Practice Areas > Consumer Rights
Korein Tillery's experience and resources level the playing field for consumers cheated through improper business practices. Consumers often feel they lack the ability to challenge unfair business practices and governmental agencies have only limited resources to combat the worst offenders. KT empowers consumers by bringing them together in class action lawsuits, making it possible to fight back, even when they are cheated only pennies at a time.
Representative Matters
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., No. 04-2819 (D.N.J. May 22, 2008). Co-lead Counsel: Steven A. Katz and Howard B. Becker. (Add'l counsel: Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo; Law Office of John Maher; Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla; Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.; Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason, & Gette LLP; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP; Stamell & Schager, LLP; Meredith, Cohen, Greenfogel, & Skirnick, P.C.; and Sommer Barnard Attorneys, P.C.). Beginning in 2004, several actions were filed against De Beers and its related companies alleging violations of federal antitrust law and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws on behalf of purchasers of polished diamonds. Following its strategy of denying that U.S. Courts could maintain jurisdiction over it, De Beers refused to appear in any of these cases and defaults were entered against each of the defendants.
The entry of default, however, did not mean that plaintiffs litigated with no opposition. Instead, counsel faced substantial opposition from intervenors and amici. Furthermore, the entry of default did not eliminate the risk to the plaintiffs that De Beers could prevail on liability or damages. Because De Beers defaulted, plaintiffs could not obtain formal discovery from De Beers and thus Plaintiffs were denied access to the means in which to prove anti-competitive conduct, damages and causation. In addition, as the defendants are incorporated in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Luxembourg and Switzerland, enormous difficulties were believed to exist in seeking enforcement of a U.S. class action default judgment.
On July 22, 2005, Korein Tillery became the first firm to obtain certification of a nationwide class of diamond purchasers in Null v. D.B. Investments, Inc., No. 05-L-209 (Ill.Cir.Ct. July 22, 2005). On May 22, 2008, in a consolidated proceeding in which Korein Tillery served as co-lead counsel, the district court approved a nationwide settlement that created a fund of $323 million to compensate diamond purchasers and provided additional injunctive relief to the class. While this settlement is the culmination of numerous related lawsuits, Korein Tillery attorney Steven A. Katz was instrumental in the settlement discussions that began shortly after the entry of the Null certification order. Korein Tillery's success in this matter was featured by the National Law Journal in The Plaintiffs' Hot List, 31 Nat'l L.J. S6 (November 6, 2008).
Wagner v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., No. 02-L-690 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Apr. 23, 2008). Lead Counsel: Christine J. Moody. Plaintiffs alleged that Lowe's acted in violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act through its failure to provide its customers with a pamphlet entitled "Home Repair: Know Your Consumer Rights" as required by the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act. In April 2008, after extensive discovery and pre-trial litigation, the Illinois Circuit Court finally approved a class-wide settlement providing monetary damages for Lowe's alleged failure to make disclosures required by Illinois' consumer protection law.
Rogers v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 01-LM-1006 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 2007). Lead Counsel John W. Hoffman. (Add'l counsel: Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms, P.C.; J. Dudley Butler, P.A.; Whatley Drake, L.L.C.; Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, P.S.C.). In 2001, Korein Tillery filed suit against Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest poultry producer in the world, alleging it artificially inflated the weight of chicken sold to consumers through the infusion of water during processing. The suit involved a complex interplay between federal regulations and state consumer protection laws concerning issues of federal preemption. The Plaintiffs, represented by Mr. Hoffman, won an important victory in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the propriety of pursuing these claims in state court. Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 308 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2002). In August 2007, after years of contentious litigation, the trial court certified a plaintiffs' class of Illinois consumers. This is believed to be the first such case and class certification of this type in the nation.
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Prac. Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008); Rushing v. Alon USA, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-7621 MHP (N.D. Cal.); Galauski v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 06-6005 GEB (D.N.J.); Telles v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. C 07-1305 SC (N.D. Cal.); Becker v. Marathon Petroleum, No. 07-136 (D. Del.). Co-Lead Counsel: George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery (Add'l Co-Lead Counsel: Robert Horn, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, and Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese. Add'l Co-Counsel: Kellogg Huber; Susman Godfrey; Carlson, Calladine Peterson; Richardson Patrick; Simmons Cooper). The Motor Fuel multidistrict litigation aggregates 50 federal class actions brought on behalf of consumers in 29 states and territories to remedy the unlawful, industry-wide sales practice engaged in by motor fuel retailers in failing to disclose and compensate for thermal expansion of motor fuel in retail sales to consumers. As a result of retailers' failure to sell standardized, temperature-compensated gallons, the amount of fuel received by consumers in every gallon varies according to the temperature of the fuel. When consumers buy motor fuel that has a temperature in excess of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, they: (1) receive less fuel in every gallon than is contained in the industry-standard U.S. Petroleum Gallon; and (2) pay retailers more in fuel excise taxes that retailers are required to remit to taxing authorities. Plaintiffs estimate that this practice costs U.S. consumers in excess of three billion dollars every year.
After carefully researching the causes of action in virtually every state over a six-month period, Korein Tillery and its co-counsel filed the first Motor Fuel Temperature lawsuit in this country in the Northern District of California on December 13, 2006, asserting causes of action against 15 separate defendants under the consumer protection statutes of 10 states and the District of Columbia. Rushing v. Alon USA, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-7621 MHP (N.D. Cal.). The following day, Korein Tillery and its co-counsel filed an action in the District of New Jersey against additional defendants. Galauski v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 06-6005 GEB (D.N.J. filed Dec. 14, 2006; amended Mar. 2, 2007). Thereafter, numerous other federal class actions were filed throughout the United States.
On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the federal class actions to the District of Kansas, the Honorable Kathryn J. Vratil, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The district court appointed George Zelcs of Korein Tillery as one of three co-lead counsel in the MDL. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 1840, Case No. 07-md-1840-KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 12, 2007).
In their consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs pursue breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims in addition to claims under the consumer protection laws of 29 states and territories. On October 22, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss each of Plaintiffs' claims on numerous grounds, arguing, inter alia, that: (1) Defendants' sales practices were consistent with the manner in which motor fuel has been sold in the U. S. since the advent of the automobile; and (2) the regulatory framework of each state precluded Defendants from compensating for temperature variances in the retail sale of motor fuel. On February 21, 2008, the Court issued its 42-page Memorandum and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all counts. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008).
Sparks v. AT&T Corporation and Lucent Technologies, Inc., No. 96-LM-983 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Aug. 9, 2002). Korein Tillery filed this nationwide class action against AT&T and Lucent Technologies in 1996 to remedy their practice of leasing telephone sets to residential consumers. In 1984, AT&T began independently charging leasing fees to residential customers for the telephone sets that customers received when they first obtained telephone service. AT&T continued to charge residential customers the monthly lease charges by sending a quarterly bill for "leased equipment" without identifying the fact that the leased equipment was a telephone set, the quantity of sets supposedly being leased, or the style of the sets. Many customers continued to pay the bill over the intervening 15 years believing that AT&T was charging for access to long-distance telephone service. In 2001, the trial court certified a class of more than 20 million people making the action one of the largest class actions ever certified. In litigation spanning seven years, including numerous appeals, Korein Tillery attorneys deposed more than 150 corporate designees and fact witnesses and reviewed and catalogued more than 3.2 million pages of documents. The parties reached a settlement on the eve of trial in which the defendants agreed to pay up to $300 million in cash to the class members with another $50 million distributed to charities.
Parker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04-L-716 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Jan. 16, 2007). Korein Tillery brought this action against Sears in 2004 to remedy Sears' failure to install anti-tip safety devices, which prevent ranges from tipping over and severely burning or injuring unsuspecting consumers, on ranges that it sold, delivered, and set-up in customers' homes. In the 1960's and 1970's, kitchen range manufacturers started reducing the weight of metal in an effort to competitively lower the price of kitchen ranges. Over the course of several years, advances in materials allowed manufacturers to produce ranges which were durable and which were extremely light weight. However, because the oven doors on the front of the ranges serve as a lever and fulcrum, the light weight of the new ranges created an extremely dangerous tipping hazard. For example, if a person were to place a turkey roaster on an open and horizontal oven door, the added weight would cause these newly designed ranges to tip forward spilling the hot contents onto anyone standing in the vicinity. Children who opened and used the range door as a step could unwillingly tip boiling liquids onto themselves. Over the last several years, dozens of people have been killed and hundreds have been maimed as a result of this problem.
Recognizing the need for a solution to this dangerous hazard, manufacturers and regulators began requiring installing of an anti-tip bracket that could be attached to the wall or floor at the back end of the range preventing any forward tipping and maintaining complete stability. The installation is simple and the lightweight bracket costs pennies. The rule making bodies of most codes (BOCA Code, National Electrical Code; numerous other industry codes) thereafter required the installation of anti-tip brackets in all range installations in the United States. Even Sears acknowledged that a properly installed anti-tip bracket completely eliminates the hazards of tipping stoves.
Sears, Roebuck & Company has been the largest retail seller of kitchen ranges in the United States - averaging more than 800,000 ranges sold every year. When selling a gas or electric range Sears generally includes delivery, installation and hookup in customers' homes, thus, Sears became the largest installer of kitchen ranges in the United States. To increase its profits, Sears adopted a policy of refusing to install anti-tip brackets during normal installation unless the customer agreed to incur a substantial cost. At the same time, Sears failed to disclose the hazards associated with forgoing anti-tip bracket installation.
In January 2008 the Court granted final approval of a settlement which provided complete relief to the class by requiring Sears to install anti-tip brackets for the affected members of the class as well as requiring the installation of such brackets in the future. The settlement is valued at more than $544,500,000.
This settlement was touted by the public interest organization Public Citizen as an example as to how consumer class actions benefit society. Public Citizen nominated Stephen Tillery as Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Trial Lawyer of the Year based upon his role in this case.
Folkerts, et al. v. Illinois Bell, et al., No. 95-L-912 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Jan. 7, 1998). Korein Tillery brought this action, on behalf of Ameritech's Illinois customers, to remedy Ameritech's practice of adding inside-wire maintenance charges to the bills of customers who had not requested such a service. A team of Korein Tillery attorneys took dozens of depositions and reviewed millions of documents pursuing the case. After three years of litigation the case settled for $175,000,000.
Joiner v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., No. 96-L-121 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Aug. 8, 2000). Korein Tillery attorneys were appointed Class Counsel in this consumer fraud and breach of contract case against Ameritech Mobile brought as a result of its practice of charging customers for one full minute of airtime for each portion of a minute used. In December 2000, Korein Tillery negotiated the largest settlement of any cellular phone "round-up" case in the nation. Korein Tillery was involved in and settled similar litigation against Southwestern Bell Mobile in 1998.
Wheeler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 99-L-529 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Apr. 17, 2003). Korein Tillery represented a Plaintiff class alleging that Sears, Roebuck & Co. offered for sale a 5-step wheel balancing service, known as "AccuBalance," advertised as a premium wheel balancing service over-and-above Sears' regular wheel balancing. The service typically cost $12.50 per tire but Plaintiff alleged that Sears' employees routinely failed to perform the "tire-matching" portion of this service, despite payment for same by consumers. John Hoffman assumed primary responsibility for this litigation and was instrumental in reaching a $10 million settlement on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased the AccuBalance tire balancing service between 1989 and 1994.
If you would like to contact an attorney regarding this area of law, please email your request to: contact@koreintillery.com