Articles
Careers
Contact

A class of consumers won a $102.6 million trial against General Motors LLC in California. The lawsuit, Siqueiros et al. v. General Motors LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 3:16-cv-07244, centered around the allegations that General Motors knew about an engine issue which caused stalling and premature breakdowns in their SUVs and trucks. In 2010, GM issued dealer recommendations to address the issue and, when those recommendations failed to adequately address the issue, they changed their engine design in 2011. However, they discontinued the engine in 2014 after the redesigned engine still did not address the issue.

Owners of approximately 38,000 GM SUVs and trucks sold in California, North Carolina, and Idaho from 2011-2014 that contain the Generation IV Vortec 5300LC0 engine will each receive $2,700. GM plans to appeal.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A preliminary settlement was reached recently by Smithfield Foods Inc. in the amount of $75 million in a pork price-fixing lawsuit. Consumers filed the lawsuit claiming that this meat producer along with others limited supply to inflate the price of pork in the U.S. market. Smithfield denies any wrongdoing.

A similar lawsuit was also recently settled for $20 million between consumers and JBS SA. There are also ongoing lawsuits against Smithfield for similar prix-fixing for beef and chicken price inflations.

The case is In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 18-01776.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

AARP recently filed a class action lawsuit against an Illinois nursing home provider Alden and six of its facilities. AARP’s lawsuit claims that Alden failed to adequately staff their facilities with a goal to increase profits. The lawsuit states that the failure to appropriately staff their facilities as required with CNAs and RNs reduced the ability for the facility to accommodate their residents’ needs. The lawsuit further claims that due to the lowered hours and staff, residents suffered negligence of care.

Alden denies any wrongdoing.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Healthcare staffing agencies have been in the news recently for contracting with their traveling nurses at one pay rate but delivering on a much lower one. Traveling nurses often sign at-will employment contracts. Those types of contracts are not guaranteed and can be terminated by either party at any time and for any non-discriminatory reason. These contracts also proclaim pay rates that, once the nurse arrives at the contracted location, pays less.

Some of the lawsuits allege that these practices are fraudulent. The staffing agencies claim the decrease in wages is due to the facilities where the nurses are employed have reduced their pay for all travelling nurses. Traveling nurses claim they are employed by the staffing agencies and not the facility. In one such claim against the staffing agencies, Aya, Maxim Healthcare, NuWest Group and Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. , the nurses claim that nearly 450 nurses reported pay cuts averaging from 25% to 70%.

Mandatory arbitration clauses were included in many of the traveling nurses’ contracts. These types of clauses make meeting thresholds for filing lawsuits more difficult. Plaintiffs will need to show the court how and why their employment contracts’ arbitration clauses were fraudulent.  Establishing that the arbitration clause should not be enforced is generally very challenging.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Stoll Berne, along with 10 individual attorneys, were recently selected to be included in the 2023 edition of Benchmark Litigation, a definitive source for America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys. Our award recipients include:

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

OREGON LOCAL LITIGATION STARS

OREGON FUTURE STARS

Stoll Berne attorney Lydia Anderson-Dana presented at the Oregon Professional Liability Fund’s 2022 Learning the Ropes CLE event November 8-10, 2022, in Portland. Lydia, along with co-presenter Ben Eder of Thummel Uhle & Eder, presented a Courtroom Primer on November 8, 2022, from 2:20 – 3:05 p.m. Visit the Oregon PLF website to learn more about this multi-program.

Stoll Berne, led by attorneys Tim DeJong, Keith Ketterling, and Lydia Anderson-Dana, recently filed a proposed $100 million breach of contract class action lawsuit against NuScale Power LLC and other entities in the United States District Court, District of Oregon.

Plaintiffs, a group of former NuScale Power executives, allege that their stock shares were devalued in a restructuring preceding a merger in the Spring of 2022. After the undisputed merger was complete, NuScale went public on the New York Stock Exchange. The lawsuit alleges that the NuScale violated an operating agreement that contains a provision for a 1:1 conversion of common or option shares. The Plaintiffs claim that shares to preferred members were converted at a 1:1.6 conversion. Plaintiffs claim this unlawful restructuring of stock shares, in turn, led to a devaluation for common stock members while majority owner, Fluor Corp., and preferred members, unjustly gained value.

The case is Surina et al. v. NuScale Power LLC et al. in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Case No. 3:22cv1410.

Recent News:

Stoll Berne is excited to announce that fifteen of our attorneys were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2023® in 18 different categories. Best Lawyers is a purely peer-reviewed legal awards network highlighting top legal talent around the world. To learn more about their methodology, visit their website at bestlawyers.com. 

Ones to Watch

  • Appellate Practice
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property

Commercial Litigation
Insurance Law
Litigation – Antitrust
Litigation – Insurance
Litigation – Securities

Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Antitrust
Litigation – Securities
Securities / Capital Markets Law

Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Securities
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs
Securities / Capital Markets Law

Portland, OR Lawyer of the Year: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

Real Estate Law

Litigation – Intellectual Property
Litigation – Patent
Litigation – Securities

Antitrust Law
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Antitrust
Litigation – Securities
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Securities
Securities / Capital Markets Law

Advertising Law
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Antitrust
Litigation – Securities
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

Real Estate Law

Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
Real Estate Law
Tax Law

Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Securities
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

Commercial Litigation
Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Intellectual Property
Litigation – Patent
Trade Secrets Law

Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Labor and Employment
Litigation – Securities

Stoll Berne attorney Lydia Anderson-Dana was featured in the September 6, 2022 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals article “Pro Bono Efforts Serve the Most Vulnerable.” The article features several lawyers for their pro bono assistance to those in financial need.

Lydia was featured for her work with Oregon’s Free Federal Law Clinic as an attorney ambassador. The Oregon Chapter of the Federal Bar Association created this clinic under its volunteer lawyer program and works to “improve access to justice and assists pro se litigants with civil cases filed in federal court.” Lydia currently serves as a Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representative for the District of Oregon and is a board member of the Federal Bar Association Oregon Chapter.

Stoll Berne attorney Keith Dubanevich presented at the Multnomah Bar Association’s Consumer Litigation CLE on September 28, 2022. Keith’s presentation via Zoom, with attorney Nadia Dahab of Sugerman Dahab, discussed national trends and decisions. Click here to register.

A proposed class action lawsuit spearheaded by the nonprofit Farm Forward filed in California alleges that Whole Foods used deceptive marketing to claim their organic beefs are free from antibiotics. The beef in question was certified USDA Organic, given a rating scale of 4 out of 5 from the Global Animal Partnership (“GAP”), and sold under the label of “No Antibiotics, Ever.”

Farm Forward, in an independent study, examined samples of meat products from several Whole Foods locations including San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Chicago, and Virginia. Farm Forward’s study alleges that there was a presence of antibiotic residue in Whole Foods’ organic beef products. The study further alleges that the sample taken from the San Francisco location also contained a growth-promoting antibiotic. A second set of tests allege that there was antiparasitic antibiotics found in the Chicago and Salt Lake City samples. Those samples were GAP-certified and three were marketed and sold under the label of “pasture-raised.”

The case is Safari et al v Whole Foods Market Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 22-01562.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Peloton Interactive Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in New York over its library of on-demand programs. According to the lawsuit, Peloton advertised to its potential purchasers continued growth of its program options but in March 2019, Peloton removed an estimated 12,000 on-demand programs. This was done after a lawsuit stemming from music publishers for non-licensed streaming rights in Peloton’s on-demand programming.

The lawsuit claims that Peloton knew of the potential removal of programs due to this lawsuit and continued marketing this growing programming. Additionally, they kept charging full price for the bicycle units and monthly subscription plans that contained some of the copyrighted music in the publishing lawsuit. A judge in New York stated that from April 2018 to March 2019 some customers could argue they overpaid Peloton because of their failure to disclose this removal potential and still charging full price.

The licensing lawsuit filed by the National Music Publishers’ Association and 14 of its members was settled in February 2020.

The case is Passman et al v. Peloton Interactive Inc., U.S. District court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 19-11711.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Equifax is facing a class-action lawsuit due to an alleged technical issue. The issue is said to stem from their reporting system’s malfunction during a system update that allegedly affected millions of credit scores. The lawsuit claims millions of members may have had a credit score change during the period of the alleged malfunction – March 6, 2022, through April 6, 2022.

Equifax was moving to another system when the credit scores were allegedly inaccurately reported. Equifax maintains this was unintentional. According to Equifax, as many as 300,000 people may have had their credit score lowered by 25 points or more. The lead plaintiff filed the lawsuit because they had learned of their credit score shift of 130 points while trying to purchase an automobile and suffered the negative consequence of the inaccurate credit score by being forced to use a loan with less favorable terms.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!



Jen Wagner was recently ranked as one of Benchmark Litigation’s Top Women in Litigation for 2022. This award honors distinguished women in the world of litigation in both the United States and Canada. Candidates are vetted through several phases of research, which includes reviews of their recent case work, considerations on how attorneys at peer legal institutions might rank them, and client feedback.

Jen joined Stoll Berne in 2002. She plays an important role in the firm’s litigation practice, most recently representing the State of Oregon on claims against Monsanto for PCB contamination. She was also a member of the team that obtained a $235 million settlement on behalf of investors in the Aequitas securities fraud class action.

In addition to this honor, in 2021 Jen received the Portland Business Journal’s Women of Influence Award as well as rankings in Chambers USA, Oregon Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers of America. She is a former President of the Board of Directors of the Multnomah Bar Foundation and is on the Oregon State Bar Litigation Section Executive Committee.

To see the entire list of Benchmark Litigation Top 250 Women in Litigation, visit their website here.

In a class action filed in Alabama, class plaintiffs alleged that State Farm Fire and Casualty, between 2011 and 2017, used a depreciated cost of labor and other non-material costs for repairs to properties owned by their insureds. The lawsuit alleges that said depreciation was against their policies.

State Farm denies any such depreciation underpayments or other wrongdoings as part of their settlement and a settlement amount was not disclosed. Class members have until August 24, 2022, to file any objections to the proposed settlement. A final approved hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2022.

The case is Annie Arnold et al vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A settlement was reached and filed in the T-Mobile US Inc. data breach class action lawsuit.  As part of the settlement, T-Mobile denies any wrongdoing. In August of 2021, T-Mobile announced a data breach of its systems that affected more than 76.6 million customers, which included former and prospective customers. The breach accessed sensitive data such as Social Security numbers, names, addresses, birth dates, and driver’s license information.

The settlement states that T-Mobile is to pay $350 million with an added $150 million to go towards data security upgrades. Eligible class members may receive $25, or $100 for California residents. Some members may also receive up to $25,000 for out-of-pocket losses. All class members may receive two years of identity theft protection.

The class settlement has not been approved by the court yet.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

piggy bank, chart, wallet, money, graph showing increaseSome investment advisers use Turnkey Asset Management Programs, often called TAMPs, to provide back-office services. These back-office services can include anything from compliance to risk analysis to identifying investment options. The adviser benefits by outsourcing services and functions that they would otherwise have to take care of in house. 

Many clients whose adviser is using a TAMP are unaware that a TAMP is involved or do not understand the TAMP’s role. These investors may think that their adviser is managing their money and making investment recommendations. In fact, the TAMP may effectively be making investment decisions. In these cases, the adviser is little more than a “finder” who signs up clients and turns over their accounts to the TAMP.

Using a TAMP comes with added expenses and fees. In many cases, these expenses and fees are passed on to the investor. The added fees and expenses may not appear as separate entries on account statements. Instead, they may be included within other fees that are reported on the account statements. This conceals the cost to the investor of the adviser’s use of the TAMP. Use of TAMPs may also limit the investment options available to clients. TAMPs will often include a set of investment options that the adviser must select from. In some cases, these limited options are higher fee, higher risk, or otherwise inferior to other investments that but for the adviser’s use of the TAMP could be available to the investor. This can mean that the TAMP and adviser are steering investors to unsuitable investments.

image of two coins, one half on top of the other, sitting on a wood table topThe Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services published its Summer 2022 issue of Common Ground this week. The newsletter is available here, Common Ground Summer 2022 (oregon.gov). It includes an article about cryptocurrencies and NFTs and another about a lawsuit against Safeguard Metals, LLC and others that Oregon joined.

Regarding crypto and nonfungible tokens, DCBS writes that its Division of Financial Regulation (DFR) is “warning Oregonians to use caution when investing in cryptocurrencies, nonfungible tokens, or other new or volatile products.” And “[t]here are nearly 10,000 active cryptocurrencies and they and NFTs are increasing in popularity. Regulation of these new asset types is still evolving. While there are often promises of big returns consumers often lose money when investing in them.” According to DCBS, cryptocurrencies and digital assets topped the North American Securities Administrators Association’s (NASAA) annual list of top investor threats.

According to the article about the Safeguard Metals lawsuit, the Department joined the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and 26 state securities regulators in bringing claims against the precious metals dealer and its owner. The alleged scam involved $68 million taken from 450 investors, including eleven Oregon investors who were defrauded out of almost $3 million. 

The Safeguard Metals article also includes a warning about self-directed IRAs. In our experience, metals dealers sometimes require investors to open a self-directed IRA to hold precious metals investments.  DCBS explains, “[s]elf-directed IRAs should not be confused with traditional IRAs or other retirement vehicles. Self-directed accounts are placed with a custodian, but do not afford the investor any protections nor provide a review of the holdings or any valuations of the holdings in the account.”

A California Second Appellate District panel recently gave the opinion that California state courts, as opposed to US district courts, do not grant judges the authority to dismiss cases based on their views on the likelihood of a case to prevail prior to hearing evidence. This ruling came out due to hotel owners/insurance policyholders seeking insurance coverage claims due to the COVID-19 shutdown and not being allowed to provide evidence at this point.

The question at issue is if specific business interruption policies include communicable diseases, if COVID-19 is considered that, and what, if any, loss a company suffers due to it. A company must show a physical loss. Policyholders state they have suffered loss while insurance carriers state there are communicable disease carveouts.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A proposed class action was filed by a group of AT&T and Verizon wireless subscribers against Deutsche Telekon AG, T-Mobile U.S., Inc., and SoftBank Group Corp. of Japan (the former owner of Sprint Corp.). The suit alleges that the T-Mobile/Sprint merger violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act for anticompetitive competition. T-Mobile and Sprint, who merged in the Spring of 2020, removed one wireless carrier, leaving only three. The lawsuit claims that the result of this reduction led to consumers paying more for their wireless service.

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division, working with a group of states, wanted to block the deal in the Summer of 2019. During these discussions, an agreement was reached where Sprint would move prepaid cellular and wireless spectrum assets to Dish Network Corp. which also included the option to acquire 20,000 cell sites among brick-and-mortar purchases.

According to the proposed class action lawsuit, the reduction in options caused by the merger unfairly causes consumers to pay higher costs.

The lawsuit is Dale, et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., No. 1:22-cv-03189, N.D. Ill.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Stoll Berne
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 227-1600
© 2024 Stoll Berne.
All Rights Reserved.