2015Plaintiffs File Opposition to Wal-Mart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

2/9/2015The Low Spark of Motions to Strike Class Allegations

1/22/2015Pa. Supreme Court Rules Dukes Does Not Apply to Wage-and-Hour Verdict

6/24/2013Consumers Send Thank You Notes

6/25/2012United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear KIA Motors America’s Appeal in KIA v. Samuel-Bassett, Shamell

Gillis v. Respond Power, LLC

Leave a reply

Gillis v. Respond Power, LLC

This case arises from a deceptive scheme perpetrated by Defendant Respond Power LLC. Respond is an Electric Generation Supplier (EGS) in Pennsylvania that uniformly mis-portrays the contractual rates it can and will charge to consumers by omitting material facts and deceiving reasonable consumers as to the actual risks, costs, charges, and savings a reasonable consumer will realize (and should reasonably expect to realize) after switching from his or her local regulated electric utility to Respond.

These omissions led to consumer’s to believe they were protected from any future rate increases being greater than what they were being charged by their current utility, when in fact Respond would end up charging consumer’s up to 3x their previous regulated electric utility rate.

Respond ended up having their Motion to Dismiss Granted by the District Court but the case was then appealed to the Third Circuit. After briefing/argument was complete the Third Circuit released their opinion concluding that the District Court did not properly exercise its discretion in denying class certification. Therefore the Third Circuit vacated the District Courts order denying class certification and remand for further proceedings.

Third Circuit Opinion

In The News

5/22/2025Michael D. Donovan Selected to Pennsylvania Super Lawyers 2004-2025

2/17/2021PA Supreme Court upholds strict liability for violations of PA Consumer Protection Law, agreeing with the friend-of-the-court brief filed by DLG & others

11/05/2019Michael Donovan and a team of consumer lawyers file an amicus curiae brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of consumers

09/25/2019Has the Debt Collection Industry Captured the CFPB?

09/18/2019Voices of the NCLC – “Here’s a lesson I’ve learned in my career…”

08/10/2018Chesapeake Reaches Settlement with Large Class of Pa. Landowners in Royalty Dispute

07/18/2018In 17-Year-Old Class Action, $6.3 Million Award Against Kia Reinstated – NJ Law Journal

2/26/2018Non-Pennsylvanians Can Sue PA. Businesses for Out-of-State Transactions Under UTPCPL

2/22/2018Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law Applies to Non Residents

11/28/2017Pa. Consumer Law Protects Nonresidents, State Justices Hear

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States Denies Wal-Mart’s Appeal of $187.6M Class Action

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun

4/4/2016High Court Won’t Review Wal-Mart’s $188M Loss In Rest Break Suit

03/15/2016Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Awards Michael D. Donovan the 2016 Excellence Award in Cy Pres Advocacy

10/1/2015Class Action Hero – Vermont Law School Loquitur Magazine Fall 2015

4/21/2015Plaintiffs File Opposition to Wal-Mart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

2/9/2015The Low Spark of Motions to Strike Class Allegations

1/22/2015Pa. Supreme Court Rules Dukes Does Not Apply to Wage-and-Hour Verdict

6/24/2013Consumers Send Thank You Notes

6/25/2012United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear KIA Motors America’s Appeal in KIA v. Samuel-Bassett, Shamell

Danganan v. Guardian Protection Services

Leave a reply

Danganan v. Guardian Protection Services

Plaintiff Jobe Danganan hired Guardian Protection Services to provide home security for his residence in Washington D.C. In the middle of his contract with Guardian Mr. Danganan had to move to California for work and notified Guardian that he wanted to terminate his services with them. Guardian refused to terminate his contract and continued to charge Mr. Danganan for services he never received, Mr. Danganan filed suit.

As a result of his contract having a choice of law clause and Guardian being HQ’d in PA as such Pennsylvania law was used to file suit. While the UTPCPL prohibits unfair trade practices for Pennsylvania residents, Guardian claimed that since Mr. Danganan’s service was provided for in Washington D.C. and now lived in California, he was unable to sue them under the UTPCPL.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
After appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Guardian was informed on February 21, 2018, by a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Saylor, that the UTPCPL has “no geographical limitation or residency requirement” in the UTPCPL’s text. Further quoting the PA Supreme Court’s Opinion “Accordingly, in response to the first certified question, we hold that a non-Pennsylvania resident may bring suit under the UTPCPL against a Commonwealth headquartered business based on transactions that occurred out-of-state. We further conclude that our answer to the first issue eliminates the predicate to the second question certified for review. The matter is returned to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Third Circuit Court of Appeals:
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided on August 6, 2018 to agree with the conclusions made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the District Court and remanding the case for further proceedings. To quote, “Because that court concluded, contrary to the District Court, that the UTPCPL may provide a cause of action to non-residents in circumstances like those alleged by Danganan, we will reverse the decision of the District Court dismissing his complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.”

Case Documents:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion February 22, 2018

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion August 6, 2018

In The News

5/22/2025Michael D. Donovan Selected to Pennsylvania Super Lawyers 2004-2025

2/17/2021PA Supreme Court upholds strict liability for violations of PA Consumer Protection Law, agreeing with the friend-of-the-court brief filed by DLG & others

11/05/2019Michael Donovan and a team of consumer lawyers file an amicus curiae brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of consumers

09/25/2019Has the Debt Collection Industry Captured the CFPB?

09/18/2019Voices of the NCLC – “Here’s a lesson I’ve learned in my career…”

08/10/2018Chesapeake Reaches Settlement with Large Class of Pa. Landowners in Royalty Dispute

07/18/2018In 17-Year-Old Class Action, $6.3 Million Award Against Kia Reinstated – NJ Law Journal

2/26/2018Non-Pennsylvanians Can Sue PA. Businesses for Out-of-State Transactions Under UTPCPL

2/22/2018Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law Applies to Non Residents

11/28/2017Pa. Consumer Law Protects Nonresidents, State Justices Hear

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States Denies Wal-Mart’s Appeal of $187.6M Class Action

4/4/2016Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun

4/4/2016High Court Won’t Review Wal-Mart’s $188M Loss In Rest Break Suit

03/15/2016Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Awards Michael D. Donovan the 2016 Excellence Award in Cy Pres Advocacy

10/1/2015Class Action Hero – Vermont Law School Loquitur Magazine Fall 2015

4/21/2015Plaintiffs File Opposition to Wal-Mart’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

2/9/2015The Low Spark of Motions to Strike Class Allegations

1/22/2015Pa. Supreme Court Rules Dukes Does Not Apply to Wage-and-Hour Verdict

6/24/2013Consumers Send Thank You Notes

6/25/2012United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear KIA Motors America’s Appeal in KIA v. Samuel-Bassett, Shamell

Little v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

Leave a reply

No. UNN-L-800-01 (Law Division Aug. 20, 2003)

The Firm is co-lead counsel in this New Jersey class action against KIA. Similar to the Samuel-Basset case in Pennsylvania. On August 20, 2003, the New Jersey Superior Court certified a class of New Jersey consumers to pursue breach of warranty and Consumer Fraud Act claims arising from the allegedly defective braking system.

Case Summary: On February 16, 2001 owners of 1997-2000 KIA Sephia’s brought suit against KIA Motors in the Superior Court of New Jersey, due to a defective front brake system which resulted in:

Brake pads and rotors to excessively wear out
Noise issues such as squeals and groans
Constant repairs and replacements

The Court certified a Class and the lawsuit went to trial beginning in May 2008. On June 6, 2008 the jury issued a verdict in favor of the Class. The jury decided the front braking system was defective, that Kia did not take steps to fix the defect, and that Kia did not satisfy the warranty. The jury further decided that each Class Member suffered $750 in losses.

On November 24, 2008 the Court decided Class Members should receive payments related to their individual front brake repairs. The Court later ordered that Class Members who want to receive a payment must submit a Claim Form. Please use the documents below for submitting your claim. We have also provided documents from both the case proceedings and the jury trial.

On July 18, 2018 after successfully appealing the decisions of the lower courts, the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate division issued an Opinion vindicating all of the Plaintiff attorneys work and solidifying the jury verdict from 10 years ago.

To quote the Courts Opinion:

“Finally, defendant contends that the court should have decertified the class during the claim-form proceeding because repairs were unique to each member and the majority of the class members did not fit the claim-form criteria. This argument lacks merit because the claim-form proceeding should not have occurred. Further, failing to return a claim form does not prove that the class member incurred no damage. The court correctly certified the class. The cross-appeal is without merit.
We reverse the trial judge’s grant of a JNOV and remand for a determination of counsel fees consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.”