Pierce Atwood represents a large national bank in an overdraft fee MDL pending in the District of South Carolina.  During the course of the representation, we obtained dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims based on the bank’s past practice of ordering debits from high to low, and of usury claims based on the bank’s assessment of additional fees after a customer’s checking account continues to have a negative balance ten business days after the initial overdraft.  In addition, we successfully opposed plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class seeking actual damages for alleged violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 

In a case that should be of interest to manufacturers and distributors, and especially to suppliers of building products, Pierce Atwood’s class action defense team defeated class certification in a building products case in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs alleged defective design and manufacture of decking sold by our client. After extensive fact and expert discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and a hearing was held. On September 21, 2015, District Judge Denise Casper issued her decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion, ruling that individualized issues of causation and injury precluded findings of commonality, typicality and adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The judge based her ruling, in part, on evidence that only a small percentage of purchasers had reported problems with the decking, and that almost all of the warranty claims those purchasers submitted had been honored.

In a putative class action in Maine Superior Court filed on behalf of borrowers with mortgages allegedly discharged improperly by Bank of America, Pierce Atwood helped the bank obtain a voluntary dismissal of all claims in the face of the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Quebbeman v. Bank of America, N.A., Maine Superior Court No. BCD-CV-15-01 (Order dated November 9, 2015).

We successfully defended a major retailer in parallel federal multi-district and state level class actions after a data security breach resulted in exposure of electronic payment card data.

On behalf of North America’s largest vinyl siding manufacturer, we recently obtained dismissal of breach of warranty and consumer protection claims in a putative nationwide class action filed in the Northern District of New York.  The court held that the four named plaintiffs’ claims were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, and based its decision in part on the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court.

We represented a check processing company and its debt collector affiliate in a series of putative class actions filed in California, Kansas, Maine, New York, and North Carolina, and consolidated in Multi-District Litigation in the District of Maine.  After obtaining dismissal of all of the lawsuits originally filed outside of Maine, we negotiated a favorable nationwide class action settlement for our client of all remaining claims.

In two separate class actions, in which Pierce Atwood separately represented Unum Life Insurance Company and Sun Life Assurance Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that using Retained Asset Accounts (RAAs) to pay death benefits claims on group life insurance policies does not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), where the policies either require or permit payment by RAA.

We recently represented a bank in a putative nationwide and statewide class action concerning student loan services filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  After we and counsel for other defendants filed motions to compel individual arbitration, the case was settled on favorable terms.

Pierce Atwood successfully defended a nationwide nonprofit business association and its for-profit affiliate in a putative class action on behalf of members alleging unfair trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and misrepresentation; we successfully obtained dismissal of five of seven counts and defeated class certification as to the remaining two counts.

We recently represented a Maine-based retailer in a case alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous state statutes.  Plaintiffs claimed that our client’s store managers located in Maine and other states were misclassified as exempt employees, and that they should have received premium pay for overtime hours worked.  After an initial investigation, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement that was approved by a New York state court.

We successfully defended a private equity firm in a class action matter relating to putative WARN Act violations by its investment, a now defunct toy retailer.