Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc.
$2.5 million dollar class action settlement for action filed against luxury clothier who printed expiration dates on point-of-sale receipts allegedly in violation of the Fair and […]
Flaum v. Doctors’ Associates, Inc.
FACTA class action settlement resulting in $30,900,000 common fund to class members who received receipt bearing the expiration date of their credit or debit card.
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
A proposed class of consumers suing Godiva Chocolatier Inc. for allegedly publishing more than the last five digits of their credit card numbers in violation of federal […]
Confidential TCPA Settlement
Consumer individually settled claim for more than $150,000 dollars for allegedly receiving auto-dialed calls on their cellular telephone.
Confidential TCPA Settlement
Consumer individually settled claim for more than $250,000 dollars for allegedly receiving auto-dialed calls on their cellular telephone.
Confidential TCPA Settlement
Consumer individually settled for more than $600,000 dollars for allegedly receiving auto-dialed calls on their cellular telephone.
Guarisma v ADCAHB Medical Coverages, Inc.
Nationwide TCPA Settlement resulting in $4,500,000 common fund to class members who received unsolicited autodialed calls to their cellular telephones.
Matute v. Main Street Acquisitions Corp.
Settlement was reached on behalf of a class 989 Florida consumers, providing for monetary payment along with more than $5 million in debt relief.
Legg v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
Nationwide FACTA class action settlement resulting in $12,000,000 common fund to class members who received receipt bearing the expiration date of their credit or debit card.
Legg v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 0:14-cv-61978-JIC (S.D. Fla.)
Adversely certified FACTA class action resulting in $7,500,000 common fund to class members who received receipt bearing more than the last five (5) numbers of their […]
DeLos Santos v Millward Brown, Inc., 9:13-cv-80670-KAM (S.D. Fla.)
TCPA class action settlement resulting in $11,000,000 common fund to class members alleging receipt of impermissible auto-dialed calls.
Benzion v Vivint, Inc., No. 0:12-cv-61826-WJZ (S.D. Fla.)
TCPA class action settlement resulting in $6,000,000 common fund to class members who received impermissible telemarketing calls from third-party lead generator
Cooper v. Nelnet, Inc., No. 6: 14-cv-314-Orl-37DAB (M.D. Fla. 2015)
TCPA class action settlement resulting in $4,500,000 common fund to class members alleging receipt of impermissible auto-dialed calls from student loan debt collector.
Walker v Greenspoon Marder, No. 2:13-cv-14487-KAM (S.D. Fla.)
Adversely certified FDCPA class action producing a settlement in an amount approximately 5-times greater than amount provided for by statute.
Barr v. IDS, No. 13-cv-61981 (S.D.Fla.)
Statewide class action producing $450,000 settlement fund. TCPA claims brought on behalf of class of 854 Florida dentists to whom Defendant, a dental supply company, allegedly […]
Keim v. ADF Midatlantic, LLC, No. 13-13619 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014)
Court held that a proposed class action was not rendered moot by an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the […]
Barr v. The Harvard Drug Group, LLC, No. 13-cv-62019 (S.D.Fla.)
Statewide TCPA junk fax class action producing $415,500 settlement fund. TCPA claims brought on behalf of class of 354 dentists to whom Defendant, allegedly sent fax […]
Soto v. Gallup Organization, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-61747 (S.D. Fla.)
Nationwide TCPA class action which produced a $12 million common fund settlement for class of 6.9 million consumers who allegedly received auto-dialed survey calls to their […]
Collins v. Erin Capital Management, LLC, No. 12-22839-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton (S.D. Fla. 2013)
Adversely certified class action awarding class of Florida consumers approximately $385 each, arising from Defendant’s alleged FDCPA violation.
Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
Granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the “called party” for the purposes of § 227(b)(1)(A) is actual recipient of the call.