files and bankers boxes on a shelf

Industries & Services


Class action lawsuits create risk and challenges for businesses that can easily overshadow the underlying merits of a particular dispute. Companies’ reputations may be called into question and public relations issues abound when there are challenges to new products and ongoing business practices.

And the cost associated with such litigation – particularly with respect to e-discovery – often outpaces that of any regular case.

It takes experienced lawyers who have been in the trenches to minimize risk and handle these cases successfully. The lawyers at HHBJS have decades of the expertise needed to see several steps ahead and to develop strategies that lead to successful resolution, particularly when going the distance at trial might not be the business objective. We know how to plan a defense to defeat class certification in order to dramatically narrow the stakes, win the case on the merits at summary judgment, or create risk and uncertainty for the opposition to drive an acceptable settlement.

We have handled numerous putative class action cases involving consumer products, automobiles, securities, antitrust challenges, environmental nuisance, and employment practices.

  • Allen v Michigan State University, et al., (Court of Claims) (representing MSU in putative class action involving claims related to the University’s response to COVID-19 and the costs of tuition and room and board);  
  • In re Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Shareholder Litigation (WCCC) (represented directors and officers involving claims following a going-private transaction);
  • Kensu v. JPay, Inc., 18-11086 (EDMI) (obtained dismissal of putative class action against provider of e-communications for the Michigan Department of Corrections due to arbitration provision in the applicable agreements); 
  • Big City Small World Bakery Café, LLC v. Francis David Corporation, 16-12652 (EDMI) (secured dismissal of putative class action involving allegations of overcharges for processing credit card transactions due to arbitration provision in the agreement);
  • In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, 12-md-02311 (EDMI) (represented automotive supplier in MDL concerning allegations of price fixing in the automotive supply chain);
  • In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, 13-ml-0242 (CDCA) (represented Kia in MDL regarding consumer fraud claims following restatement of mpg ratings on certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles);
  • In re Takata Airbag Litigation, 15-md-2599 (SDFL) (represented an OEM in MDL involving economic loss claims against Takata and numerous automotive OEMs concerning alleged risks of rupture in certain Takata-made airbag inflators);
  • Polanco et al. v. Omnicell, Inc., et al., 13-cv-01417 (DNJ) (dismissal of putative class action against the major health system related to alleged violations of privacy due to a data breach);
  • Foote et al. v. Metaltec Steel Abrasive Co., 11-004887 (Wayne County Circuit Court) (obtained favorable class settlement in environmental case involving common law nuisance claims due to alleged emissions from defendant’s facility);
  • Edmondson et al. v. Proctor & Gamble, 10-cv-02256 (SDCA) (dismissal of putative class action alleging consumer fraud and alleged false advertising related to the Gillette-brand razors affirmed the Ninth Circuit);
  • Alexander et al. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 04-cc-00612 (Orange County Superior Court) (defense verdict for Kia following a trial on a certified class involving false advertising and fraud allegations concerning the suitability of seatbelts in certain Kia vehicles); and
  • Zourob Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., 03-307825 (Wayne County Circuit Court) (dismissal of putative class action brought by gasoline station dealers against ExxonMobil concerning franchise and contract disputes).