Home > People > John Rogers

John Rogers

Partner

St. Louis
314 552 6257 direct

For more than 20 years, John has defended major corporations in class action lawsuits and other complex litigation in federal and state courts throughout the country.

John's practice focuses on consumer class actions involving allegations of consumer fraud, product defect, unfair trade practices, unlawful competition, nuisance, and false advertising. He has successfully defended lawsuits alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Lanham Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and a number of other state and federal consumer protection statutes.

One of John's strengths is his ability to provide creative solutions to complex legal problems in an efficient and cost-effective manner. A client described John as an attorney with "a brilliant legal mind, but with a practical, common-sense approach." Early in his legal career, John had the distinction of becoming one of the youngest attorneys in modern times to argue a case before the United States Supreme Court. His argument before the Court resulted in a unanimous decision in his client's favor.

United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998):

Sole counsel of record where he successfully argued to the United States District Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court that Missouri was not a proper venue to try the alleged money laundering violations. His argument before the United States Supreme Court resulted in a unanimous decision by the Court in his client’s favor that affirmed the Eighth Circuit’s decision while overruling decisions of four other United States Courts of Appeals.

Quacchia v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1442 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit brought under California’s consumer protection statutes alleging that seatbelts installed in certain vehicles were defectively designed. The trial court denied certification, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeal’s decision in his client’s favor resulted in an important published decision concerning the evaluation of an alleged defect in a component part of a motor vehicle in the context of a consumer fraud class action.

Also counsel in related purported class action lawsuits of Hiller v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 02-681 (Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2007) (class certification denied and case dismissed with prejudice); Inman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., __ S.W.3d __, 2008 WL 274903 (Tex. 2008) (holding named plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims based on alleged defect in seatbelt and dismissed class action); Sylvester v DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. CV-02-462643 (Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 2008) (dismissed with prejudice); Hort v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. CV2001-019469 (Sup. Ct. Maricopa County, Arizona 2002) (case dismissed), Sohn v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. CV01-6821 (Dist. Ct. Washoe County, Nevada 2002) (case dismissed, appeal dismissed), and Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 02A17743 (Circuit Court of Cobb County, Georgia 2004) (case dismissed).

City of New York v. Nexicon, Inc. et al., No. 03 CV 0383, 2006 WL 647716 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) & City of New York v. Cyco.net, Inc., 383 F.Supp.2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005):

Lead counsel in actions brought by the City of New York against various internet cigarette retailers alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and New York’s consumer protection statute. District court dismissed the City’s claims with prejudice.

Eureka Development, Inc. v. Port Jefferson Realty, LLC, Case No. 4:05CV01281FRB (E.D. Mo. 2007):

Lead counsel in case alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith in fair dealing arising out of a real estate transaction. After a five-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in his client’s favor on all claims. Client is in line to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the defense of the litigation under the fee-shifting provision of the contract.

Allen v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC, No. A114263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection with advertising and distribution of 2001 model-year PT Cruiser vehicles. The trial court denied class certification and the court of appeal affirmed.

Scully v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 913 A.2d 1174 (Penn. 2007):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit alleging breach of warranties and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law in connection with manufacture and distribution of vehicles equipped with alleged defective gaskets. The trial court denied class certification; the Superior Court affirmed the denial of class certification; and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further review.

Norem v. Aetna Health Inc., No. 06-1007-CV-W-GAF (W.D. Mo. 2007):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit alleging common law claims based on alleged violations of state insurance regulations concerning co-pays. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice and no appeal was taken.

Perkins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 890 A.2d 997 (N.J. Ct. App. 2006):

Represented vehicle manufacture in purported class action lawsuit alleging warranty and consumer protection claims in connection with manufacture and distribution of vehicles with allegedly defective exhaust manifolds. The trial court dismissed the action and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The appellate court’s decision in his client’s favor resulted in an important published decision concerning the interplay between warranty law and the consumer protection statute.

Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 136 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006):

Represented vehicle manufacture in purported class action lawsuit alleging violation of California’s consumer protection statutes in connection with manufacture and distribution of vehicles with allegedly defective exhaust manifolds. The trial court dismissed the action and the appellate court affirmed. The court of appeal’s decision in his client’s favor resulted in an important published decision concerning the scope of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Jacobson v. Electronic Boutique of America, Inc., No. BC340418 (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles County, California 2006):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of California’s consumer protection laws in connection with alleged over-collection of sales tax on extended warranties. Settled case on terms favorable to client.

Kandel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. BC304216 (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles County, California 2005):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection with manufacture and distribution of vehicles with allegedly defective brakes and ball joints. The trial court dismissed the action and no appeal was taken.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. www.dirtcheapcig.com, Inc., No. 03-4428A (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County, Mass. 2004), People of the State of California v. www.dirtcheapcig.com, Inc., No. GIC-808194 (Sup. Ct. County of San Diego, Cal. 2004), State of Washington v. www.dirtcheapcig.com, Inc., No. CV02-2438L (W.D. Wash. 2003), State of Maryland v. D.C., Inc. et al., CPD No. 03-016-67538 (C.P.D. Md. 2003), State of Oregon v. www.dirtcheapcig.com, Inc., No. 03C1294 (Circuit Court of Marion County, Oregon 2004), and State of Iowa v. www.dirtcheapcig.com, Inc., No. CE-48480 (Dist. Ct. Polk County, Iowa 2004):

Lead counsel in actions brought by various States Attorneys General alleging violations of consumer protection statutes, unlawful trade practices laws, and other state and federal laws related to selling cigarettes over the internet. Cases settled favorably for client.

Robert Mottl v. Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation, et al., 133 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004):

Represented Missouri Lawyers Trust Account Foundation in class action litigation challenging the constitutionality of Missouri’s IOLTA rule. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the suit.

Boxdorfer v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 339 Ill. App. 3d 335, 790 N.E.2d 391 (Ill. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003):

Lead counsel in purported class action lawsuit filed in Madison County, Illinois, alleging fraud and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The Fifth District Court of Appeals determined that Madison County, Illinois, was not a proper venue to prosecute the action. The Fifth District’s decision in his client’s favor created important venue law concerning remote manufacturers that are sued for consumer fraud in Illinois in connection with the sale of an allegedly defective product.

Missouri Association of Counties, et al. v. County Employment Retirement Fund, No. 02-04279-SOW (W.D. Mo. 2003):

Lead counsel in action by counties challenging the constitutionality of statutes concerning membership and contributions to the Missouri County Employment Retirement Fund. The United States District Court dismissed the alleged constitutional claims and the plaintiff counties did not appeal.

In re General American Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 302 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2002):

Successfully argued to United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that objections of certain absent class members to nationwide class settlement should be overruled and that settlement should be approved.

In re Chrysler Vehicle Paint Litigation, 191 F.R.D. 441 (E.D. Pa. 2000):

Successfully opposed certification of a class of vehicle owners alleging violations of various state consumer protection statutes in regard to the manufacture and distribution of vehicles with allegedly defective paint.

Also counsel in related state court cases of Schurk v. Chrysler Corp., No. 97-2-04113-9-SEA (Sup. Ct. King County, Washington 2000) (class certification denied), Hogan v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Civ. Div. 1902 (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania 2001) (case dismissed), Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., No. 993445 (Sup. Ct. San Francisco County, California 2001) (dismissed with prejudice), DePalma v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 993936 (Sup. Ct. San Francisco County, California 2001) (dismissed with prejudice), Maldonado v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 79606-1 (Sup. Ct. Alameda County, California 2001) (dismissed with prejudice), and Tramonte v. Chrysler Corp., No. 579-200 (Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 2005) (dismissed with prejudice), Oliva v. Chrysler Corp., No. 96H1467 (Brazoria County, Texas 2006) (dismissed with prejudice).

Haas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 611 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000):

Successfully argued to the Minnesota Court of Appeals that the trial court’s order dismissing a putative class action alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Uniform Commercial Code should be affirmed.

Lewis, et al. v. County Employment Retirement Fund, No. 00CV-15527 (Circuit Court of Warren County, Missouri 2000):

Lead counsel in action challenging the constitutionality of rules promulgated by the Missouri County Employment Retirement Fund. The trial court dismissed the petition and no appeal was taken.

Rosen v. Chrysler Corp., No. 97-CV-60374-AA (E.D. Mich. 2000):

Successfully opposed certification of a nationwide class of vehicle owners alleging deceptive advertising.

Publications

Co-Author of chapter dealing with Class Action Litigation for the 3rd through 6th editions of the treatise;
Charles Hansen & Don G. Lents, Missouri Corporation Law & Practice (Tower Publishing)

“Federal Pre-emption of State Railroad Tort Law: The Misuse of the Federal Railroad Safety Act to Insulate Railroads from Liability”;
Missouri Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Spring 1993