Skip Navigation LinksServices > Litigation > Class Action


Class Action

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS
When companies face the daunting task of having to defend themselves in class actions, other complex cases or mass tort filings, they look for lawyers with the technical and scientific resources necessary to win the day. They want a law firm with a proven record of success in many jurisdictions.

Attorneys in our Class Action practice have coordinated and led litigation in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously and are currently representing clients in class actions in 21 states. In recent years, we have handled more than 400 class actions in 29 states, ranging from contract and consumer disputes to claims alleging product defect, consumer fraud, environmental damage, violations of banking and insurance regulations and laws, and securities fraud. Our experience defending clients in litigation implicating a wide range of industries—and our successful application of that experience to many types of class actions—has led to our emergence as a leading nationwide defender of class actions. For example, we currently serve as national class action counsel for Charter Communications, DaimlerChrysler and Kawasaki and as regional class action counsel for AT&T.

Our practice takes a proactive approach to managing our clients’ cases. Our philosophy is to develop an early strategy based on a thorough review of the law and facts. We do not suggest or pursue strategies that do not advance the the client's goals, and we discuss strategies with clients at the early stages of litigation to find out what will best meet their needs and business objectives. In our experience, this careful preparation and early case assessment result in lower fees and better results.

We have also developed proprietary software designed specifically for class actions and processes and procedures that help us manage cases more effectively. This gives us a particular advantage if a case proliferates into many cases around the nation. We routinely handle multiterabytes’ worth of information and organize it so that we can retrieve it instantaneously and present it in new and compelling ways to judges and juries. Our databases of current and past cases, our internal libraries and our communications all have one goal—to serve clients better and faster.

Given our competitive advantage on rates, our experience in serving clients as national counsel, and our firm’s depth of resources, we can—and do—act quickly and respond effectively to matters throughout the country.

Roman P. Wuller

314.552.6121
email

Partners
D'Aunoy, Stephen A.
Erwin, James W.
Harvey, Edwin G.
Higgins, Stephen B.
Hohn, Christopher M.
Kingston, John S.
Lamb, Nicholas J.
Morris, Michael J.
Reitz, Kurt E.
Rogers, John W.
Rosenberg, Sharon B.
Rownd, David M.
Shaw, Booker T.
Strand, Sherri C.
Wagner, Robert J.
Wells, W. David
Wisniewski, Kathy A.
Wuller, Roman P.
Counsel
Lawrence, Paul D.
Associates
Peel, Emily L.
  • 3M
  • American Equity Mortgage
  • AT&T    
  • AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular Wireless)  
  • Charter Communications, Inc. 
  • Chase Bank USA
  • Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
  • ConocoPhillips
  • DaimlerChrysler Corporation
  • Energizer
  • Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
  • ExxonMobil
  • Federal Signal Corporation
  • Illinois Central Railroad Company  
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • JP Morgan Chase & Co.
  • Kawasaki Motors, U.S.A.
  • Laclede Gas Company
  • Lorillard Tobacco Company  
  • Mercy Health
  • National City Bank
  • Peabody Coal Co.
  • RehabCare Group  
  • Shenandoah Valley National Bank
  • UniGroup, Inc. 
  • United Van Lines  
  • U.S. Bank, N.A.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  • Thompson Coburn has tried both the longest toxic tort case in American jurisprudence (the Kemner case for Monsanto) and, more recently, one of the largest cases in American jurisprudence (the case brought by the United States against the tobacco industry in which the claim was for $280 billion). 
  • Cicle v. Chase Bank USA
    Holding that class action waiver in arbitration clause was enforceable. 
  • Woodruff v. Chrysler Motors
    Successfully defended automobile manufacturer in putative nationwide class action alleging that manufacturer breached warranties by improperly calculating the duration of the engine warranty that accompanied certain trucks. 
  • Carlson v. ALS Enterprises, Inc.
    Dismissing product defect class action due to plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the Rule 9(b) pleading standard on a defendant-by-defendant basis. 
  • Ludditt-Poehl v. Capitol One Auto Finance, Inc.
    On appeal, granting motion for judgment on the pleadings against class action claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. 
  • Klutho v. Shenandoah Valley Nat. Bank
    Granting motion for judgment on the pleadings against class action claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. 
  • Phillips v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.
    Affirming dismissal of out-of-state class action plaintiffs for lack of standing under Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. 
  • Smith v. Illinois Central R.R. Co.
    Accepting for review and reversing intermediate appellate affirmance of class certification in railroad derailment case. 
  • Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n. v. United Van Lines
    Precluding the prospect of class treatment by granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of federal truth-in-leasing claims. 
  • In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litig.
    Denying motion to certify proposed multistate class of well owners because of various manageability concerns. 
  • Hasek v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    Affirming judgment against owner on class action claims alleging excessive engine noise. 
  • In re Medical Monitoring Litigation, Civil Action No. 00-C-6000
    Product Liability class action of 270,000 West Virginia cigarette smokers tried to a jury verdict. First trial (January 4-22, 2001) ended in a mistrial. Second trial lasted 26 trial days (September 5-November 14, 2001). Defense verdict on all counts, including product defect, negligence and breach of voluntary undertaking. 
  • In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litig.
    Dismissing class action claims of well owners who could not allege credible fear that MTBE threatened their drinking water wells (Southern District of New York). 
  • Kienle v. Hunter Engineering Co.
    Dismissing class action ERISA claims as time-barred. 
  • Chandler v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
    Affirming Rule 11 sanctions against class action plaintiff’s attorney for filing frivolous RESPA claims. 
  • Chin v. Chrysler Corp.
    Refusing to certify nationwide class of minivan owners because of irreconcilable differences in state warranty and tort laws. 
  • Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
    Overruling objections to class action settlement that involved alleged defect in the rear liftgate latches of certain minivans. 
  • Saey v. CompUSA, Inc.
    Refusing to certify class of personal computer purchasers due to lack of numerosity. 
  • Fitzgerald v. Chrysler Corp.
    Dismissing class action RICO claims for lack of cognizable “enterprise” under the statute. 
  • Weaver v. Chrysler Corp.
    Dismissing class action fraud claims because plaintiff did not allege that the defect manifested itself in the product he purchased.