Amicus Brief in Support of Appelle in Muransky vs. Godiva
Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees in Maddox vs. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
Amicus Brief in support of Objector-Appellant and supporting reversal in Low et al and Simpson vs Trump University, LLC
Amicus Brief in Support of Plantiffs-Appellees in James Gonzales, et al vs Owens Corning
Opinion Letter to California Court of Appeals regarding Rel v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees in Robert Brown, Et Al, vs Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Adoption of Defendants’ position would be the death knell of virtually all meaningful enforcement of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 57-12-1 to -22.
NACA and NCLC have filed this brief out of concern that two recent Missouri appellate cases directly conflict with this Court's decision of October 6, 2009. The two Missouri cases are Woods v. QC Financial Services, Inc., 280 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. App. 2008) and Huch v. Charter Conmmunications, Inc., 290 S. W.2d 721 (Mo. banc 2009).
This brief holds that class actions are an indispensable procedural device in cases involving relatively small money damages for large numbers of people, and the unsupported contention that class actions harm consumers by increasing the costs of goods and services has no basis in fact. This brief was written by Steve Gardner, Law Offices of Stephen Gardner, PC, Leslie Brueckner, Paul Bland, and Arthur Bryant, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and Eugene Pavalon, Pavalon, Gifford, Laatsch and Marino.