WIXLIB

MICHAEL K. GRIMALDI’S REPRESENTATIVE CASE CHARTUPDATED JULY 2019TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGEConsumer Fraud Class Actions . 2-4Food Labeling. 5-7Automotive Class Actions.7-17Data Breach Class Actions.17-18Disclosure of Confidential Medical Information Class Actions. 19Privacy Class Actions. 19Call Recording Cases. 19Biometric Privacy. 19Professional Services Class Actions. 20Securities Class Actions. 20Insurance Litigation Class Actions.20-21Skilled Nursing Case Class Actions. 21Employment Litigation Class Actions.21-22Consumer-Protection Class Actions.22-23ADA Class Actions. 23Construction Defect / Construction-Related Class Actions. 24Product Liability.24-25Real Estate Fraud / Litigation.25-26Personal Injury. 26Warranty Litigation. 26L e w i s B ri s bo is .c o m1

Consumer Fraud Class ActionsCase NameCourtDescriptionResultSalameh et al. v. 5th& K Parcel 2 OwnersAssociation et al (HardRock Hotel San Diego)San Diego SuperiorCourt case number37-2010-00094424-CUOR-CTLConsumer fraud - fraud, breach offiduciary duty, Unfair Competition Law(Cal. B&P Code 17200 et seq. – “UCL”),alleged overcharging of unit owners feesat Hard Rock Hotel San Diego.Our motion for judgment grantedand claims ordered dismissed3/28/14. Affirmed on appeal.Mann et al. vMcMillan-NTC 129,LLC et al.San Diego SuperiorCourt case number37-2009-00101911-CUFR-CTLConsumer fraud- fraud, negligentmisrepresentation, UCL, FalseAdvertising Law (Cal. B&P Code 17500 etseq. – “FAL”) arising from sale of homesin Liberty Station San Diego with the“Rock Church” in the neighborhood.Judgment entered 5/9/13 in favorof all defendants at trial after ourmotion for decertification wasgranted and plaintiffs’ counselcommenced filing additionalindividual actions, which were allabandoned and dismissed followingour win at trial in the lead case.Supported trial counsel. Draftedmotion in limine to preclude expertevidence and opposition to motionto bifurcate, drafted analysis on UCLdamages issue, and helped draftclosing argument.Burns v. WD-40CompanyOrange CountySuperior Court casenumber 30-201000382503Mona Vie Acai berrylitigationU.S.D.C. Central District Consumer fraud - CLRA, UCL, FAL,of Cal. case no. EDCV12- Magnuson-Moss Act, breach of warranty1983 TJH (OPx)arising from sale of Acai berry productsHarbut, Parker vMona Vie, Inc. et al2L ew i sBri sboi s.co mPlaintiff sued defendant WD-40 Companybecause their household cleaning products,2000 Flushes and 2000 Flushes Blue PlusBleach (2000 Flushes Blue), allegedlyharmed her plumbing. The putative classaction sought relief under both statutoryand common law causes of action andfor injunctive relief. WD-40 filed a motionto dismiss her claim under the ConsumerLegal Remedies Act (CLRA) and forsummary judgment on the remainingcounts (UCL, breach of warranty and unjustenrichment), arguing, among other things,a lack of evidence as to causation withrespect to the falsity of the advertising.Trial court granted our motion forsummary judgment, and affirmed onappeal because WD-40 successfullyshifted and plaintiff failed to raisea triable issue of material fact inrebuttal. See Burns v. Wd-40 Co.,No. G047027, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub.LEXIS 4054, at *1-2 (June 10, 2013)Pending. Plaintiff’s two motions forclass certification have both beendenied.

Consumer Fraud Class ActionsCase NamePontrelli v Mona Vie,Inc. et alCourtDescriptionResultU.S.D.C. – D. NewConsumer fraud- New Jersey consumerJersey case no. 2:13-cv- protection claims, unjust enrichment arising04649-WJM-MFfrom sale of Acai berry products.Gonzalez v Mona Vie, San BernardinoConsumer fraud- UCL, FAL, CLRA,Inc. et alSuperior Court case no. unjust enrichment arising from sale ofCIVDS1309111Acai berry products.Case dismissed.In Re SkechersToning ShoesProducts LiabilityLitigationConsumer fraud- statutory and commonlaw claims arising from sale of Skechers’Shape-ups toning shoes.Final Order and Judgment ApprovingClass Action Settlement entered5/13/13.Nuns, et al vDistrict Court, ClarkAffinitylifestyles.com, County, Nevada, caseInc. dba Real Waterno. A-16-74109-CConsumer fraud – plaintiffs allege violationof Nevada Deceptive Trade PracticesAct (NRS 41.600 and NRS Chapter 598),breach of express warranty, breach ofimplied warranty of merchantability andunjust enrichment.Pending.Wilhelm vInternational CareerDevelopment Center(ICDC College)Consumer fraud- statutory and commonlaw claims arising from marketing ofeducation programs with for-profit college.Motion to compel a two-party (nonclass action) arbitration granted 5/8/13.Drafted motion to compel individualarbitration and supplemental briefingthat court granted.Drafted Reply to Plaintiff’s Responseto the Order to Show Cause onappeal re why there is no jurisdictionon a granted arbitration order.Appellate court denied jurisdiction.An individual arbitration commenced.Plaintiff claimed the long-time supplier ofKosher food falsely marketed its meats asbeing kosher, committing fraud, violationof the Unfair Competition Law, breachof contract, battery and intentional andnegligent infliction of emotional distress.Video recorded by private investigatorsthat aired on TV showed the meat beingtransported without the rabbinical requiredsupervision of a s/doheny-glatt-kosher-meat-market-suedagainSecured dismissal of a rabbinicalcouncil from a class action basedon a demurrer raising novel FirstAmendment and freedom of religionarguments. Plaintiff voluntarilyagreed to dismiss the RabbinicalCouncil of California we representedon 12/24/14.Multiple class actionsand other actionsconsolidation in a MDLbefore U.S.D.C. – W.D.of Kentucky, MDL No.2308Los Angeles SuperiorCourt case no.BC481389Ghadosh v. DohenyLos Angeles SuperiorWholesale Meats,Court case no.Inc., Doheny Kosher BC504692Meat Inc., MichaelEngelman, RabbinicalCouncil of CaliforniaL e w i s B ri s bo is .c o m3

Consumer Fraud Class ActionsCase NameCourtDescriptionResultLSI manufactures and sells aftermarketaccessories such as doors for UtilityTask Vehicles (“UTV”) under the brandname “Pro Armor.” Plaintiff purchaseda UTV already equipped with Pro Armordoors. Plaintiff claim she was deceivedbecause a handful of Pro Armor doorads in multiproduct advertisements,published sporadically in off-roadmagazines over a four-year period, usedone-word superlatives and sales talk suchas “safety,” “protection,” “strength,”and “durability” to describe UTV doorsthat plaintiff claims do not provide suchbenefits. Relying on her subjectiveinterpretation of what “safety” and“protection” mean, plaintiff alleges thatall Pro Armor door purchasers nationwidewere deceived. Plaintiff seeks redressunder California’s Consumers LegalRemedies Act (“CLRA”) (Cal. Civ. Code§ 1750, et seq.); Unfair Competition Law(“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 etseq.); and False Advertising Law (“FAL”)(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500).Drafted demurrer that was initiallygranted but then eventually overruled.The case settled in the early stagesafter mediation. Class actionsettlement approved 8/23/2017.Allison, Katrina v LSIProducts, dba ProArmorRiverside SuperiorCourt case no. RIC1405812John Kikano v. UberTechnologies, Inc.,et al.USDC, Central DistrictPlaintiff was an Uber driver that leased aCase No. 2:17-cv-00509 vehicle through Uber’s leasing program.GM (JEMx)Our client, BAMA Leasing leased thevehicle. Plaintiff claimed Uber misledOur Client: BAMAplaintiff by advertising there was no feesLeasing, Inc.for mileage limits when the lease said therewas fees. Plaintiff claimed false advertising,fraudulent inducement, UCL, RICO Breachof contract, rescission of contract, breachof the implied duty of good faith dealing,Violation of the Truth in Lending Act (15U.S.C. §1601), Violation of the ConsumerLending Act (15 U.S.C. §1667).4L ew i sBri sboi s.co mPlaintiff’s counsel voluntarilydismissed case before motion todismiss was filed after extensivenegotiations where we showedplaintiff had no case against theBAMA leasing entity and thatplaintiff sued wrong entity.

Food LabelingCase NameBirbrower v QuornCourtUSDC Central Districtof California 2:16-cv01346-DMGDescriptionQuorn Foods, Inc. sells healthy andenvironmentally-friendly vegan frozenmeals. Quorn’s product is uniquebecause its primary protein ingredient is“mycoprotein.” Quorn mycoprotein ismade from a variety of fungi on its productlabel. Plaintiff claims she was misled byQuorn’s packaging because she thoughtthe product contained or was made frommushrooms when in fact it was mold.Plaintiff asserts four nationwide classclaims for (1) violations of California’sConsumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (2)violations of California’s Unfair CompetitionLaw (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.; (3) violations of California’sFalse Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus.& Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; and (4)“fraud/fraudulent concealment.”ResultFinal class action settlementapproved on 09/11/2017.Drafted motion to dismiss onunique food litigation issues relatedto statements on food packaging.The case settled before motion todismiss was decided.Defended restaurant franchisor facing a “no MSG” fraud claim. Confidential settlement reached in 2015 without the need for filinga complaint.L e w i s B ri s bo is .c o m5

Food LabelingCase NameYamada, Jason v.Nobel BiocareIsler v. Int'l AutoLogistics, LLC.6CourtDescriptionResult9th Dist COA 14-55263Defended dental-implant manufacturer incomplaint by dentists alleging class claimsfor declaratory relief, implied indemnity,breach of express and warranty, and aviolation of California Unfair CompetitionLaw, California Business and ProfessionsCode §§ 17200, et seq. regarding boneand gum problems allegedly caused by itsdental implants.Won appeal on issue related toattorney’s fee award in classsettlement. Yamada v. Nobel BiocareHolding AG, 825 F.3d 536 (9th Cir.2016). A favorable settlement on classcounsel’s attorney’s fees ensued.Plaintiff alleged that he and other similarlysituated individuals were damagedwhen Da government contractor failedto deliver their personal vehicles toand from various international anddomestic locations in accordance withits obligations to do so under the termsof a government contract. The Complaintadvanced five causes of action: (1) breachof contract; (2) negligence; (3) conversion;(4) bailment; and (5) violation of Cal. Bus.& Prof. Code § 17200.Secured dismissal with prejudiceof a government contractor thatdelivers the personal vehicles ofUnited States military personnelto and from various domesticand international locations with amotion to dismiss raising a standingchallenge. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS189888 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2015).USDC Central 2:10-cv04849Central District ofCalifornia, No. LACV14-08599 JAK(PLAx),L ew i sBri sboi s.co mDrafted opposition to classcounsel’s motion for attorney’sfees and then successfullyappealed district court’s orderawarding attorney’s fees. Draftedthe appellate argument thatwas adopted in a precedentialopinion by the Ninth Circuit thatthe district court’s use over thedefendants’ objection of ex parte,in camera submissions to supportits attorneys’ fee order violatedthe defendants’ due process rightsbecause an opposing party wasentitled to see what attorneys’fees were charged and why, andjudicial efficiency could not eclipsethe defendants’ fundamental rightto inspect and challenge thesedocuments.Featured in the Daily Journal“Verdicts & Settlements.” section.