CPM's Consumer Protection Class Actions Fight for the Public: Top National Trial Lawyers for the Underdog

Overview

CPM is one of the most experienced law firms in the country in representing consumers in class action lawsuits against businesses and corporations. Class actions are lawsuits in which an individual, or a group of individuals, sues a business on behalf of all individuals who have similar claims against the business. By allowing numerous claims to be brought in one lawsuit, class actions provide redress for harms that might be too small to address through individual lawsuits. The firm typically represents consumers in class actions against corporations that have engaged in fraud, or produced defective and dangerous products.

CPM acted as co-lead national class counsel in predatory lending actions against some of the largest mortgage lenders across the country. In addition, CPM has ongoing cases and investigations, launched by individuals contacting the firm, into predatory lending and credit card practices, unfair debt collection practices, misleading advertising and labeling, and many other practices designed to fleece consumers of their hard-earned money.

If you would like to discuss your potential or pending consumer protection class action case, please follow up with Niall McCarthy, Justin Berger, or Brian Danitz.

Noteworthy Cases

In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation

Co-lead counsel for putative class of iPhone6, SE and 7 owners involving computer intrusion and trespass claims related to the alleged throttling of device performance. On May 15, 2020, the District Court preliminarily approved a potential $500 million class settlement in this multidistrict litigation.

PACE Litigation

CPM has teamed up with the non-profit organization Housing and Economic Rights Advocates ("HERA") to bring this individual and class action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court alleging that certain solar finance and installation companies have targeted Latino homeowners in California with intent to defraud them into entering into a PACE Assessment Agreement to finance solar power upgrades to their home. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that homeowners are repeatedly hounded by robocallers in Spanish and told that a government program requires them to install solar panels. Then when the homeowner finally relents and receives the paperwork, it is all in English and includes an agreement for a priority tax lien to be put on their home and exorbitant and hidden fees and charges to finance the solar upgrade are included--all without the homeowners' knowledge or disclosure to the homeowner in Spanish. Defendants at this time are PACE Funding Group LLC, Green Pace Financial Inc., Complete Solar Inc., and Garantia Solar.

Chang v. Beam Financial Inc.

USDC, Northern District of California

Counsel for putative class of users of Beam Financial’s mobile banking app in a consumer action against the Fin-Tech company. As alleged, Beam represented that it was a secure banking app and specifically promised users high interest rates, no lockup and “24/7 access" to their accounts; contrary to these promises, members have been unable to withdraw their money and have not received the promised interest. The case is currently pending in the Northern District of California.

Kofman v. Alexy (“Alex”) Pitt, Lucrazon, Netvence et al.

San Mateo Superior Court

On February 14, 2017, CPM obtained a $1,295,579 dollar judgment on behalf of an elderly Bay Area resident who was the victim of financial elder abuse. As detailed in the Complaint, Mr. Kofman lost every penny of his carefully saved retirement funds—in total over $1 million—in a merciless scam. Over the past fifteen years, Defendant Alexy Pitt has left in his wake a series of failed business ventures which have harmed employees and investors alike. As alleged in the Complaint, while running an MLM – pyramid scheme scam, Pitt and Lucrazon used Mr. Kofman as a personal piggy bank, going so far as to fly the elderly Kofman down to Irvine when they needed more money. In response to Mr. Kofman’s pleas for repayment, Mr. Pitt told Mr. Kofman "Donald Trump says you need to withstand pressure to be successful in business." Mr. Kofman pursued the case not just in the hopes of recovering some portion of his retirement funds but also with the hope of protecting others who could fall prey to Mr. Pitt.

Hanson v. Pro Solutions

USDC, Northern District of California

CPM represents a homeowner who was pursued by a debt collector, Pro Solutions, for unpaid Homeowners Association (HOA) dues. The complaint alleges that Pro Solutions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other law by attempting to collect fees and charges that were greater than those allowed by law, and engaged in other illegal debt collection activity.

HL Leasing Ponzi Scheme

Fresno County Superior Court

PM obtained a jury verdict for $46.5 million against the top two senior officers of HL Leasing, Inc. for their involvement in a Ponzi scheme. The jury verdict came three days after the court had entered a directed verdict for $114 million against HL Leasing, Inc., Heritage Pacific Leasing and Air Fred, LLC for a Ponzi scheme in which over 1200 victims lost approximately $137 million. (Jury Verdict 2011)

Pardini v. Unilever United States, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California

CPM and another firm represent consumers in a class action against corporate giant Unilever. One of Unilever’s many products, “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” falsely advertises that it offers a healthy alternative to butter, as a purportedly fat-free and calorie-free spray. Innocent consumers, many of whom have been given directives from their physicians to avoid fatty and high calorie foods, have relied upon I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter’s promises, when in fact, the product contained 1295 calories and 137 grams of fat per 12-ounce bottle. Yet, to rake in profits, Unilever included statements on the nutrition panel claiming, “Calories 0” and “Total Fat 0g per serving.” Similarly, the front label stated “0 Calories per serving” and “0g fat per serving.” These misrepresentations misled and deceived all purchasers during the class period, who paid a hefty premium for false promises and put their health at risk. The suit alleges Unilever violated California and Missouri consumer protection statutes by making nutrient content claims that misled reasonable consumers to believe the heavy premium was worth the benefits.

Credit Counseling Industry Suit names Chase, Money Management International and Others

USDC Central District of California

CPM filed a consumer fraud case against JP Morgan Chase & Co., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, Money Management International (also known as Consumer Credit Counseling Service) and Money Management By Mail, Inc. for fraudulent “debt counseling” and debt collections in the subprime credit industry. The cases settled for $11.4 million.

Anastasiya Komarova v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.; National Credit Acceptance, Inc.

San Francisco Superior Court

In a rare jury trial against a credit card collection agency, a San Francisco jury ruled in favor of a young woman who was the victim of an abusive campaign to force her to repay a debt she never incurred. Anne Marie Murphy and Justin T. Berger represented Anastasiya Komarova, who was awarded $600,000 from National Credit Acceptance, Inc. in 2008. Komarova had been subjected to nearly a year of hostile telephone calls to her workplace and a spurious arbitration proceeding, all over a bogus credit card debt and despite the fact that she repeatedly told the agency she never had an account with the credit card company in question. In issuing its verdict, the San Francisco Superior Court jury described National Credit Acceptance's conduct as "outrageous." The verdict is believed to be one of the largest verdicts in the country by a sole plaintiff alleging credit abuse.

Northern Trust Bank of California

Los Angeles County Superior Court

CPM filed a class action on behalf of beneficiaries of fixed-fee trusts charged excess trustee fees over a 20-year period. The case returned tens of millions of dollars to consumers.