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

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

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.”

Court Opinions

• NJ Appellate Court Opinion  July 18, 2018

Claim Form and Documents

• KIA (NJ) Letter Mailed with Notice
  KIA (NJ) Letter Mailed with Notice
• KIA (NJ) Name Specific Claim Form
  KIA (NJ) Name Specific Claim Form
• KIA (NJ) Claim Form
  KIA (NJ) Claim Form
• KIA (NJ) Notice
  KIA (NJ) Notice
• Notice to Class : KIA – Little February 9, 2004
• KIA (NJ) – BRE Envelope
  KIA (NJ) – BRE Envelope

Trial Documents

• KIA (NJ) Jury Verdict
  KIA (NJ) Jury Verdict.
• KIA (NJ) Order Denying Post-Trial Motions November 24, 2008
  Order Denying Post-Trial Motions
• KIA (NJ) Final Exhibit List from Trial
  KIA (NJ) Final Exhibit List
• KIA (NJ) Post-Trial Decision November 26, 2008
  KIA (NJ) Post-Trial Decision
• KIA (NJ) – Scott King’s Expert Report
  KIA (NJ) Expert Report of Scott King

212 F.R.D. 271 (E.D. Pa. 2002)

The Firm is co-counsel in this class action involving 10,000 Pennsylvania consumers against Kia Motors America, Inc. The class claims arise from a systematic defective brake system in Kia Sephia automobiles, model years 1995-2001.

Court Orders & Opinions:

Memorandum and Order Approving Class Certification  September 17, 2004

Judge Bernstein’s Post Trial Opinion  December 29, 2006

Pennsylvania Superior Court Opinion October 24, 2007

Judge Bernstein’s Opinion and Findings of Facts  November 14, 2007

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion  December 2, 2011

Notice to Class : Notice to Class Members in Bassett v. KIA

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.