Our class action litigation attorneys have successfully defended clients in numerous class and representative actions, such as the following:

• Served as personal and insurance coverage counsel for an affordable housing developer in a housing discrimination class action.
• Defended major rental car company in a series of class action litigations involving alleged unfair business practices in the rental contract, concerning such matters as the refueling service charge and the collision damage waiver.
• Defended auto manufacturer in class actions arising out of the alleged ease with which thieves could access and steal the specialized headlights installed in the manufacturer’s vehicles.
• Twice put down plaintiff’s attempts to certify a class on behalf of window manufacturers throughout the United States, then won summary judgment in favor of U.S. subsidiary of $90 billion petrochemical company in action involving alleged defects in insulating glass sealants used in $4 billion worth of windows over a 20-year period, then argued and won affirmance in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, then defeated petition for certiorari in U.S. Supreme Court.  Wasco Products v. Southwall Technologies, et al., 435 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 83 (2006).
• Served as personal and insurance coverage counsel in consumer class action litigation alleging defects and property damage arising from our client’s fenestration assembly materials.
• Defeated class certification in putative class action in Los Angeles federal court involving 29,000 installations, where the alleged damages ranged between $25,000 and $55,000 per installation, arising out of the use of an allegedly defective flooring material, then settled action without any settlement payment.
• Served as national coordinating counsel for a weight management company in the defense of Fen-Phen class actions filed in multiple jurisdictions.
• Avoided class certification in 1,000-home construction defect litigation, then negotiated a minimal four-figure settlement involving the five named plaintiffs.
• Obtained dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of putative construction product defect class action in San Diego federal court where alleged damages exceeded $1.8 billion.
• Successfully defended product manufacturer in construction defect putative class action, where the manufacturer was brought into the action as a third party well into discovery.
• Defending individual defendant in complex ERISA class action filed on behalf of ESOP participants.

For further information, please contact David R. Scheidemantle at David@Scheidemantle-Law.com or (626) 660-4434.