Our list of existing cases and investigations provide an excellent snapshot of the firm’s expertise and the level of trust we have earned from our clients. Below is a sample of the cases and investigations currently in progress.
Zagoria v. New York University,
Case No. 20-cv-3610 (S.D.N.Y)
Plaintiff Daniel Zagoria brings this class action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for recovery under the law of money had and received brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similar situated students enrolled at New York University (“NYU”) who did not enroll at NYU’s online degree programs. NYU has shut down its campus facilities, discontinued all on-campus in-classroom instruction of any courses at any of NYU’s campuses and schools, and instead moved all instruction to remote online media. While these actions are attributable to the COVID 19 pandemic and the shelter-in- place order in effect in the State of New York, NYU has continued holding Plaintiff and all students liable for the full pre-shutdown tuition and fee obligations despite being unable to provide, and not providing, the services or facilities that the students bargained for and are being billed for as part of their tuition and fees—fees and tuition costs that easily amount to thousands of dollars per student. NYU has used the current COVID 19 shutdown circumstances to excuse NYU’s duty to fully perform the obligations of its bargain with its students, but in violation of basic tenets of contract law continues to demand that all students fully perform their contractual bargain to pay in full all tuition and fees without any reduction for NYU’s lack of full performance. NYU’s breach of contract is saddling wholly innocent students with mounting debt as a result of having to pay tuition and fees for services they are not receiving and facilities that are not being provided. Meanwhile, NYU is unjustly enriching itself at the expense of Plaintiff and the members of the class he seeks to represent. For more information on the above lawsuit or if you wish to discuss the allegations in the complaint or join the lawsuit, please contact us.
Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-4700-LHK
Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) for breach of contract, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Laws during the class period August 20, 2015 to the present. Plaintiffs allege that Apple sold subscriptions to the putative class members by which Apple represented to class members that, in exchange for paying Apple the iCloud monthly subscription fees, Apple would provide them with digital data storage on the cloud so that they did not have to store large amounts of data —including sensitive information like photographs, documents of all kinds, and e-mail content— on their personal user devices. In fact, Apple lacked the necessary infrastructure to provide this service and instead of storing class members’ data on Apple cloud servers and facilities, Apple actually stored users’ data on cloud facilities owned and operated by other entities, like Amazon, Microsoft or Google—all undisclosed to these class members who paid and entrusted Apple to store their data. Users have an interest in who is offering this storage and taking custody of their data and Apple’s iCloud subscription contract, Apple went to great lengths to represent and assure iCloud subscribers that Apple was the provider of the cloud storage service being purchased by the putative class members.
Sidibe v. Sutter Health
Case No. 12-cv-4854-LB (N.D. Cal)
The Mehdi Firm, PC has been appointed Co-Lead counsel in the antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf of persons enrolled in commercial health insurance plans (Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, BlueShield, HealthNet, UnitedHealth) against Sutter Health, the largest hospital chain in Northern California. Sutter Health uses it monopoly power to engage in various forms of anti-competitive conduct, including forcing health plans to include all Sutter providers that charge supra-competitive prices, requiring health plans to steer their members to Sutter facilities instead of lower-cost quality hospitals, imposing financial penalties for members’ choosing non-Sutter facilities, among other things. Sutter’s conduct causes health plans to pay higher rates which are passed downstream resulting in individuals and employers paying higher premiums as well as out-of-pocket expenses. The lawsuit seeks to prevent Sutter from continuing to engage in this conduct and seeks to compensate for Sutter’s supra-competitive pricing for the period September 17, 2008 to the present.
Although initially dismissed by the lower court, plaintiffs prevailed in the Ninth Circuit and the case is now advancing in the United States District Court and an injunctive relief class was certified on August 30, 2019 (Redacted Order released on October 18, 2019 attached here). Plaintiffs are awaiting a decision on their renewed motion for certification of a monetary relief class. For more information on the above lawsuit or if you wish to discuss the allegations in the complaint or join the lawsuit, please. contact us.
In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 1:15-mc-01404-CKK (D.D.C)
The Mehdi Firm, PC is counsel to several individual plaintiffs in this multidistrict antitrust class action against four of the largest commercial air passenger carriers in the United States – American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co, and United Airlines, Inc. – to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3), by, inter alia, colluding to limit capacity on their respective airlines. Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy commenced in the first quarter of 2009 and continues to the present. During that period, Defendant airlines’ airfares rose substantially compared to those of other domestic air carriers, despite stagnant or decreasing demand and declines in the cost of jet fuel. Plaintiffs seek recovery of treble damages for the class period from July 1, 2011 to the present.
In Re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.)
The Mehdi Firm, PC is part of this multidistrict antitrust class action against on behalf of any individual who made a retail purchase or purchases of disposable contact lenses manufactured by Defendants Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.; Bausch & Lomb Inc.; and CooperVision, Inc. subject to one of the “Unilateral Pricing Policies” (“UPPs”) for the period from June 1, 2013 to the present. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired with each other and with Defendant ABB Concise Optical Group, LLC, a wholesaler, as well as independent eye care professionals (e.g., optometrists and ophthalmologists who sell contact lenses to consumers) and their trade association, the American Optometric Association (“AOA”), to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to UPPs, thereby reducing or eliminating price competition on those products from “big box” stores (e.g., those owned or operated by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Meijer, Inc.), buying clubs (e.g., those run by Costco and internet-based retailers (e.g., 1-800-Contacts and LensDiscounters.com) by preventing them from discounting those products.
In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 1:13-MD-2481-KBF (S.D.N.Y.)
The Mehdi Firm, PC is counsel to VIVA Railings, LLC, a plaintiff in this multidistrict antitrust litigation currently pending before the Honorable Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York. This antitrust class action alleges that defendants Goldman Sachs, Metro International, London Metals Exchange, among others, conspired to artificially inflate the prices of aluminum, thereby restraining trade. The case is currently on appeal in the Second Circuit.
Conduct by companies that hurts competition
Consumers often wonder why they are paying high prices for products like contact lenses, airline tickets, prescriptions, over-the-counter medications, toothpaste, and many other everyday household items when it seems like manufacturing processes have become faster, more efficient and less expensive. In some circumstances, these inquiries lead to the discovery that manufacturers, distributors, retailers or other entities in the production/distribution chain are engaging in conduct that is deemed illegal under many federal and state antitrust laws, i.e., they are colluding or agreeing to act or not to act in a certain way in order to artificially maintain high prices to their benefit and to the detriment of consumers.
If you have encountered such practices or conduct, please Contact us for a confidential, no-cost case evaluation.
Deceptive and false labeling or advertising
Many companies misleadingly label their products as being organic or natural when they are not; or having characteristics or properties that they do not have. Many states as well as the federal government have laws that prohibit this kind of deceptive labeling that induces a consumer to purchase a product that they either would not have purchased in the first instance or would not have paid the price that they paid for such a product. If you have purchased goods or services that were labeled or advertised in a false, misleading or deceptive manner, please Contact us for a confidential, no-cost case evaluation.
Fraud against the government
If you encounter information in your current or former employment that evidences that your employer is billing the United States government for goods not provided or services not rendered, or billing more or multiple times for good provided or services rendered or engaging in other practices that indicates that your employer is improperly benefitting at the cost of the United States government and eventually the taxpayers, this could be the basis of a False Claims Act lawsuit against your current of former employer.
If you have encountered such practices or conduct, Contact us for a confidential, no-cost case evaluation.
who we stand for is Simple: it's always You