Skip to Content

Class actions require a specialized set of skills. Jones Bell’s lawyers have honed the required skills over decades, successfully defending and prosecuting class actions of all kinds—unfair competition, false advertising, employment, business torts, etc. Jones Bell’s class action experience includes Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (Benson), 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) and Colgan v. Leatherman, 135 Cal. App. 4th 663 (2006), two of the leading cases with respect to California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”), Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and “Made in USA” law.

Unlike most other class action lawyers, Jones Bell’s lawyers have actually defended and prosecuted cases through trial. For example: Jones Bell defended Kwikset Corporation in Kwikset and The Leatherman Tool Group in Colgan through trial; and Jones Bell prosecuted through trial a fraud and breach of contract class action on behalf of more than 150 senior citizen citizens, obtaining for them monetary relief and specific performance with a value of $12 million. In both prosecuting and defending class actions, Jones Bell is tenacious and persistent. On the nearly five-years-long road to delivering $12 million in relief to the 150 plus seniors, Jones Bell overcame an interim ruling denying class certification—Marler v. E.M. Johansing, LLC, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1450 (2011)—and it litigated for nearly a year after the entry of judgment to force the defendants to comply with the judgment.

Jones Bell’s other class actions and representative actions include: Bernstein v. Suncrest Solar, Inc., O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2016-00879806 (employment); Sanchez v. Pierre Landscape, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC613747 (employment); Dall v. Post Alarm Systems, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC598528(employment); Semprini v. Wedbush Securities Inc., O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2015-00776114 (employment); Holzer v. Wedbush Securities Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC550462 (employment); Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC541146 (unfair competition and false advertising); Etman v. The Gap, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC547161 (unfair competition and false advertising); Fitzwilliam v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 435311 (unfair competition); Coleman v. Platinum Group of Companies, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 521783 (employment); Loftus v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 403691 (employment); Sankey v. Aeropostale West, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC457468 (employment); Lee v. A.T. & T. Wireless, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 326118 (unfair competition and false advertising); Boyd v. A.T. & T. Wireless, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC374057 (unlawful tax levied up on a service); Pyne v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC264636 (unfair competition); CAD/CAM Publishing, Inc. v. Archer, S.D.S.C. Case No. GIC 756904 (securities); Anderson v. Tropicana Products, Inc., U.S.D.C. Case No. SA CV99-352 GLT (EEx) (mass action price discrimination case involving sale of juice beverages); Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 83-4742-AWT (represented SIPC in multiple class actions, handled post liquidation disputes by creditors, as well as fraud litigation against parties that forced broker into liquidation); and Anderson v. Selectivend, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC267262 (finance lender laws and misrepresentation of interest rates).