A federal class action was filed last week alleging that Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. used misleading information to entice plaintiffs to purchase timeshares. Plaintiffs allege that Wyndham is using long lasting sales meetings as well as omitting data about vacation options and overall costs as wells as misrepresentations.

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit states that non-members can book timeshares sometimes at a lower cost than owners and in a shorter timeframe. The suit also alleges that Wyndham failed to disclose during the sales presentations that bookings are to be made an entire year in advance and that chosen destinations are often unavailable.

Class members, if approved, are all persons who signed Wyndham timeshare agreements on or after January 27, 2016 in Florida, who attended a Wyndham sales presentation and for those how tried to cancel their contract but were unsuccessful.

The case is DuBose et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Resort Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01118, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.


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 class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Portland, Oregon over the use of tear gas by police to disperse protesters rallying against police brutality. The complaint alleges the use of chemical agents violates protester’s constitutional rights and increases the risk of COVID-19 infections.

The suit was filed in Oregon federal court late Friday by two protesters along with social justice advocacy group Don’t Shoot Portland, and seeks to obtain a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction preventing police from using tear gas as a crowd control tactic.

The case is Don’t Shoot Portland et al. v. City of Portland, case number 3:20-cv-00917, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.


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!


An Oregon federal court judge issued an Opinion on May 29, 2020 that the defendant, Ruby Receptionists, Inc., and defense counsel cannot communicate with the class members absent a prior court approval.

On April 24, 2020, the court certified a class action in this matter. Click here to learn more.

The case is McKenzie Law Firm et al. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., USDC D. OR, Case No. 3:18-cv-1921-SI. Stoll Berne attorneys Keith Dubanevich and Cody Berne represent the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The opinion can be read here.


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 class action lawsuit has been filed against a New Jersey long-term care facility. The facility is facing more than $220,000 in fines from the state after an investigation.

The named plaintiff said her 75-year-old father died after contracting COVID-19 at the facility.

The lawsuit claims the facility “did not timely diagnose” residents and patients and “failed to properly treat their condition.” It also alleges management only provided masks to registered nurses and not other staff members who interacted with residents.


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!


On April 24, 2020, an Oregon federal court certified a class of Ruby Receptionists’ customers in a case that arises from claims that the company misled its customers and breached its contracts by billing for time a call was on hold, and by rounding up every call resulting in overcharges.

The court stated that class eligibility includes:

“All persons or entities in the United States who obtained receptionist services from Defendant Ruby Receptionists between November 2, 2012 and May 31, 2018, pursuant to its form Services Agreement.”

Stoll Berne represents the Plaintiffs. The case is in McKenzie Law Firm et al. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., USDC D. OR, Case No. 3:18-cv-1921-SI. To read the Court’s opinion, click here. Law360 published an article on this certification and that can be found by clicking here. For more information, contact Stoll Berne attorneys Keith Dubanevich or Cody Berne.


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!


Attorneys for a man from Humble, Texas filed a class-action lawsuit against the Houston Astros arising out of the sign-stealing scandal. Attorneys for the man, who is an Astros season-ticket holder, filed the lawsuit on behalf of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 full or partial season ticket holders for “deceptively overcharging them for season tickets while defendants and their employees and representatives knowingly and surreptitiously engaged in a sign-stealing scheme in violation of Major League Baseball Rules and Regulations, and secretly put a deficient product on the field that could result (and now has resulted) in severe penalties instituted by MLB,” according to court documents.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on February 14, 2020, Wallach is seeking to recover damages for “inappropriate increases” in the season ticket prices, “diminished value of their personal seat licenses,” and an injunction prohibiting the Astros from raising season ticket prices for at least two years. He wants more than $1 million in damages. The complaint alleges a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.


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!


Florida federal court Judge Paul G. Byron preliminarily approved a $27 million settlement in a class action alleging that more than 250,000 Geico customers had been underpaid by the insurance provider. The alleged claims arose from customers who filed insurance claims with Geico for damaged cars declared “totaled” who were denied coverage for approximately $80 in fees when registering a new vehicle. The lawsuit alleged that transferring a title in Florida costs $75.25 and switching tags costs $4.10—both required under state law in order to register a vehicle. The settlement also obligated Geico to amend its policies and pay all title transfer and licensing fees in any actual cash value claim for a “totaled” car in Florida.

The certified class consists of Florida residents insured for private passenger auto physical damage coverage by Geico, who suffered a first-party total loss of a covered, owned vehicle at any time from 2012 to April 2019. The settlement excludes leased vehicles insured by Geico.

The case is Sullivan et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., case no. 6:17-cv-00891 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.


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!


Mark Joseph Stern at Slate has written an article on explains in a way that many laypeople can understand, why class actions are important and valuable. He also does a great job explaining how the Court’s jurisprudence around forced arbitration has been harmful to workers, consumers and others in wiping out important class actions. To read the article, “The Decade Class Actions Were Gutted,” click here.


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!


The Public Justice blog recently posted an article, “Major Victory in Oregon Vindicates Class Actions.” To read the blog post, click here.


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!


An MDL case entitled In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation involved alleged misrepresentations involving fuel usage for Hyundai and Kia automobiles. A district court in California approved a nationwide $200 million settlement. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed the approval of the settlement holding that the district court must weigh all the varying state consumer protection laws before certifying nationwide class action settlements. Lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants saw this troubling decision as a major barrier for settling some type of class actions on a nationwide basis. Fortunately, the full Ninth Circuit reinstated the $200 million settlement and rejected the holding that courts must weigh varying state consumer protection laws before certifying nationwide class action settlements.


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 New York state court judge has granted class action status in a high-profile lawsuit in which many guests at a wedding reception in 2015 became violently ill. Nine ambulances were called to the July 31 reception after guests started vomiting and having diarrhea on the grounds of the Arrowhead Lodge at Oneida Shores Park. The lawsuit alleges the food—specifically the macaroni and cheese—provided by the caterer caused the illnesses.

The bride’s father, is the lead plaintiff in the class action suit. Anyone who ate the macaroni and cheese and became ill is part of the class action suit.

The case attracted national attention, and in part because of that, the judge has ordered the parties not to talk to the media anymore.

The health department investigated and determined there was an outbreak of staphylococcus aureus.

The attorney for the caterer has argued that there is no direct evidence the macaroni and cheese caused the illnesses and also has maintained guests ate other food and beverages not provided by the caterer.


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!


On April 16, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against famed motorcycle manufacturer, Harley Davidson Motor Company (“Harley Davidson”) in federal court in the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that the company knowingly sold tens of thousands of motorcycles with a hidden and dangerous defect in its anti-lock braking system (“ABS”).

The complaint also alleges that the defendant priced its 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Touring and CVO Touring model motorcycles significantly higher due to the inclusion of the ABS. Harley Davidson instructs riders to use different braking techniques in emergency situations depending whether the bike in question is equipped with ABS or not.

The plaintiff claims that in 2008, the defendant discovered that normal motion of turning the front wheel back and forth would lead to breakage in the wires connecting the speed sensor to the engine control unit (“ECU”). According to the complaint, if the wires connecting the speed sensor to the ECU are severed, the ABS would become nonfunctioning and the emergency braking technique promoted by the defendant would put riders at a serious risk of injury. However, despite knowing the serious complications that could arise from issues with the ABS, Harley Davidson continued to sell the defective bikes to both private citizens and municipalities with motorcycle law enforcement squads through 2010. Harley Davidson allegedly did not remedy the defective ABS wiring in its bikes until 2011.

Plaintiff is seeking to represent a nationwide class made up of any individuals or entities in the U.S. who purchased or leased for years 2008-2010, the model Harley Davidson Touring or CVO Touring motorcycles. In addition to the nationwide class, plaintiff seeks to represent a California class for affected California residents and entities. The suit brings cause of action for unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranty, violation of Song-Beverly Act, violation of Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The class is seeking damages in excess of $5,000,000.

The case is Garcia v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc., Case No.: 3:19-cv-02054, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


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 group of parents and current university students filed a proposed class action lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of California against the perpetrators of recent elite college admission cheating scandals. The complaint also names several of the involved schools as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that as a result of the two fraudulent college admission schemes, unqualified students were unfairly accepted to highly selective universities, while students who had higher test scores and more impressive athletic records were denied admission. The suit claims that the plan was executed by the defendant Rick Singer, the CEO of a self-described college-admissions-mentoring company for wealthy parents, and the individuals involved in the college admission pipeline at the defendant universities, whose duty it was to oversee the college admission process.

The first of the two fraudulent schemes in question is the “testing cheating” scam, in which wealthy parents paid large sums of money—typically between $15,000 and $75,000 per test —to Singer, his business or his charitable entity, The Key Worldwide Foundation, in exchange for someone more qualified to take the SAT or ACT exam for the student. The stand-in was able to take the exam due to bribes Singer allegedly paid to an SAT test administrator in Los Angeles, California of $10,000 for each fraudulent test he proctored, as well as a payment of $5,000 to a test administrator in Houston, Texas for one particular test. The individuals selected to complete the exams were paid around $10,000 per test taken.

The second scheme involved is the “student-athlete recruitment” scam, in which parents of college-bound students would pay Singer, to create elaborate illegitimate sports profiles for students therefore creating the illusion that the student was a top sports recruit. Singer would then go on to bribe university officials, including coaches and athletic department managers to recruit said students. Under most standard college admissions policies, a certain number of incoming student slots were reserved for students who excelled in athletics.

Highly qualified student-plaintiffs in the case were all rejected from one or more of the defendant universities, alleging that, at a minimum, they paid college admission application fees to the defendant universities without any warning that unqualified students were bypassing the admission process by committing fraud, bribery, cheating and dishonesty. Involved universities include: University of Southern California (“USC”), Stanford University, University of San Diego (“USD”), The University of Texas at Austin, Wake Forest University, Yale University and Georgetown University.

The suit brings causes of action for violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c), violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and claims of negligence against the university defendants.


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 class-action lawsuit was filed last week by a Minnesota home seller that alleges that the big four multiple listing services have driven up costs to sellers and have stifled competition. The complaint claims that the multiple listing services conspired with the National Association of Realtors and required brokers to offer buyer broker compensation at inflated rates when listing a property on an MLS site.

“The conspiracy has saddled home sellers with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a competitive market,” the complaint states. “Moreover, because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker commission, or will show homes with higher commission offers first, sellers are incentivized when making the required blanket, non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers’ cooperation by offering a high commission.”

The suit goes on to allege that the conspiracy has kept buyer brokers’ commissions in the 2.5-3% range despite their diminishing role in the transaction, as “a majority of homebuyers no longer locate prospective homes with the assistance of a broker, but rather independently through online services.”

The suit states that it will represent any sellers who paid a broker commission during the sale of their property in the last four years in areas covered by regional MLS sites, which includes sellers in Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Virginia, Utah and Washington, D.C.


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!


Trucking - Class Actions Blog PostThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that trucking company New Prime Inc. cannot compel arbitration in a class action alleging it failed to pay independent contractor truck-drivers the proper minimum wage. The Supreme Court found that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce, including those classified as independent contractors, are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Arbitration For Transportation Workers”

A class action lawsuit has been filed in California state court alleging that electric scooter companies have committed “gross negligence” related to injuries sustained by both riders and pedestrians.The suit specifically named four companies: Bird, Line, Xiaomi and Segway. Continue reading “Injury Class Action Filed Against Electric Scooter Companies”

A Washington federal judge has denied a bid by a fintech firm and a tribal corporation through which the firm ran a payday lending business to force into arbitration a suit over exorbitant interest rates, ruling that arbitration clauses in agreements borrowers signed are invalid. The judge said the unclear loan contract language seems to intend that the tribal law of North Dakota’s Turtle Mountain band of Chippewa Indians should apply — to the exclusion of federal and state law — but he ruled that the agreement goes against public policy and cannot be upheld because it forms a substantive waiver of federal statutory rights. Continue reading “Judge Rejects Arbitration Clause In Tribal Payday Loan Class Action”

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of older workers who seek to sue a defendant class of all employers and employment agencies who use Facebooks’ ad placement tools to direct ads to younger workers to the exclusion of older workers. The Communication Workers Union and other plaintiffs allege that employers that do this are engaging in disparate treatment. Continue reading “Job Seekers File Class Action Against a Class of Employers Who Use Facebook Ad Placement Tools”

Facebook has been sued in a California federal court by a Facebook user. The plaintiff seeks to get the case certified as a class action.

Continue reading “Facebook user files class action against Facebook”

On February 26, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in Louisiana against several pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors on behalf of babies born in Louisiana with opioid addictions.

Continue reading “Class action filed on behalf of babies born with opioid addiction”