Daley & Heft actively represents public entities and businesses in class action litigation in both federal and California courts. Applying highly effective litigation strategies developed over three decades, Daley & Heft attorneys efficiently litigate large complex class action cases. The firm’s winning track record in actions with multi-million-dollar risk exposure includes defeat of class certification motions, pleading stage challenges resulting in judgment of dismissal, and published California appellate opinions establishing new law.
Fenaroli v City of Murrieta (Federal District Court, Central District of California) (2016-2017)
Daley & Heft Partners Mitchell Dean, Scott Noya and Lee Roistacher, with associate attorney Matthew Racine, represented City of Murrieta and City’s Police Department in federal court action alleging civil rights violations arising from allegedly unlawful citations issued to motorists. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of putative members subject to City’s allegedly unlawful citations.
Result: Federal District Court agreed with City’s opposition and denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification in May 2016. The Court also granted in part City’s motion to strike and denied plaintiff’s motion to amend. Plaintiff later settled her individual claims.
Torrent v. Ollivier, et al. (Federal District Court, Central District Of California) (2015-2017):
Daley & Heft Partners Lee Roistacher and Matthew Bennett represented a company that marketed and sold goji berries in a federal court action alleging false advertising regarding the source of the berries. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of putative members that had purchased the berries in reliance on the alleged false representations.
Result: After the dismissing some of plaintiff’s claims, the district court denied class certification. Plaintiff later settled his individual claim.
Yarber v City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles) (2014-2018):
Daley & Heft Partner Scott Noya represented City of Rancho Palos Verdes in class action case seeking refund of telephone utility taxation of wireless and landline service. Class action claim for refunds of all taxes collected from 2006 through 2014. Case involved class action refund claims for tax collection and remittance from 92 telecommunication services entities, technical issues of mobile phone operations, application of federal excise tax, state law and Propositions 62 and 218.
Over 42,000 residents, plus business entities, included in class.
Exposure: $850,000 annual revenues; total exposure over $7.5 million.
Result: City’s demurrer sustained without leave to amend. Court ruled City’s amendment to telecommunications tax ordinance did not violate the California Constitution provisions of Proposition 218. Judgment in favor of City entered April 2016. Plaintiffs appealed. Scott Noya, with Certified Appellate Specialist Lee Roistacher, prevailed in the unpublished Second District Court of Appeal decision, Yarber v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 2017 WL 5988602, Cal. App. 2 Dist., Dec. 04, 2017, unpublished (Dec 04, 2017), as modified on denial of rehearing (Jan 03, 2018), review denied (Mar 14, 2018)
Gonzalez/Reynoso v City of Norwalk (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles) (2014-2018):
Daley & Heft Partner Scott Noya represented City of Norwalk in class action seeking refund of telephone utility taxation of wireless and landline service. Class action claim for refunds of all taxes collected from 2006 through 2014. Case involved class action refund claims for tax collection and remittance from over 100 telecommunication services entities, technical issues of mobile phone operations, application of federal excise tax, state law and Propositions 62 and 218. Over 106,000 residents, plus business entities, included in class.
Exposure: $2 million annual revenues; total exposure over $18 million.
Result: City’s demurrer sustained without leave to amend. Court ruled City’s amendment to telecommunications tax ordinance did not violate the California Constitution provisions of Proposition 218. Judgment in favor of City entered April 2016. Plaintiffs appealed. Scott Noya, with Certified Appellate Specialist Lee Roistacher, prevailed in the published Second District Court of Appeal decision, Gonzalez v. City of Norwalk, 17 Cal.App.5th 1295, Cal. App. 2 Dist., Dec. 04, 2017, as modified on denial of rehearing (Jan 03, 2018), review denied (Mar 14, 2018)
Sipple v City of Alameda, et. al., (City of Chula Vista) (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles) (2011-2015)
Daley & Heft Partner Scott Noya advised City of Chula Vista in class action case seeking refund of utility taxes on internet service AT&T collected and remitted to 137 cities in California. Case involved technical issues of application of federal and state tax law. State class action refund claims resulting from related federal class action litigation against AT&T.
Exposure: over $500,000 in tax revenues remitted to City during claim period.
Result: Negotiated favorable settlement for City of Chula Vista for small fraction of claim amount.
Villa v City of Chula Vista (Superior Court, County of San Diego) (2011-2014)
Daley & Heft Partners Mitchell Dean and Scott Noya represented City of Chula Vista in class action case seeking refund of telephone utility taxation of wireless and landline service. Case involved class action refund claims for tax collection and remittance from over 140 telecommunication services providers, technical issues of mobile phone operations, application of federal excise tax, and state law.
Exposure: over $14 million tax revenues during three-year claim period.
Result: Negotiated favorable settlement for Chula Vista. Court granted final approval of class-wide settlement in 2013. Over 90,000 notices of refund process mailed to class. City set up a refund claims website as part of the settlement. More than $4 million of the $8 million common settlement fund was returned to City following completion of refund claim process.