Greenberg Traurig & Toyota

We have had the distinct pleasure of serving as Toyota’ counsel on intellectual property (IP) related disputes which has allowed us the opportunity to gain critical insight into Toyota’s products, its people, and its processes. Although Toyota may be familiar with some of our IP attorneys, GT also has a national consumer products class action defense team with a proven track record of defending product manufacturers on a host of claims, including mass tort, product liability, unfair competition, false advertising, breach of warranty, and privacy claims. 

With key team members in California, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, our team is well positioned to handle multi-state consumer class actions and often serves as national coordinating counsel for companies facing multidistrict and overlapping class action proceedings.

GT has the rare combination of a team with knowledge of Toyota’s business and products, a nationally recognized and highly accomplished consumer products class action team, and broad experience within the automotive industry at large.

What follows is a selection of representative experience to further illustrate the scope of GT’s practice and platform that we can lend to this valued client relationship with Toyota. We look forward to the opportunity to expand our partnership and are at the ready to hit the ground running.

• Activision Publishing, Inc. Representation of Activision Publishing, Inc. in defending a putative class action suit, alleging that Activision’s discontinuance of streaming content on the video game Guitar Hero Live violated plaintiffs’ rights under the CLRA. UCL, FAL and Vermont Consumer Protection Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. 9 § 2451, et seq. On January 7, 2019, GT moved to compel arbitration. On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
• Adaptive Marketing Corp. Representation of Adaptive Marketing Corp. in two separate putative nationwide class actions, one filed in California and one in Connecticut – both alleging similar violations of various state consumer protection laws. California case dismissed on the pleadings; Connecticut plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed after receiving our motion to dismiss.*
• Alcon Laboratories. Representation of Alcon Laboratories in a First Circuit precedent setting consumer class action decision regarding federal preemption based on FDA approval or prescription pharmaceuticals. While this defense has its genesis in product liability law, GT successfully wielded the argument to obtain dismissal of a multi-state consumer fraud class action. The success of GT’s novel theory in the First Circuit opens up new possibilities for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to defend their products against consumer fraud claims.
• Allegiant Air, LLC.
  • Representation of Allegiant Air in a putative class action in the District of Nevada in which plaintiff alleges she is entitled to a refund for a flight cancelled due to the novel coronavirus pandemic. Based on these allegations, he asserts a claim for unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract, and “money had and received” and seeks to represent a putative nationwide class of “[a]ll persons” who purchased tickets on Allegiant flights that “were cancelled or were subject to a significant schedule change and not refunded.”
  • Representation of Allegiant Air in a putative class action in the Eastern District of Michigan in which plaintiff alleges she is entitled to refund for a flight where she cancelled her ticket due to the novel coronavirus pandemic and Allegiant later cancelled the flight. Based on these allegations, she asserts a claim for breach of contract and seeks to represent a putative nationwide class of “[a]ll persons” who purchased tickets on flights cancelled by Allegiant from March 1, 2020 through the date of class certification “and who were not provided a refund,” excluding those who (i) requested a voucher or coupon, or (ii) requested and received alternative air transportation.
  • Representation of Allegiant Air, LLC in defense of a putative class action in Douglas v. Allegiant Air, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01064-JL (D.N.H. Nov. 13, 2018), in which the plaintiff sued Allegiant Air, LLC over the inadvertent inclusion of her pseudonymous email address in the “to” rather than “bcc” line of an email message sent to 399 other Allegiant customers regarding changes to Allegiant’s policies for travel with emotional support animals. Plaintiff alleged that this limited disclosure of her email address constitutes a breach of contract, negligence, and public disclosure of private facts. In September 2019, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed in October 2019.
• Champion Petfoods, LP. Representation of Champion Petfoods, LP in 17 class action lawsuits filed throughout the United States alleging that certain high-end pet food products contained heavy metals, rendering some statements on the packaging misleading. GT has mobilized numerous expert witnesses to discredit these claims one-by-one. Throughout 2019 GT won the denial of class certification in California, a motion to dismiss in Kentucky, and the dismissal of deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment claims, along with the exclusion of key damages experts upon a Daubert motion to dismiss in Wisconsin.
• Energizer Holdings, Inc. Representation of Energizer Holdings, Inc. in a putative class action asserting breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and other claims arising under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL. Plaintiffs allege defendants’ advertisements omitted essential facts regarding their liquid-based vehicle air freshener products. The FAL and breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims have been dismissed. The others remain pending.
• Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL). GT has a track record of consistently winning high-stakes class action cases for GTL.
  • On April 15, 2020, the Eighth Circuit issued a precedential ruling in favor of Global Tel*Link, Corp. (GTL), affirming the dismissal of a class action lawsuit from the Western District of Arkansas in a case that potentially exposed the company to several hundred million dollars in liability. This matter involved multiple class actions consolidated in the Western District of Arkansas, challenging the company’s inmate telephone calling rates and fees as excessive and unfair. 
  • In March 2019 GT obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a class action RICO complaint against client Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi. The complaint alleged that GTL improperly obtained the state contract to provide inmate telephone services by participating in a bribery scheme involving the former Director of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. After extensive motion practice, GT successfully argued that the Plaintiffs could not establish a causal connection between the alleged bribes and the injury, and that the claims were barred by the Filed-Rate doctrine.
• HSBC. Representation of HSBC in a series of RICO and consumer class actions:
  • in its loan servicing practices and banking fee in the Federal District Court in New Jersey and Southern District of New York.
  • in a class action involving RICO claims and lender placed insurance in the Federal District Court in Florida.
  • in a class case alleging improper credit card processing of gambling payments in the Federal District Court in Oklahoma.
• Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. Representation of Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. in defense of In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 8:16-ml-02693 (C.D. Cal. Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed August 2016), in which the plaintiffs sued for violation of the following: the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710; the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, et seq.; the state privacy acts of California and Massachusetts; the state video rental privacy acts of California, New York, and Massachusetts; the unfair/deceptive trade practice laws of California, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington; California’s Legal Remedies Act; and California’s False Advertising law. Plaintiffs also sued for common law claims of unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, intrusion upon seclusion, intentional misrepresentation/fraud by omission, and negligent misrepresentation/omission. GT convinced the plaintiffs to dismiss their claims against our client, which were asserted in several underlying cases, before the Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed.
• Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. Representation of Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Live Nation violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty & Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) with respect to fees charged in connection with tickets for concerts at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey and Live Nation’s “No Service Fee Wednesday” promotion. After briefing on class certification was completed, the parties engaged in extended mediation with a former federal judge. On November 3, 2013, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement that had received significant publicity. The settlement agreement entitled each class member to receive a $5 coupon code for future ticket purchases for certain Live Nation concerts and three free lawn tickets to certain future concerts at the PNC Bank Arts Center. The Court approved the settlement in March 2014.
• Loews Corporation, Loews Holding Corporation, MB Redevelopment, LLC, and Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Company, Inc. Representation of Loews Corporation, Loews Holding Corporation, MB Redevelopment, LLC, and Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Company, Inc. in a consumer class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, obtaining dismissal of nearly all claims.
• Major Financial Institutions. Significant experience representing major financial institutions in consumer class actions. Matters of particular relevance are included below:
  • in a putative class action asserting claims based on allegedly improper posting of payments. Obtained dismissal of all claims.
  • in the dismissal on the pleadings for financial services client in a putative class action alleging that the company was charging premiums beyond what was stated in the policy in the form of an installment fee.
  • in the defense of putative class actions arising under TILA and FCRA related to credit card advertising and in putative class actions concerning the rebate feature of a credit card product.
  • in a putative class action alleging the violations of FCRA based on allegedly improper access to consumer credit information. Obtained dismissal of negligence claim and successfully had the class allegations stricken.
  • in individual and class action lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging violations of the FDCPA, FCRA and state consumer protection statutes.
• Marriot Ownership Resorts, Inc. Representation of Marriot Ownership Resorts, Inc., in a case challenging the client’s fundamental business model. Marriot Ownership Resorts had moved from a weeks-based model to a points-based model for the vacation club product resulting in Marriot and several affiliates being named as defendants in this putative class action involving timeshare resorts in 44 cities in 11 states and several hundred thousand potential class members. In March 2019, the Court dismissed 11 out of 12 claims against our client, and in August 2019, dismissed the sole remaining claims following a separate motion.
• MDLive, Inc. Representation of MDLive, Inc. in defense of putative security breach class action Richards v. MDLive, Inc., Case No. 0:17-CV-60760 (S.D. Fla. Complaint filed April 2017). GT moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims of intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and alleged violations of Utah law in May 2017. The case was dismissed in 2017.
• Mercury Insurance Group. Representation of Mercury Insurance Group, one of California's largest auto insurers, in putative class action allegation violations of California insurance laws and consumer protection laws. Demurrer sustained without leave to amend.*
• Quora Technology, Inc. Representation of Quora Technology, Inc. in defense of multiple consolidated putative class action suits in Huynh v. Quora, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-07597 (N.D. Cal. 2018), arising out of an alleged 100,000,000 user security breach. Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the California Customer Records, Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.81.5(b), 1798.82(a)), California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colorado Security Breach Notification Act, and various tort and contract causes of action, including for invasion of privacy, negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract/implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and deceit by concealment. Quora has moved to dismiss all claims. A hearing on the motion was held in November 2019. The court ultimately dismissed all but one claim.
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  •  Representation of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in multiple putative class actions alleging false advertising or product defect involving the Galaxy S4, S7, S8, Note 4 and Note 8 devices in the Northern District of California, Central District of California, Eastern District of Wisconsin and District of New Jersey. Courts have granted our motion to compel arbitration in two matters (Northern California and New Jersey) and a partial motion to dismiss in Kessler v. Samsung, pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which asserted breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims. The other claims remain pending.
  • Representation of Samsung in a putative class action in the Central District of California alleging that Samsung’s Galaxy S7 series phones are advertised as “water resistant,” but are not in fact water resistant. The plaintiffs assert claims for common law fraud, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and unjust enrichment, among others. The plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of “[a]ll individuals in the United States who purchased a new Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7 Edge or Galaxy S7 Active cellular phone,” as well as state specific subclasses of the named plaintiffs. The parties are continuing to conduct discovery and litigate plaintiffs’ amendments of the pleadings. GT anticipates that class certification briefing will occur later this year.
• Sandals Resorts International Ltd. Representation of Sandals Resorts International Ltd., et al., in a proposed nationwide consumer fraud class action wherein GT secured a significant win on a motion to dismiss. The Southern District of Florida dismissed the Complaint –asserting two claims based on alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Acts and one claim for unjust enrichment and seeking an unspecific amount of damages –in its entirety on forum non conveniens grounds.
• Sears, Roebuck & Co.
  • Representation of Sears, Roebuck & Co. in defending class action suit Arin A. Bovay v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Case No. 03 CH 07605 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.), alleging violations of the class members’ privacy rights and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. In 2014, the court granted Sears’ motion for summary judgment on all of the class’s claims. In January 2017, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Sears. In May 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal.
  • Representation of Sears Roebuck & Co in a putative class action alleging that it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law by deceptively marketing/labeling its proprietary line of Craftsman tools as “Made in USA” when, in fact, some of these tools contained significant foreign components. GT defeated Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of over 40 million consumers in the first written decision in California denying class certification of a country of origin false advertising case. Decision upheld on appeal.
• Ticketmaster. Representation of Ticketmaster in a consumer class action based on allegedly false advertising practices and various allegedly improper shipping and ticketing charges.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Representation of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) in hundreds of consumer class actions across the country. Claims of particular relevance are included below:
  • in a secured decertification of a class consisting of roughly 6.5 million Wal-Mart job applicants challenging Wal-Mart’s background check procedures. Plaintiffs alleged the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act by providing them with deficient background check disclosure forms between June 2012 and March 2019. In October 2019, U.S. District Judge David Carter decertified the class and remanded the matter back to state court, finding plaintiffs failed to allege an injury sufficient to meet the Spokeo standing bar.
  • in a class action lawsuit alleging false and deceptive practices in connection with the sale of oil changing services. The complaint alleged Walmart misled consumers into changing the oil in their cars at a Wal-Mart location more often than necessary. The court granted GT’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
  • in the defense of a consumer class action challenging "battery core fee"; case dismissed and plaintiff has appealed.

Greenberg Traurig’s well-renowned Franchise & Distribution Practice is a multi-disciplinary team with distribution- and franchised-focused expertise in licensing, intellectual property, litigation, and transactional services.

Beyond traditional franchise experience, our team’s has uncommon depth of expertise in motor vehicle dealer network. We routinely work with and understand the differences among all the state dealer protection acts. Whether an individual dealer dispute, or a nationwide initiative, few firms have both the national scope of practice and national platform to navigate the nuanced and sometimes contentious relationship with dealers.

In addition, our team regularly draws on expertise from almost 2,000 attorneys in 31 U.S. office locations who focus on other relevant areas of law, such as advertising, bankruptcy and restructuring, corporate and securities, environmental, finance, government relations, labor and employment, and real estate.

The following is a selection of representative matters specific to dealer network litigation.

• Mercedes-Benz USA. Continental Imports v. Swickard Austin and Mercedes-Benz USA (Tex. MVD 2020): Waiting for proposal for decision following administrative trial regarding the establishment of an additional Mercedes-Benz dealer in Austin, Texas.
• Nissan North America. Fairfield Imports Two v. Nissan North America (Cal. NMVB 2019): Won summary dismissal of termination protests by establishing good cause as a matter of law after dealer ceased operations, despite dealer claims that board had to consider dealers investment at full hearing on the merits.
• Nissan North America. Kearny Mesa Infiniti v.Nissan North America (Cal. NMVB 2018): Negotiated resolution to sales performance termination case using a board-ordered stipulated decision that preserved the client’s ability to enforce contractual sales performance standards following a performance improvement period.°
• Mercedes-Benz USA. Fresno Motors v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 771 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2014): Won an appeal for in a published opinion upholding a motion for summary judgment at the trial court level. The opinion supported Mercedes-Benz USA’s right of first refusal relating to the sale of a dealership, and it expressly established that the prospective buyer cannot sue for tortious interference.°
• Mercedes-Benz USA. Star Houston v. Mercedes-Benz (Tex. MVD 2014): Represented Mercedes-Benz USA in multiple challenges brought by a dealer against Mercedes-Benz USA's incentive programs, including its nationwide, comprehensive dealer performance bonus program. A two-judge panel issued a proposal for a decision vindicating the program. The matter settled shortly after issuance.°
• Chrysler. Chapman Las Vegas Dodge v. Chrysler (Nev. 2012): Successfully defended Chrysler against protests filed by two local dealers to stop Chrysler's establishment of a new Las Vegas dealership.°
• Chrysler. Chrysler v. Colorado Secretary of State (S.D.N.Y. 2012): Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Chrysler Group LLC and Old Carco Motors LLC in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case involving the constitutionality of a Kentucky state dealer statute.°
• Mercedes-Benz USA. Mercedes-Benz USA v. Star Automobile (M.D. Ga. 2011): Won a preliminary injunction in Georgia in a dealership breach of contract dispute involving the sale of a dealership to a proposed buyer that Mercedes-Benz USA did not want as a Mercedes-Benz dealer.°
• Chrysler. Co-managed with one other law firm the response to requests from 418 dealers for arbitration relating to the bankruptcy of Chrysler Group LLC and following Chrysler's termination of those dealerships.°
• Chrysler. In re Old Carco (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2009): Obtained voluntary dismissal of all claims by dealers in several states asserting that Chrysler Group LLC, which succeeded Chrysler LLC following its 2009 bankruptcy, was essentially obligated to assume the contracts of dealers that had been rejected by Chrysler LLC during bankruptcy proceedings.°
• Chrysler. DaimlerChrysler v. Lew Williams, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 233 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006): Won a precedent-setting judgment from the California Court of Appeals, which preserved a trial court finding that guaranteed the right of automotive manufacturers to enter into litigation waiver contracts under a relatively common anti-waiver dealer act provision.°
• Chrysler. Des Moines Chrysler v. Department of Transportation Office of Vehicle Services (Iowa DIA 2009): Represented client in an administrative proceeding involving a protest filed by a local Chrysler vehicle dealer challenging the establishment of a Dodge dealership.°
• Mercedes-Benz USA. Auto Stiegler v. Mercedes-Benz USA (C.D. Cal. 2006): Won a complete jury verdict in a franchise dispute in Los Angeles, defeating plaintiff's claims and winning all six counterclaims and an award of over $7 million, including punitive damages, for Mercedes-Benz USA.°
• Chrysler. Bloomington Chrysler v. DaimlerChrysler (D. Minn. 2005): Obtained dismissal of claims relating to alleged dealer act violations for DaimlerChrysler.°
• Chrysler. DaimlerChrysler v. Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission (Miss. Lincoln County Ch. Ct. 2005): Obtained reversal regarding client's contractual right of first refusal for the sale or transfer of the assets of one of its existing dealers.°
• Chrysler. Eghtesad v. DaimlerChrysler (Cal. NMVB. 2004): Obtained dismissal from the New Motor Vehicle Board in a protest filed by a dealer to prevent client from allowing another dealer to relocate within protesting dealer's market area.°
• Chrysler. DaimlerChrysler v. Granger Motors (Iowa DIA. 2004): Represented client in an administrative proceeding, which showed modifications to how sales areas were defined were in accordance with the dealer agreement.°
• Chrysler. Lamarque Dodge v. Julian Graham Dodge, 887 So.2d 574 (La. Ct. App. 2004): Granted summary judgment after a dealer claimed WTO's client leaked confidential information.°
• Chrysler. Duarte & Witting, Inc.New Motor Vehicle Bd., 104 Cal.APP.4th 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002): Affirming board order in client’s favor dismissing protest without a hearing, ruling that Board has implied authority to dismiss protest where undisputed facts demonstrate good cause as matter of law.°
• Mercedes-Benz. Streeter Imports v. Mercedes-Benz, 105 P.3d 818 (Nev. 2001) Successful appeal of a trial court decision by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety that a dealer's unauthorized acquisition and sale of a new make of vehicle, distributed by our client but not covered under the existing dealer agreement, constituted good cause to terminate the dealer.°
• Chrysler. Clutter Motors v. DaimlerChrysler (Cal. NMVB. 2001): Obtained dismissal of a dealer's attempt to block a chargeback following a sales incentive audit, arguing that the board did not have the authority to issue injunctive relief to a dealer that protested the chargeback.°
• Chrysler. Chrysler v. Lee Janssen Motor (Neb. Ct. App. 2000): Obtained affirmation on the appeal of a district court's decision to reverse the Motor Vehicle Licensing Board and allow Chrysler to terminate a dealer.°
• Chrysler. Men-Guer Chrysler-Plymouth v. Chrysler (6th Cir. 1994): Obtained reversal of an unfavorable trial court's ruling regarding the applicability of an Ohio automobile dealer act to an agreement involving Chrysler.°

°These matters were handled by attorneys prior to joining Greenberg Traurig.  

Greenberg Traurig attorneys are experienced in handling a wide-range of automotive litigation matters across the country and internationally. Our wide-ranging industry experience and the firm’s national resources and reach enable us to offer an array of legal services to automotive manufacturers and components manufacturers around the country. We defend automotive industry companies against litigation, from products liability, consumer and employee claims, such as financing issues or discrimination charges, to tax issues and class action suits. When it comes to litigation, our most valuable counsel is also preventative: we advise our clients on effective ways to minimize the risk of litigation.

• American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Represented American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in its defense of a multidistrict litigation case out of Maryland. Additionally, we have represented American Honda in numerous consumer litigation cases.
• Automobile finance company. Represented an automobile finance company in a putative nationwide class action alleging claims of consumer fraud, common law fraud and unjust enrichment relating to the alleged non‐disclosure of “total loss” claims paid on vehicles that were repossessed and resold. On appeal, we obtained affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice by advocating the inclusion of knowledge as an element to each of the plaintiffs’ proposed claims, and demonstrating the plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy their pleading obligations with respect to the element of knowledge.
• Automobile manufacturer. Won defense verdict for an automobile manufacturer in a four-week jury trial in a Chicago federal court against alleged design defects when two men died and one suffered severe brain damage and paralysis after a rollover accident. The plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $23 million. The National Law Journal named this case as one of the top 15 defense verdicts of 1999.
• Automobile manufacturers. Represented automobile manufacturers in multiple product liability trials involving claims pertaining to SUV rollover, ignition switch fires, and static electricity explosion.
• Automobile manufacturer. Won defense verdict as first chair in jury trial in Illinois state court in Cook County on behalf of an automobile manufacturer against allegations that its defective vehicle steering system caused a high-speed crash, seriously injuring the driver and her two children.
• Automobile manufacturer. Represented an automobile manufacturer as co-lead trial counsel in five-week jury trial in Wisconsin state court. The plaintiff, an insurance executive, lost control of his car, resulting in a rollover accident that rendered him a quadriplegic. The plaintiff claimed that his paralyzing injuries were caused by a defectively designed roof structure that collapsed during the rollover and by the seatbelt system that allegedly inadequately restrained him during the accident. At trial, the plaintiff asked for more than $11 million in compensatory damages and also argued for punitive damages. The case resulted in a defense verdict.
• Automotive Parts and Products Clients. Achieved precedential decisions for Defendants in Robinson-Patman Act Cases.  We successfully defended perhaps the two most expansive price discrimination cases in history (in the automotive parts and products sector), involving more than 150 plaintiffs in each case and literally thousands of products – causing plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss our client before trial in one case and obtaining a court-ordered dismissal in the other. We also were the lead counsel in obtaining a District Court ruling that class actions cannot proceed under the Robinson-Patman Act, including for injunctive relief (an issue of first impression).
• Avis Rent A Car System and Budget Rent A Car System. Represented Avis Rent A Car System and Budget Rent A Car System in two nationwide putative class actions alleging imposition of hidden surcharges for rewards programs offered in connection with rental car Contracts.
• Ford Motor Company. Acted as lead counsel for dozens of cases for Ford Motor Company for breach of warranties regarding transmissions and diesel engines. These are highly contested, expert-intensive cases that have been litigated for years. This work has included multiple month-long jury trials this year in California state courts. The GT team is gearing up for as many as two dozen such jury trials in the next year all over the state of California. GT was asked to and has stepped into this ongoing litigation and is serving as lead trial counsel in many of the California trials. GT is taking a lead and significant role in overall strategy, trial strategy, and development of overarching defenses in a series of significant cases and trials.
• Fuccillo Automotive Group, Inc. Representation of client in the defense of a putative class action brought against automobile dealerships for alleged violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and N.Y. General Business Law § 349.
• General Motors and Suzuki Motor Corporation. Represented General Motors and Suzuki Motor Corporation in a products liability action pending in Palm Beach County.
• Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, LTD Served as lead counsel to Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, LTD in defense of an alleged catastrophic tire defect case pending in Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit; GT has been selected to represent Goodyear in all such cases in North Florida courts.
• HDR Engineering, Inc. Secured a defense verdict for HDR Engineering, Inc. after an almost four-week trial in Monroe County (FL) Circuit Court. Our client was one of five defendants sued in connection with a 2010 accident that resulted in injuries to a motorcyclist who hit a concrete valve cover associated with a water transmission main in the median of the Overseas Highway in Key Largo, Florida. Approximately 30 witnesses were called during the trial including both fact and experts related to the medical, engineering and construction issues in the case. The jury returned a complete defense verdict for all defendants after a demand at trial of approximately $14.5 million.
• Japanese automobile manufacturer. Represented a Japanese automobile manufacturer in a California‐related warranty/Lemon Law matter. In this situation, we assigned a team of associates coupled with a paralegal set up to handle most of the work to keep the costs down for our client. Instruction and oversight was handled by a shareholder, and experienced negotiators stepped in at key moments to minimize exposure.
• Korean automobile manufacturer. Representation of a Korean automobile manufacturer as coordinating discovery counsel in connection with products liability cases alleging improper design of gas tank and fuel system causing fire. The cases are currently pending in Texas and California. Greenberg Traurig’s role has been to coordinate the preservation, collection and review of materials in connection with these cases to ensure that the responses are consistent across all of the defense firms.
• Lessor. Represented lessor in class action brought by automobile lessees challenging the disclosure and reasonableness of early termination charges in automobile lease under the federal Consumer Leasing Act. Won dismissal of disclosure claims and summary judgment on counterclaim against the class representative.
• National automotive company. Represented a national automotive company in a putative nationwide collective action filed in the Middle District of Florida under the FLSA seeking overtime compensation allegedly due and owing as a result of employer’s alleged misclassification of Service Managers as exempt employees.
• Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Represented Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. against a complaint alleging violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 based upon allegations including: misrepresentations and omissions in several of the Company’s proxy statements; breach of their fiduciary duty; waste of corporate assets; and, unjust enrichment. The Complaint seeks monetary damages, improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, an accounting from Defendants of the damages allegedly caused by them and the improper amounts the Defendants allegedly obtained, and punitive damages. The parties are currently engaged in mediation. Obtained favorable settlement for client on eve of trial after summary judgment arguments.
• SGS Automotive. Represented SGS Automotive, an automotive testing company, and led the trial team in a three‐week trial that resulted in a defense verdict dismissing $150 million consumer class action by 3.5 million car owners who had alleged company failed to test seat belts properly.
• Specialty Tractor (mule) Manufacturer Represented a specialty tractor (mule) manufacturer as co-lead trial counsel in a catastrophic injury products liability action brought in Miami state court by a longshoreman who suffered blindness, brain damage and other injuries. Plaintiffs alleged design defects. The case settled four days into the jury trial.
• Tier 4 supplier. Represented Tier 4 supplier in litigation filed by Tier 3 supplier seeking reimbursement for costs of automotive recall based on allegations of defect. Assisted client in investigation of defect claims, defense of litigation and negotiation of resolution to claims.
• Tier 3 supplier. Represented Tier 3 supplier in investigation of allegations of defect and coordination with other Tier suppliers and OEM to determine necessity for regulatory reporting and/or recall, as well as resolution of claims.