Class Actions
North Carolina Class Action Attorneys - Wilmington
The lawyers at Lea, Rhine, Rosbrugh & Chleborowicz have been actively engaged in State and Federal Class Actions lawsuits for many years. Normally, we handle these cases in junction with other law firms in order to appropriately staff and fund the litigation, which as you can imagine is quite an undertaking.
A Class Action lawsuit is filed on behalf of one or more members of a large group of individuals or other entities to sue on behalf of the entire class of persons or entities with which they find themselves similarly situated. For example, we have filed class actions for homeowners who have a defective building product on their house and they are suing on behalf of other homeowners who have this same defective product installed on their home.
Often, a class action is the only way for plaintiffs in certain types of cases to recover any compensation because it is not practical for each of these class members to sue in individual lawsuits because of the costs to pursue and individual case greatly outweighs the potential recovery the member would be entitled to receive should they win in their individual case. Class actions can be appropriate when the actual harm is consistent among members of the class, and the damages are not high enough to pursue individual lawsuits.
Class action lawsuits may offer a number of advantages because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit.
First, aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation. In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating "days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial." Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos).
Second, a class action may overcome "the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). "A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone's (usually an attorney's) labor." Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm -- but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff -- must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.
Third, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund (i.e., the defendant) of all its assets before other plaintiffs may be compensated. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999). A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.
Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
Whether a class action is superior to individual litigation depends on the case, and is determined by the judge's ruling on a motion for class certification.
We are a professional, ethical and experienced team of lawyers representing people just like you: individuals, consumers and business owners.
Our present class action cases are as follows:
Kelly, et al. v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, et al.; USDC, Eastern Dist of NC, Southern Div. 7:08-CV-00197-D
Hart, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.; USDC, Eastern Dist, Northern Div. 2:08-CV-0047-BO
Madison, et al. v. Zurn Industries, LLC, et al.; USDC, Eastern Dist, Southern Div. 7:08-CV-0076 H
In Re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation; MDL Docket No. 08-MD-1958; USDC, Dist of Minnesota
Examples of class actions that our lawyers have had involvement with include but are not limited to:
Sullivan v. General Motors Corp; U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina (Dex-Cool Litigation)
Ruff, et al. v. Parex, Inc. et al.; NHC File No. 96 CVS 0059 (EIFS Class Action)
Sarah Futch Hall d/b/a Travel Specialists, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.; USDC, Eastern Dist of NC, Southern Div. 7:00-CV-123-BR(1)
Picos, et al. v. Lonza AG, et al., Cumberland Co. File No. 99-CVS-5035 (Vitamin Class Action)
Posey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.; In the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Tennessee, at Dandridge; Case No. 17,715-IV (EIFS Class Action)
The attorneys and paralegals at Lea, Rhine, Rosbrugh & Chleborowicz are highly experienced in representing plaintiffs in class action cases. If you or a loved one is in need of legal assistance, call Lea, Rhine, Rosbrugh & Chleborowicz at 910-772-9960 or toll free 866-772-9960 or submit an online questionnaire. In many cases, a lawsuit must be filed before an applicable expiration date, known as a statute of limitations. Please call right away to ensure that you do not waive your right to possible compensation.
