SERVICES

Class action litigation is a growing threat to businesses across all industries. Facing a class action lawsuit is a massive undertaking for any company. 

PRACTICE AREAS

Class Action, Mass Tort, and Products Liability Litigation

Overview

Class action litigation is a growing threat to businesses across all industries. Facing a class action lawsuit is a massive undertaking for any company.  If not approached properly from the very beginning, the consequences of a class action can be devastating. The attorneys at Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya routinely represent clients in class action disputes, including those involving mass torts, products liability, and state and federal consumer protection laws, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  We seek swift victories for our clients in the early stages of litigation, utilizing early negotiation and dismissal, summary judgment, and opposing class certification.  We have prevented expensive class discovery and craft an effective strategy to limit the overall risk and expense of a class action to our clients. Our attorneys take a proactive, business-focused approach to combat class action lawsuits before they become destructive.

Our Proactive, Efficient Approach

We counsel our clients through every stage of the litigation process and develop effective methods to narrow the claims or classes. We capitalize on our expertise with the regulations and the latest developments in courts across the country.

Class actions involving mass torts and products liability claims can be financially and reputationally disastrous to a company. Our lawyers understand the procedural rules and nuances that apply to class actions in federal and state courts, and take a focused, business-minded approach to achieving our clients’ goals. We recognize that defeating class certification is often the most effective way to defend against a class action and protect a company’s reputation and focus our efforts on developing strategies to do exactly that.

In the age of technology, properly handling a class action lawsuit often requires expertise with mass data collection and large volumes of electronic discovery.  The complexity and expense of this aspect of a case requires a lawyer who knows the right approach to these issues. Our litigators have handled many cases that required the sorting and handling of millions of documents and are skilled in innovative techniques to manage large volumes of data in a cost-efficient manner customized to our clients’ needs. We understand the competing needs of operating a business while achieving a successful result in a lawsuit and use our e-discovery expertise to your advantage.

  • Koski v. Carrier Corp., No. 16-25372 (S.D. Fla. 2016).  Defended air conditioning manufacturer and global product testing and certification company in a putative nationwide class action challenging the certification of certain HVAC products; obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice at the pleading stage from the federal district court.  See 347 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2017). 
  • Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co., Case No. 1:12-cv-20695 (S.D. Fla. 2015).  Defended investment fund and its managers in a putative class action from feeder fund investors, seeking more than $500 million in damages in connection with claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence; obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice at the pleading stage from the federal district court; affirmed on appeal.  See 791 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015) (certified question to Delaware Supreme Court); 813 F.3d 991 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirmed dismissal of class action complaint).
  • Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1707 (M.D. Tenn. 2014).  Defended a plumbing product marketer and distributor in putative class action lawsuits involving, among others, claims of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of state consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment; negotiated class wide settlement.  See 187 F. Supp. 3d 899 (M.D. Tenn. 2016) (granting in part motion to dismiss complaint)
  • Allscripts Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. Pain Clinic of NW Florida, Inc., 158 So. 3d 644, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).  Defended electronic health records software company in nationwide, putative class action lawsuit involving, among others, claims for breach of warranty, violation of state consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment; negotiated class wide settlement.
  • Merl v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 1:12-CV-20870 (S.D. Fla. 2012).  Defended five movie studios in a putative nationwide class action challenging the marketing of Blu-ray and DVD movies; obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice at the pleading stage from the federal district court.  See 2013 WL 266049 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2013) (dismissing the First Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim).

We counsel our clients through every stage of the litigation process and develop effective methods to narrow the claims or classes. We capitalize on our expertise with the regulations and the latest developments in courts across the country.