Practice Areas & Industries: Keker & Van Nest LLP

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Keker & Van Nest frequently defends large corporate clients in consumer and class action litigation. We have found that the best approach in these cases is a proactive one. As early as possible in a case, we develop a strategy that we believe is calculated to achieve the best possible result for our client. We have found that judges are responsive to our taking the initiative and proposing a plan for how the case should proceed. This often results in a favorable outcome. Representative matters the firm has handled are described below.

• We successfully obtained dismissal of a class action and unfair advertising consumer action against a major cellular telephone service provider. Plaintiffs alleged false advertising violations and breaches of various California consumer statutes with regard to our client's services for disabled and hearing-impaired customers. After only one opportunity to amend their pleadings, and without any discovery being conducted, we obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims.

• We currently represent a major cellular telephone service provider and its sister partnerships in an unfair-business-practices action against cellular providers in California alleging various unlawful practices regarding "rounding-up;" "lag-time" billing and send-to-end billing practices. We are working in concert with a joint group of defendants to coordinate our procedural defenses and defer discovery.

• We recently represented a major title and escrow holding company in a series of actions in San Francisco alleging a wide range of misconduct including violations of the California unfair-business-practices statutes. We defended the company on all fronts, including a False Claims Act lawsuit, an investigation by the California Department of Insurance, and a criminal investigation.

• We served as lead counsel for an automobile manufacturer in a class action multi-district litigation involving nationwide RICO allegations brought by over one thousand of its dealers. We were successful in limiting the Company's liability at the trial court level. We successfully prevented the certification of a unitary class for damages and settled the consolidated multi-district litigation.

• We settled on favorable terms a consumer action against various computer manufacturers alleging false advertising violations and breaches of various California consumer statutes in the advertising of computers with pre-installed software. We represented one computer manufacturer in this consumer class action involving multiple layers of retailers, manufacturers, and software vendors. We were successful in preventing our client from being named as a defendant in either the class complaint or in the settlement agreement.

• We defended a light bulb manufacturer in a case involving claims of false advertising and unfair business practices. With minimal attorneys' fees, we obtained a settlement consisting solely of consumer coupons. The settlement involved novel statutory and business issues regarding the advertising of environmentally friendly products.

• We represented a software company as a plaintiff in a Lanham Act suit alleging false advertising by a competitor about our client's products' capabilities. We quickly obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to remove certain false advertisements.

• We represent various entities from a major California health plan in a suit brought by health plan members and consumer activists alleging false advertising. With co-defendants, we successfully defeated class certification and also largely eliminated any monetary recovery.

• We are defending a major motor-vehicle manufacturer in a series of class-action lawsuits in both state and federal courts. The litigation has received national attention and includes over 25 separate nationwide class actions in federal court, which cases have been coordinated by the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; nearly 40 cases in California state courts, which have also been coordinated; and 11 cases in the trial courts of eight other states.