Class Action Law

Supreme Court Holds Corporations Cannot Strategically Skirt Class Action Liability

Like many other strategic maneuvers by corporations that can only be characterized as one-sided and unfair, such as burying arbitration clauses in paperwork which deny consumers the right to a fair and impartial jury trial and immunize corporations from sweeping class-wide liability no matter how egregious their conduct, corporations have been attempting to suppress class-wide liability by offering individual plaintiffs the relief necessary to make them whole at the outset of the litigation in order to shut down multi-million dollar class actions.  In other words, the corporation’s argument is that by offering the named plaintiffs their full relief (which is often only a few hundred or few thousand dollars), the plaintiff has been made whole and, thus, the case is moot. By making such an offer, the corporation’s hope is to shut down its potential liability for multiple millions of dollars it would owe to all of the remaining class members.

Rightly so, named plaintiffs, who have promised to uphold their duties to protect and pursue rights not only on behalf of themselves but all of the absent class members, generally reject such strategic offers by corporations meant to shut down the absent class members’ rights to pursue justice. Instead, they choose to reject such strategic offers to pursue justice in court on behalf of all those similarly harmed.  Recognizing that the corporation’s offers is nothing more than a strategic move to moot the lawsuit, the consumer’s position, correctly, is that they have every right to reject such offers and that such a rejection does not moot their class-wide claims, particularly in the face of the corporation’s continuing denial of liability.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the consumer.  The high court held corporations cannot cut off class action claims by making an offer of full relief to individual plaintiffs where the plaintiff refuses to accept the offer.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.”  Just like other “unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table and the defendant’s continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists.”  Today is a victory for consumers in holding corporations accountable for their conduct that may have harmed hundreds if not millions of consumers. The case is Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

Haeggquist & Eck Files Class Action Lawsuit Against El Pollo Loco

On August 24, 2015, Haeggquist & Eck, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws by El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors. The class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of El Pollo Loco securities between May 15, 2015, and August 13, 2015 (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days, by October 23, 2015.  If you are a member of this class, you can click here to view a copy of the complaint or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/elpolloloco/.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in this action, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Amber Eck of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP at (619) 342-8000. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information about El Pollo Loco’s business and prospects, including that traffic at El Pollo Loco stores, had declined substantially due to the removal of the value items from the restaurants’ menu boards, and that as a result, comparable store sales were not growing at 3%, much less the 3% to 5% the defendants had led investors to believe they would grow in the second quarter of 2015.  As a result of these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, El Pollo Loco securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with the Company’s stock price reaching a high of $25.37 per share.

After the close of trading on August 13, 2015, the Company issued a release announcing its second-quarter 2015 results for the three-month period ended July 1, 2015.  El Pollo Loco disclosed that contrary to defendants’ prior claims of being on track to achieve 3%-5% comparable-store sales increases, second-quarter 2015 “[s]ystem-wide comparable restaurant sales [had grown] 1.3%, including a 0.5% decrease for company-operated restaurants, and a 2.6% increase for franchised restaurants.”  On this news, the price of El Pollo Loco’s shares declined by 20% from its closing price of $18.36 per share on August 13, 2015, to $14.56 per share on August 14, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of El Pollo Loco common stock during the Class Period.

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

Haeggquist & Eck Represents Third Employee To File Claim Against County of San Diego Over County Supervisor Dave Roberts

On June 8, 2015, Haeggquist & Eck (formerly Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck) filed a complaint against the County of San Diego for constructive discharge on behalf of Lindsey Masukawa. Ms. Masukawa was San Diego Supervisor Dave Roberts’ former Policy Advisor for Health and Human Services.

A copy of the complaint against the County can be found here.

For Immediate Release: Monday, June 8, 2015

LINDSEY MASUKAWA STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION CLAIM 

(San Diego) – Note: the following is the only statement to be made by Lindsey Masukawa regarding the claim being filed today on her behalf against the County of San Diego and Supervisor Dave Roberts. Neither Ms. Masukawa nor her attorneys will be available for questions.

“It was not an easy decision for me to step forward and file this claim. After enduring what I felt was unethical conduct for more than two years, I was asked to lie about what I know to be the truth: during my tenure at the County Supervisor’s Office, Supervisor Roberts’ focus was clearly not on serving the people of San Diego, but rather on his aspirations for re-election and higher office.”

“When I was asked by Supervisor Roberts to lie to the County’s human resources department in exchange for a raise and promotion, I had no choice but to resign. This decision was devastating to me. Not only had I dedicated my professional life to public service so that I could give back to my community, I truly believed in our political system. I left the district office of a prominent Assembly Member to work at the County so I could fulfill my personal call to community service through policy work. I believe I represented the Supervisor and the County with the utmost professionalism, and that I made a meaningful contribution to some of the top health issues affecting residents. Once I resigned, my intention was to move forward to a more positive work environment in a capacity that would allow me to continue serving the community. I attempted to leave my position in the Supervisor’s office as graciously and quietly as possible.”

“In my resignation letter, I focused on my position and the policy work I was hired to do. I stand by that work. I chose not to talk about the hostile work environment and unethical working conditions I had experienced, largely out of fear of retaliation from Supervisor Roberts and the concern that he might compromise my career as a public servant and policymaker. However, as events unfolded at the County, I recognized that I would not be able to remain silent. I had been named in the claims of my former colleagues, and what had happened to me at the Supervisor’s office was called into question. Moreover, I felt compelled to come forward because the Supervisor’s remarks refuting these claims are not true. I can affirm many of the statements my colleagues made. However, I also feel strongly that media platforms are not the correct arena for these disputes. Through a formal claim process and any due process that occurs, these matters will be appropriately heard.”

“I engaged the law firm of Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP to represent me in this process – to fully protect myself from the unanticipated consequences of my constructive termination. Any communications should be directed to them. However, as I believe in letting the wheels of justice take their course, neither I nor my lawyers will be doing any interviews or making any further statements at this time.”

Alreen Haeggquist

Representing Ms. Masukawa

June 8,

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

CYTRX CORPORATION (NASDAQ: CYTR)

Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, a shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has commenced a lawsuit against CytRx Corporation (“CytRx” or the “Company”) for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and other violations.  A copy of the complaint can be found here.

CytRx (NASDAQ: CYTR) is a pharmaceutical research and development company headquartered in Los Angeles, California.  The investigation focuses on allegations that CytRx hired a promoter, The DreamTeam Group, to publish favorable articles about CytRx stock without disclosing to investors that the Company had paid The DreamTeam Group to promote the stock.  An article published on March 13, 2014 on SeekingAlpha.com alleges that the articles were written under multiple aliases and were coordinated with the release of news from the Company in order to amplify the effect of the news on the Company’s stock price.

What You Can Do

If you purchased CytRx shares prior to this disclosure on March 13, 2014, you may have legal claims under the securities laws.  If you wish to discuss this lawsuit, or have questions about this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Amber L. Eck at (619) 342-8000, or by email at ambere@zhlaw.com. There is no cost to you.

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

Haeggquist & Eck LLP Announces Investigation of Suntrust Banks, Inc.

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, a shareholder, and consumer rights litigation firm has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law by certain officers and directors at SunTrust Banks, Inc. (“SunTrust” or the “Company”).

SunTrust (NYSE: STI) is a bank holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  On June 17, 2014, it was announced that SunTrust agreed to pay $968 million in fines and consumer relief to settle state and federal investigations into alleged abusive mortgage practices.  Shortly thereafter, on July 3, 2014, SunTrust’s subsidiary, SunTrust Mortgage, agreed to pay $320 million to settle claims asserted by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia alleging that SunTrust Mortgage harmed customers seeking mortgage loan payment modifications under the United States government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”).

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (NYSE: SC)

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, a shareholder, and consumer rights litigation firm has commenced an investigation into Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (NYSE: SC) (“Santander Consumer” or the “Company”) for securities law violations in connection with the Company’s January 23, 2014, Initial Public Offering (“IPO”).

Santander Consumer is the U.S. auto-lending unit of the Spanish bank, Banco Santander SA (NYSE: SAN).  Founded in 1995, Santander Consumer has serviced a finance portfolio of more than $35 billion, has more than two million customers and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Santander Consumer originates car loans through car dealerships, manufacturers, banks, and its direct-to-consumer website.  More than 80% of its loans are subprime loans, which have both higher yields and increased default rates.

Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is investigating whether Santander Consumer failed to disclose material information to investors in connection with its January 23, 2014, IPO.

On August 7, 2014, Santander Consumer said in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act requesting the production of “documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007.” Upon these revelations, the price of Santander Consumer shares dropped significantly.

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

Translate »