Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation

When it comes to high-stakes litigation, few types of cases pose a greater threat to a company than class action lawsuits or the prospect of multidistrict litigation. Alston & Bird’s Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Team has taken on some of the most complex class action cases and MDLs in the country and faced off against some of the nation’s most prominent law firms. We have a winning record to show for it.

Our lawyers fight aggressively for our clients, frequently winning dismissal of claims early in a case, defeating class certification, and even winning in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our diverse, multidisciplinary team defends clients in class actions in an array of industries and practice areas. From the defense of antitrust price-fixing and automotive product defect class actions to massive data breach and privacy class actions, we have litigated some of the highest-profile cases in recent memory, including headline-grabbing MDLs.

Our class action litigation and MDL team provides a full spectrum of guidance and perspective that goes beyond your company’s needs in the courtroom. We understand that litigation is not your business. We listen to you to ensure that our litigation strategy is consistent with and furthers your business objectives—whether that means structuring a global resolution or taking a case through trial and appeal. Our seasoned litigators understand that MDLs are often accompanied by parallel proceedings, including investigations and prosecutions by both state and federal agencies and industry regulators, and we are well-versed in coordinating strategies across multiple proceedings. Protecting your brand and reputation is an integral part of our proactive litigation strategies. With excellent working relationships with crisis management and public relations firms, we help ensure that your communications strategy syncs with your legal strategy and your broader business objectives.

Class action lawsuits pose enormous risk to a company’s reputation and bottom line—risks that are magnified in MDLs. Alston & Bird’s class action and MDL team has earned the trust of major corporations by recognizing the full scope of potential exposure, listening attentively to our clients’ objectives, executing proactive and innovative defense strategies, and protecting the integrity of our clients’ brands with a rapid and comprehensive response.

MDL Matters 

• Currently serve as lead counsel for Porsche Cars North America and Porsche AG in the In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” MDL pending in the Northern District of California. Porsche initially faced hundreds of millions of dollars of exposure from nearly 150 lawsuits, most of which were brought as consumer class actions, at the federal, state, and even small claims court levels. In addition to these consumer cases, Porsche also faced a reseller class action, competitive dealer class action, and sales person class action, and was named in suits initiated by the FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general. We worked diligently to consolidate the vast majority of those suits in the federal “Clean Diesel” MDL, often employing creative arguments to successfully remove cases filed in state court. Following formation of the MDL, we were able to negotiate various stipulated orders that minimized Porsche’s discovery burdens while the parties worked toward settlement. Ultimately, we were able to reach agreements in the MDL to resolve the consumer class actions, the reseller class action, and the DOJ, FTC, and California AG actions. These settlements were unprecedented in terms of both scope and speed, resolving in just 18 months over a half million consumer claims by providing meaningful and practical relief to consumers, while minimizing Porsche’s liability and exposure. Additionally, the plaintiffs in the competitive dealer class action elected to voluntarily dismiss Porsche following limited discovery in that matter. Alston & Bird also successfully represented Porsche in numerous non-removable lawsuits in state courts, including consolidated or coordinated statewide proceedings in California, Virginia, and Texas. Alston & Bird continues to represent Porsche in numerous “opt-out” cases, the vast majority of which are now pending in the federal MDL, and in a sales person class action pending in the MDL.
• Serving as lead trial counsel on behalf of the U.S.’s largest automobile insurer in 30 consolidated antitrust and RICO cases in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs asserted that our client led a conspiracy to fix prices and drive down competition in the automobile repair industry. Not one of the plaintiffs’ core claims has survived motion to dismiss; we have obtained nearly 50 motions to dismiss and are now defending the integrity of those orders in the Eleventh Circuit. We also obtained dismissal of the Louisiana state attorney general’s claim against our client based on the same set of facts.
• Currently serve as lead counsel for Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of America, Inc. in the In re Takata Airbag MDL in the Southern District of Florida. The Takata MDL arose from the largest recall in automotive history, with virtually the entire U.S. automotive market impacted by the recall of Takata airbag inflators. Mazda faced economic-loss class actions involving a wide variety of claims under the laws of almost every U.S. state. This litigation was complicated by parallel investigation proceedings, including a criminal investigation of Takata and multiple congressional hearings. We also serve as co-lead counsel for Mazda in a lawsuit brought in New Mexico state court by the New Mexico attorney general relating to Takata airbags. In the MDL, Alston & Bird secured several significant victories for Mazda, including a major win on a choice-of-law dispute that effectively eliminated certification of a nationwide class against Mazda. Alston & Bird also successfully moved to dismiss a number of plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and fraud claims, which greatly reduced Mazda’s potential exposure. In 2017, after years of litigation, Alston & Bird helped negotiate and secure a favorable settlement for Mazda and its customers, which included funding for an outreach program designed to increase recall completion rates. Alston & Bird continues to work closely with Mazda’s recall operations and assist Mazda with the implementation of the outreach plan.
• Hired as replacement counsel by Taishan Gypsum Company on the eve of a federal judge awarding class plaintiffs a $1.2 billion default judgment in an MDL. Within three months of appearing, Alston & Bird’s team dismantled the plaintiffs’ class structure, expert witness testimony, and class damages methodology through briefing and discovery and has reduced the plaintiffs’ requested damages amount to nearly a quarter of their original request. Alston & Bird forced the plaintiffs to produce another round of detailed discovery for each class member and continues to aggressively challenge the plaintiffs’ damages proofs.
• Represented a multinational home improvement retailer in connection with a sophisticated cyberattack and criminal intrusion involving customized malware targeting payment card data from point-of-sale systems. The representation included coordination with the payment card brand networks and federal and state law enforcement agencies, directing the forensic investigation of the PFI and other third-party forensic firms, and the defense of multiple putative class actions filed by financial institutions. Through careful discovery and using a third-party settlement process, Alston & Bird was able to pare down the putative class and reach a settlement of roughly $25 million, far below the plaintiffs’ initial billion-dollar demand. 
• Served as lead counsel in the economic loss class actions in the Toyota Unintended Acceleration (UA) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability MDL in the Central District of California and coordinating counsel for Toyota across all UA matters. The UA MDL was the largest mass tort litigation in the country and consisted of more than 200 class actions and individual economic loss cases and more than 100 individual product liability cases. We defeated several of the plaintiffs’ claims and limited liability by (1) defeating the effort to apply California law to out of state purchasers, thereby foreclosing certification of a nationwide class; (2) obtaining an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the Court’s Article III standing order; (3) winning the dismissal of foreign plaintiffs’ claims; and (4) winning the dismissal of Florida and New York consumers’ claims, two of the three states set for early disposition.
• Represented Louisiana Pacific in multibillion-dollar direct and indirect antitrust class actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after replacing a national law firm with 40 days left in discovery; we secured a settlement for a tiny fraction of the damages claim.
• Represented Safeco Insurance Company as lead trial counsel in a putative nationwide class action in Madison County, Illinois, alleging conspiracy in the aftermarket replacement parts industry; successfully moved to have Safeco dismissed from the action.
• Represented a Fortune 50 telecommunications company in the Middle District of Florida in a class action alleging RICO violations in connection with phone companies’ inclusion of allegedly fraudulent third-party providers’ charges on phone companies’ bills; we obtained dismissal of all claims brought by the putative class and successfully defended the dismissal in the 11th Circuit.
• Represented Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco Company, in connection with a putative securities class action pending in the Eastern District of Missouri where the plaintiffs alleged that Scientific Atlanta violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by entering into a business transaction with Charter Communications about which Charter allegedly made false statements to Charter's shareholders. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that there is no private cause of action for aiding and abetting liability under the federal securities laws.

VIDEO    |   JUNE 26, 2023

Litigation & Trial Practice senior associate Fiona O’Carroll discusses several putative class actions concerning PFAS and the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape where these actions are playing out.

VIDEO    |   MARCH 22, 2023

Litigation & Trial Practice counsel Drew Phillips discusses the FDA’s new definition of “healthy,” how the changes will impact class action litigation, and what types of cases to expect as a result of these changes.

VIDEO    |   APRIL 7, 2022

Litigation & Trial Practice senior associate Kristi Ramsay provides an overview of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's Do Not Call provisions and a summary of the approach and ultimate ruling in Kenneth Johansen v. eFinancial LLC.

VIDEO    |    DECEMBER 28, 2021

Andy Sumner | SPAC-Related Class Actions

The number of special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) IPOs has skyrocketed. Securities Litigation partner Andy Sumner discusses the increase in SPAC-related class actions, issues to watch, and future litigation activity to look out for.

VIDEO    |    SEPTEMBER 15, 2021

Introduction - Alston & Bird / National Bar Association - Commercial Law Section Virtual CLE: What to Expect When You are Expecting an MDL

If you are interested in reviewing a recording of this CLE presentation, please contact Abby Forness at abby.forness@alston.com or 404.881.7824.

Rachel Lowe | Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative Inc., et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al.

Litigation & Trial Practice partner, Rachel Lowe, discusses how the Ninth Circuit’s opinion vacating and remanding the district court’s opinion in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative Inc., et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al. will impact the courts in future class actions.

VIDEO    |    SEPTEMBER 17, 2020

Derin Dickerson | The TCPA Class Action Train Keeps Rolling . . . For Now

Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation partner Derin Dickerson discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. AAPC, which challenged the constitutionality of the TCPA. Derin analyzes the decision’s impact on the TCPA and the potential changes to come as the Supreme Court gears up to address another TCPA issue in the next term.

VIDEO    |    JANUARY 26, 2021

Cassie Johnson | Removal to Federal Court

Litigation & Trial Practice senior associate Cassie Johnson discusses the topic of removal to federal courts, covering first steps, jurisdiction, removal updates since Dart v. Cherokee Basin, how to prove jurisdictional requirements are met, and other practice tips.

VIDEO    |    JUNE 22, 2020

Alan Pryor | Federal Circuit Courts Weigh In on Personal Jurisdiction Requirements in Class Actions

Litigation & Trial Practice senior associate Alan Pryor discusses how federal circuit courts have weighed in on whether nationwide class actions are constrained by Bristol-Myers Squibb personal jurisdiction requirements and the consequences to future cases with similar claims.