Consumer Litigation | Class Action Litigation
Gray, Ritter & Graham represents consumers, including
classes of consumers, who have been damaged either physically or economically.
Class action lawsuits are brought by named plaintiffs, usually one or two, whose
alleged injuries are the same or similar to those of a large number of other
parties. The "injury" may be physical in nature or one of a monetary loss. The
plaintiffs may be individuals or businesses.
The purpose of a class action is to combine many similar
causes of action. The cause of the common injury or damage could be from any
number of sources, such as from violations of federal regulations, breach of
contract, product defects, securities fraud, bank fraud, or environmental issues
to name just a few. When multiple plaintiffs with similar claims are involved,
litigating each case individually would be very expensive and time consuming. A
class action suit allows for a combined effort, potentially lowering the
litigation costs for all plaintiffs and improving the likelihood of success.
A rigorous screening procedure has been established at GRG
for consideration of potential class action cases. Only those that demonstrate
strong merit on liability issues, as well as a meaningful potential benefit to
individual class members will be accepted. This adherence to strict intake
criteria allows the firm to concentrate its efforts only on significant and
meritorious claims. These high standards serve not only the firm and its
valuable referral sources, but, most importantly, the client.
In some instances Gray, Ritter & Graham attorneys will team
with peer law firms to bring class action suits against product manufacturers,
and others. This is especially true when the plaintiffs are located in different
states and the case is suited for Multi District Litigation (MDL) under Federal
regulations.
Representative Cases
We treat the cases handled by GRG for our clients as
confidential, both as to the identity of our clients and the settlements or
verdicts achieved on their behalf. For this reason we have omitted client and
case names in our description of representative cases successfully handled by
GRG except when the case has received widespread publicity in the media. Please
click on the case description for more news about those cases which are marked
with a **.
We caution viewers that past results reported on this Web site afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.
**Case against hospitals for overcharging uninsured
patients.
**Suit to nullify as unconstitutional a Missouri voter
identification statute.
**Suits against the agricultural company that produced a
modified rice seed, known as "Liberty Link Rice." Some foreign and domestic
purchasers have shunned the rice crop after traces of a genetically modified
rice variety were discovered in Missouri and Arkansas rice bins. More than
200 farmers were named in the suit which involves more than 125,000 acres of
farmland.
**Confidential settlement for 70 farmers whose 41,000
acres of cotton were damaged by herbicide "drift."
Claims against the manufacturer of Bard Composix Kugel
surgical patches which were implanted during abdominal hernia surgery for
patients who experienced abdominal pain, bowel perforation, and chronic
enteric fistulas related to the surgical mesh.
**Claims for individuals who developed Fusarium eye fungus
infections (which are potentially blinding) against the manufacturer of the
eye drops.
***Missouri Supreme Court approved the right of groups
exposed to toxins (but displaying no injuries) to form class-action lawsuits
seeking funds to monitor their medical progress.
Consumer class action against a termite extermination
company for misrepresentation in failing to treat foundations of homes with
the amount of termiticide it had agreed to supply.
Six separate class cases against a lead mining company
for property contamination over a wide geographical area.
$30 million recovery against a public utility for
unconstitutional rate increased levied against sewer district customers.
Matters against insurance companies for unfair dealings
in co-pay arrangements.
Case against an insurance company involving "forced
insurance" for mobile home coverage.
Case against an insurance company for improper premium
charges for "medigap" coverage.
Case against a cable television provider for charging
excessive fees.
Suit against multiple mortgage loan organizations for
statutory fee violations.
Lawsuit on behalf of the State of Missouri against major
tobacco companies for years of medical cost for tobacco-related injuries and
deaths that resulted from decades of deception by the tobacco industry
regarding the deadly nature of tobacco by-products and the profoundly
addictive compounds in smoking and chewing tobacco. The case ended in a
historic settlement with the tobacco defendants agreeing to pay the state
$6.7 billion dollars.
|
