Civil Litigation & Class Actions

Complex Litigation Attorneys

Class Action Lawsuit Plaintiff and Defense Representation

What is Complex Litigation?
What is a Class Action
Consumer Class Actions
ERISA Class Actions
Antitrust Class Actions
Employment Class Actions
Other Class Actions
Class Action Defense
General Civil Litigation

Since its inception, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. has litigated a variety of class action claims in federal and state court, mostly on behalf of plaintiffs. Our 20-attorney firm possesses the resources, knowledge, strategies, and trial experience to compete against much larger firms in complex general civil litigation and class actions. Contact our Minneapolis-based firm or read below about our extensive involvement and notable results on behalf of our diverse clientele. We represent clients of the Twin Cities area and Minnesota, as well as plaintiffs across the Upper Midwest and nationwide.

What is Complex Litigation?

"Complex Litigation" is commonly defined as one or more related cases that present unusual problems and require extraordinary treatment, often involving protracted and large-scale proceedings. In addition to Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen's work in the area of Class Actions, described below, the Firm has experience in a variety of non-class litigation, which by any definition could be considered complex. For recent examples of the Firm's complex litigation successes, see our pages on Antitrust Litigation and Commercial Litigation.

What is a Class Action?

A "class action" is a procedural mechanism permitting persons who were harmed in a similar manner to seek relief against a common defendant or group of defendants. Among other benefits, this ensures that individuals whose claims might be too small to pursue individually can have their day in court. Class actions also serve to deter businesses from engaging in deceptive or illegal conduct that may harm people on a community or even nationwide-wide basis. Claims amenable to class action treatment include ones involving consumer fraud, antitrust violations, securities fraud, defective products, employment law violations and others involving large numbers of similarly situated claimants.

Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or its state law counterpart, depending on whether the action is brought in federal or state court. Congressional enactment of the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act ensures that all but the smallest class actions will be heard in federal court. Rule 23 allows the court to certify a proposed class if the following conditions are met: (1) it would be "impracticable" for the claims to be joined on an individual basis; (2) the class members share common questions of law or fact; (3) such common questions predominate over others; (4) the claims or defenses of the class representative are typical of those of the class; and (5) the representative plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as a whole.

Generally, a class must have at least 30 members or more to be certified, and some classes number in the thousands or even millions of people. The class representative, whose name appears in the case caption as the lead plaintiff (in his or her individual capacity and for "all others similarly situated"), plays an important role in the litigation. This person embodies the harm suffered class-wide, and is responsible for staying informed of the proceedings and assisting in making important decisions about the case, including settlement. The class representative also puts a human face on the case, and is sometimes rewarded for his or her trouble with a modest recovery on top of that awarded to the other class members following settlement of the case or trial.

Class actions may be nationwide or limited in geographic scope to a particular state or group of states. Class actions are often bitterly contested by the defendants, which tend to be large corporations. Due to their size and complexity, class actions may take years to resolve. In addition, these cases are usually handled on a contingency fee basis, with plaintiffs' attorneys bearing significant economic risk in litigating them. To spread the risk, plaintiffs' law firms sometimes work collaboratively with others specializing in this practice.

Once a class is certified by the court, the class members are notified of their right to "opt out" and pursue their claims against the defendant on an individual basis. Any class member who does not opt out will remain in the class and will be bound by its outcome. Certain class actions, such as claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, require an "opt-in" mechanism, in which the reverse is true: potential claimants are not bound unless they affirmatively consent to join the class action. The form of class notice varies, but commonly consists of a brochure sent by ordinary mail. At any point following certification, any settlement must be approved by the court. Once a verdict or settlement occurs, a distribution, or payment, is made to the individual members of the class. If some class members cannot be found, the unclaimed settlement funds may be given to charitable organization under what is known as a cy pres award. (See Community Involvement for examples of cy pres awards obtained by Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen)

Representative Achievements and Current Litigation

Consumer Class Actions

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen has achieved national prominence representing plaintiff classes with regard to claims involving consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, usury, Truth in Lending Act violations, Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act violations, breach of contract, and other claims. In 1999 Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen successfully upheld one of the largest verdicts in Minnesota history, valued at approximately $33 million on behalf of consumers in the rent-to-own industry.

Past consumer cases in which Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen played a major role as lead or co-counsel for Plaintiffs include the following:

Bergman, et al. v. U.S. Bank N.A. et al., (D. Minn. No. 99-920 JRT/FLN), captioned on appeal as In re US Bancorp Litigation, (8th Cir. 2002, No. 01-1217)
Burney v. Thorn Americas, Inc., et al., 970 F. Supp. 668 (E.D. Wisc. 1997)
Willis/Ivory, et al. v. Thorn Americas, Inc., et al., CA Nos. 95-5878(JF) and 96-3682(JF) (E.D. Pa.)
Miller v. Colortyme, 518 N.W.2d 544 (Minn. 1994)
Fogie v. Rent-A-Center, 867 F. Supp. 1398 (D. Minn. 1993)
Heisler v. Honeywell, et al., 4-91-Civ-328 (D. Minn.)
Rosenbaum v. Southdale Ford, No. AC-89-014373 (Henn. Co. Minn. Dist. Ct.)
Hohn v. Thorp Loan & Thrift Co., et al., No. 4-87-808 (D. Minn. 1984).

Current and recent consumer class actions prosecuted by Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen include the following:

Predatory Lending Practices Involving Consumer Loans: Menzel v. Beneficial Loan & Thrift, et al., Court File No. CT 00-6884 (Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota)

In 2003, the Minnesota State District Court certified a class action against a Fortune 500 lender, Household International, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants wrongfully collected interest on finance charges, contrary to the express terms of their loan agreements and engaged in predatory lending tactics in violation of state law. Following the court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the parties reached a settlement on terms favorable to class members.

Wrongful Collection of Prepayment Penalties on Home Loans: McDonnell, et al. v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Court File No. CT 03-5525 (Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota)

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen filed this proposed national class action against one of the nation’s largest home loan and loan servicing companies as well as its major subsidiaries based on alleged widespread overcharging of customers in connection with early payoff and refinancing of home loans. Case is pending.

Deceptive Trade Practices in the Marketing of Diet Pills: LaRaia, et al. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc, Court File No. CL 007021 (Palm Beach County District Court, State of Florida)

In 2000, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with a group of other firms, filed an action in Florida State Court alleging that a distributor of health and beauty aids, Rexall Sundown, was fraudulently marketing a product under the trade name "Cellasene." In the suit, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant made bogus advertising claims that its product reduces cellulite. The matter was resolved on favorable terms to class members.

Violation of Club Contracts Act, Home Solicitation Sales Act and Deceptive Trade Practices claims against telemarketer: Machalek, et al. v. Damark International, Inc., MC 00-11950 (Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota)

This lawsuit alleged that Damark, now known as Provell, violated various consumer protection statutes in its telemarketing practices and sale of membership clubs. This matter was resolved on favorable terms to class members.

Deceptive Insurance Practices: Ballard v. Central States Health & Life Company of Omaha, Court File No. CT 98-008856 (Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota)

In 1998, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with other firms, commenced a nationwide class action against Central States Health & Life Company for failing to refund the unearned portions of premiums for credit life and/or disability insurance. The matter was settled on favorable terms to class members.

Failure to Refund Un-Earned Premiums: Jordan, et al., v. Western Diversified Insurance Company; Court File No. CT 96-16337 (Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota)

In 1998, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with a group of other firms, commenced a nationwide class action against Western Diversified Insurance Co. for failing to refund the unearned portions of premiums for credit life and/or disability insurance.

Improper Disclosure: Fyhrie, et al. v. Fleet Mortgage Corporation, Court File No. CX-01-438 (Otter Tail County District Court, State of Minnesota)

In 2001, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with a group of other firms commenced a nationwide class action against Fleet Mortgage for improperly disclosing customers' personal information to third-party telemarketers.

Television Shopping Misrepresentation: Buonomo v. ValueVision International, Inc., Court File No. CT-01-13925 (Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota)

In 2001, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with other firms, commenced a nationwide class action against ValueVision International, now Shop NBC, for misrepresenting internet services provided with a computer sold over a home shopping television network. This matter was resolved on favorable terms to class members.

ERISA Class Actions

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known by its acronym ERISA, was enacted in 1974. This landmark legislation governs pension plans, employer-funded benefit plans, including health insurance, 401(k)'s, and severance plans protecting against employer mismanagement, self-dealing, and other abuses. ERISA's broad preemption provision requires that virtually all claims involving employee benefit plans be litigated in federal court. Because of the statute's notorious complexity, few attorneys have obtained a thorough understanding of its provisions. Even lawyers practicing in the area of employment and labor law tend to defer to the expertise of firms having specialized ERISA practice groups

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen is one of a handful of Minnesota law firms possessing such expertise. The Firm's extensive ERISA practice includes representation of individual employees and classes of employees in suits to recover wrongfully denied benefits. As an indication of the Firm's prominence in this field, Seymour J. Mansfield served as Chair of the ERISA Litigation Institute for the Minnesota Institute of Legal Education in 1999 and 2000, and Denise Y. Tataryn served as Chair in 2001.

The Firm's notable achievements in the recent past included settlement of ERISA claims involving the rights of divorced spouses to health care benefits under COBRA and related laws. Representative cases include:

Anderson v. BCBSM, Inc., No. 3-94-1139 (D. Minn.)
Tucker v. BCBSM, Inc., No. CT 94-015477 (Henn. Co., Minn. Dist. Ct.)
DeVries, et al. v. Allina Health Sys., Inc., No. CT 95-013195 (Henn. Co., Minn. Dist. Ct.).

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen also played a prominent role in protracted pension/ERISA litigation on behalf of retired employees of the Unisys Corporation:

Goers v. Unisys Corp., et al., 4-91-Civ-356 (D. Minn.)
In Re Unisys Corp. Retiree Benefits ERISA Litig., MDL Docket 969 (E.D. Pa., 1994), WL 284079 (E.D. Pa.), 886 F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1995), aff'd, 57 F.3d 1255 (3rd Cir. 1995).

In 1999, the Firm settled an ERISA case on behalf of 27 retired miners. Blaine, et al. v. LTV Corporation, (97-1475 MJD/JGL D. Minn.). In 2001, the Firm also successfully settled an ERISA lawsuit on behalf of thousands of independent contractors at American Express Financial Advisors. Lambert v. American Express Financial Corporation, et al., 99-CV-493 (D. Minn. JMR/SRN).

Abusive Disability Claims Handling Processes: Jewel, et al. v. UNUMProvident Corp., No. W0CV2003-02391-B (Sup. Ct. Mass.)

The Firm is one of a group of law firms involved in prosecuting large-scale ERISA class actions against UNUMProvident Corporation, on behalf of individuals insured under private or group disability policies purchased from the defendant, whose claims were denied or terminated prematurely during the class period. In complaints brought in Tennessee federal court and Massachusetts state court, the plaintiffs allege widespread abuses in the company’s disability claims handling procedures. Specifically, the company set artificial quotas and mandatory unit cost targets, causing the denial or early termination of disability insurance claims regardless of actual merit and entitlement under the terms of the policies. The cases are pending.

Inflation of Employee Retirement and Stock Purchase Accounts: Smith, et al. v. Merck & Co. Inc., et al., 05-1151 (D.NJ)

Employees of pharmaceutical giant Merck Corporation saw a large portion of the value of their company-sponsored, ERISA-governed retirement plans and stock purchase plans wiped away due to market reaction following the company’s voluntary withdrawal of its “blockbuster” pain relief drug, Vioxx. The company’s action was taken in response to disclosures that the drug caused an unacceptably high increase in cardiac incidents (including deaths), information alleged to have been known by the company for years, but concealed from the public and medical community through an orchestrated campaign of misinformation and threats. The Firm in complaint alleges on behalf of former and current Merck employees that the company, by promoting its stock to employees, while failing to disclose risks to the stock’s value based upon undisclosed problems with Vioxx, violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA. The case is pending.

Inflation of Employee Retirement and Stock Purchase Accounts: Brewer v. Delphi Corporation, et al., 05-70882 (E.D. Mich.)

This class action is being brought on behalf of hourly employees who worked for automotive parts manufacturer Delphi Corp. and invested in the company’s retirement plan. Similar to Smith v. Merck, it involves a failure to disclose to employee-investors wrongful company conduct that caused a significant decrease to the company’s stock, and to the employee retirement plans predominantly holding company stock. In particular, Delphi management chose to invest employee retirement assets in Delphi stock at a time when it knew that Delphi stock was an unsuitable investment for the Plan because the stock was inflated from accounting irregularities. The class action seeks to recover losses suffered by the Plan as a result of Delphi’s imprudent investment decisions. The case is pending.

Antitrust Class Actions

Congress enacted the Sherman and Clayton Acts nearly 100 years ago to protect consumers and businesses against combinations in restraint of trade and abuses of market power practiced by companies in the absence of competition. Since then, various state legislatures have enacted parallel legislation, allowing for state court actions against monopolists, typically on an intra-state basis. In many instances, state laws go beyond the protections afforded under the federal statutes, by providing remedies for indirect purchasers (i.e. ultimate consumers who did not buy directly from the monopolist). Owing to the size and economic impact of these claims, many of which involve damages in the tens of millions of dollars, defendants in antitrust lawsuits typically spare no expense in protecting their interests. These cases often involve complicated legal issues and factual patterns, which require the skills, ingenuity, and perseverance of experienced litigators. Individually and in cooperation with allied law firms, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen is currently involved in several high-profile antitrust lawsuits.

Current and recent antitrust cases being prosecuted by Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. include the following:

Price Fixing Conspiracy by Vitamin Manufacturers:

In re Vitamin Antitrust Litigation, (Federal District (D.D.C.) Court, Court File No. 99-0197 TFH)
Kerber Milling Co., et al v. Akzo Nobel, Inc.
In Re Minnesota Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Court File No. C2-00-1800 (Ramsey County District Court, State of Minnesota)

The Firm was involved in antitrust litigation brought on behalf of food companies, livestock feed producers, and other consumers against a cartel consisting of over a dozen of the world's largest manufacturers of vitamins and vitamin components, including BASF, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Merck and others. Prior to the filing of the civil lawsuit, the defendants pled guilty to criminal counts in connection their price-fixing scheme, which lasted from approximately 1990 to 1999 and involved several billions of dollars in overcharges. The Firm was one of several representing a class of larger companies that elected to "opt out" of a larger class action settlement. This matter was resolved on a favorable basis to plaintiffs.

Monopoly Pricing of Airline Tickets: Midwestern Machinery, Inc., et al. v. Northwest Airlines, Civ. No. 97-1438 (D. Minn.)

In 1997, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen was one of the original law firms to sue Northwest Airlines under § 7 of the Clayton Act, alleging predatory, anti-competitive practices in Northwest's Minneapolis/St. Paul hub market. Following motions to dismiss, the case went before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, which confirmed the plaintiffs' right to proceed with their lawsuit. Midwestern Machinery, Inc., et al. v. Northwest Airlines, 167 F.3rd 439 (8th Cir. 1999). In early 2001, Judge Donovan Frank certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased tickets for scheduled passenger air service from Northwest involving travel in the "relevant markets." Prior to trial, the matter was dismissed based on a technicality not involving the merits of the claims.

Other Antitrust Cases: The Firm has been involved in other price-fixing cases involving products running the gamut from women's dress shoes to tobacco. The latter case involved price fixing at the wholesale level, i.e. in sales by the major manufacturers to independent vendors who distribute their product to customers through various retail outlets.

Employment Class Actions

A variety of federal and state laws protect employees against discrimination (based on age, disability, race, religion, etc.), retaliation for whistleblowing, certain types of drug testing and other abuses of public policy and morality. The Firm, as part of its extensive employment law practice, periodically prosecutes employee claims on a class-wide basis. For example, in 2001, the Firm successfully settled a class action on behalf of thousands of independent contractors at American Express Financial Advisors. Lambert v. American Express Financial Corporation, et al., 99-CV-493 (D. Minn. JMR/SRN). The Firm also has experience in enforcing the federal Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 ("WARN Act"), which requires that employers provide sixty (60) days advance notice to employees who are to be terminated as a result of large-scale law-offs or "plant closings." In fact, the Firm was lead counsel in the only reported WARN Act decisions in the District of Minnesota, Solberg v. Inline Corp., 740 F. Supp. 680 (D. Minn. 1990) and Bley v. ClickShip Direct, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21147 (D. Minn. 2001).

Current and recent employment law class actions being prosecuted by Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. include the following:

Overtime Wages: Johnson et al. v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Court File No. 024261 (D. Minn.)

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with Sprenger & Lang, brought this nationwide “collective action” against a major transportation logistics company. In the lawsuit, the Firm is seeking to recover on behalf of hundreds of current and former sales representatives and other salaried employees unpaid overtime wages resulting from the company’s wrongful misclassification of these individuals as exempt under the FSLA. In May 2004, the Court certified the matter as a nationwide collective action, upon which class notice was mailed to thousands of affected employees. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. The matter is pending. To learn about the case and its current status, click here.

Plant Shutdown: Bley et al. v. Clickship Direct, Inc. et al., No. 01-CV-661 (D. Minn.)

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, along with Sprenger & Lang, brought this class action on behalf of approximately 150 employees against a dissolved Minnesota employer and its parent company, alleging that its employees were terminated without sufficient notice under the WARN Act. The plaintiffs claimed their termination unlawfully deprived the Plaintiffs and class approximately five weeks of pay due them under the WARN Act. One class of the employees also sued for breach of an incentive bonus plan in addition to other damages. In 2001, the court declined to dismiss the bonus claim. Bley v. ClickShip Direct, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21147 (D. Minn. 2001). The matter was subsequently resolved on terms favorable to plaintiffs.

Other Class Actions

Negligent Processing of Standardized Student Tests: Kurvers et al. v. National Computer Systems, Inc., No. MC00-11010 (Henn. County Dist. Ct.)

The State of Minnesota contracts out scoring of standardized student tests to a national test-scoring company, National Computer Systems, Inc. (NCS). In 2000, NCS used an incorrect scoring system, which resulted in erroneous scoring of approximately 8,000 high school and junior high school students' tests. Many students were informed that they had failed the test when they had in fact passed. This caused some students to take remedial summer courses, and some 60 high school seniors were not allowed to attend graduation ceremonies. Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen was one of four firms seeking damages on a class-wide basis to compensate these students and their parents for economic injury that resulted from these widespread errors. The state district court certified a class, following which the matter settled.

Securities Fraud: Florida State Board of Admin., et al. v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 270 F. 3d 645 (8th Cir. 2001)

The Firm served as local counsel for a sub-group of investors in the successful appeal of an adverse decision in a securities fraud case against a lending company.

Class Action Defense

Owing to the Firm's expertise and reputation in handling complex class actions, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen has been retained to defend class actions and putative class actions, in addition to its representation of plaintiff classes. Recently, for example, the Firm successfully defended a suit involving Minnesota's "junk fax" law brought against the publisher of a local legal periodical. Another defense case handled by the Firm involved allegations that an entertainment facility denied public access in violation of federal civil rights laws. The Firm is presently defending a subsidiary of a major national drug store chain in a nationwide class action involving payment practices relating to drug benefit processing services.

General Civil Litigation

In addition to class actions, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen has an extensive resume of successful outcomes on behalf of individuals, small companies, and small groups of plaintiffs not qualifying for class action. These cases can be every bit as complex, requiring the same strategic approach and commitment of resources. We have handled general civil litigation in antitrust litigation, ERISA litigation, consumer fraud, defective products, securities fraud, employment law, insurance coverage, breach of contract and many other civil claims.

In 1999, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen achieved a favorable settlement of ERISA claims on behalf of a group of 27 former employed of LTV Steel in Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota.
In 2000, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen successfully defended a labor union, an employer association, and a joint apprenticeship program against claims by former apprentices that the defendants violated state drug testing laws.
In 2002, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen obtained a sizable recovery for a group of eight women with regard to medical malpractice claims in northern Minnesota.
In 2003, the Firm successfully represented two former high-level employees of a Minnesota-based food products manufacturing company in a lawsuit brought under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
In 2004, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen successfully represented a disabled plaintiff in a lawsuit against a national airline in a lawsuit based on the federal Air Carrier Access Act.
In 2005, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen prevailed on summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute against an automobile insurance company involving an alleged failure to cooperate, successfully arguing that Minnesota law contains an absolute indemnification requirement following motor vehicle accidents involving personal injury.
In 2005 Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen represented a disabled plaintiff and established for the first time in the Minnesota Court of Appeals that claims of employment disability discrimination must be tested by whether the person is disabled in any major life activity, rather than only the major life activity of working.

Members of the Class Action Practice Group

For more information about class actions or complex litigation, please contact any of the attorneys listed above at 612.339.4295, or contact Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen online.