What Sets Us Apart

INSURANCE ASSISTANCE

We understand that the healing process begins now. Our attorneys have extensive experience with insurance companies, claims, and policy questions, and are ready to assist you to maximize your insurance recovery and begin the recovery process. 

EXTENSIVE WILDFIRE AND DISASTER RELATED LITIGATION EXPERIENCE

Our attorneys have successfully litigated several wildfire and disaster related cases. In the 2007 San Diego Wildfires, Alexander Schack served as lead counsel against Sempra Energy in what became the largest fire case in California history, resulting in over 2 billion dollars in settlement (See details below). Mr. Schack also served as lead counsel against Nevada Energy in the 2011 Caughlin Fire, resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement (See details below). Additionally, Stephen B. Murray, Sr. and Jessica Hayes successfully obtained settlements for clients affected by Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil Spill. As Co-Liason Counsel in the 2017 Canyon Fire Litigation, Natasha Serino also helped plaintiffs pursue recovery against Caltrans. Click to learn more about: 

PERSONAL, INDIVIDUALIZED ASSISTANCE

We prosecute fire damage cases on an individual basis with a very personal touch.  Our attorneys have represented clients all along the spectrum of damages, from smoke and soot cases to complex structural and agricultural loss. Our individualized approach allows us to find value for our clients and recover damages they may have forgotten or did not know they could recover. 

LOCAL AND COMMITTED TO RECOVERING WITH YOU

Our team is based in Santa Rosa and Healdsburg, California. Our attorneys personally experienced the devastating effects of the 2017 North Bay Wildfires, and will continue to live and work alongside our clients and neighbors for years to come. As such, we are personally committed to achieving the best outcome for each and every client and for the wine country community as a whole. Our attorneys will meet with you in person to address insurance issues, conduct site inspections and damage analysis, or simply to answer any questions you may have along the way. Click to learn more about Our Team.

Prior Cases

San Diego Coordinated Wildfire Cases of October 2007
Robert Waldon, et al. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Sempra, Cox
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00079891-CU-PO-CTL
Lead counsel against Sempra
Member of Plaintiff Control Group and Discovery Coordinator for over 2,000 claims filed after SDG&E and Cox equipment allegedly started three wildfires in October 2007, burning over 1,000 homes. Schack Law Group, one of our attorney partners, was the first law firm to file an individual lawsuit against San Diego Gas & Electric on behalf of individuals who suffered damages as a result of the San Diego Wildfires, which were allegedly caused by Sempra Energy and SDG&E. Alexander Schack was lead counsel against Sempra Energy in what became the largest fire case in California history, the 2007 San Diego Wildfire Litigation. He also won a key victory in court that extended the deadline for individuals to file claims against the utilities for property losses. In addition, Schack Law Group was a discovery coordinator and was part of the Plaintiffs' Control Group of attorneys responsible for trial and trial preparation against SDG&E for cases that did not settle. Ultimately, the litigation resulted in the recovery of over 2 billion dollars in settlements for fire victims.

Reno/ Caughlin Wildfires
Teri Boland, et al. v. Sierra Pacific Power Company, et al.
2nd Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe Case No. CV13-02466
Filed on behalf of a small group of plaintiffs affected by the 2011 fires in Reno, NV and Caughlin, NV. Settlement of $4,000,000. Schack Law Group also prosecuted a case against NV Energy on behalf of homeowners and renters in Reno, Nevada, who lost their homes or experienced fire-related damages as a result of the 2011 Caughlin Fire. As in the San Diego Wildfire Litigation, Alexander Schack was also lead counsel in the case against NV Energy.  The litigation resulted in a multi-million dollar settlement.

In Re: Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Case No. 09-md-2023 (BMC)(JMA)
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel for consumer class of indirect purchasers alleging consumer protection laws and false advertising in the manufacture, sale and marketing of Bayer Women’s Low Dose Aspirin. Settlement of $15,000,000 finalized in 2014.

Kleen Products, LLC et al. v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al.
(Containerboard Products Antitrust Litigation)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:10 cv-05711
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in nationwide Sherman Act class action for direct purchasers involving price fixing and supply restriction claims against the major integrated producers of containerboard and corrugated products first defendant settlement of $17,500,000 pending.

Arthur Garabedian, et al. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 721144
Counsel for class of 2,000,000 cellular telephone users in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in antitrust case. Settlement of $175,000,000.

James Lastra, et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Case No. 4265
Counsel for consumer class of indirect purchasers of DRAM alleging price fixing and tampering with prices. Settlement of approximately $190,000,000 pending.

In Re Circular Thermostat Litigation
(Joel Roos, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc.)
San Francisco County Superior Court
Case No. CGC-04-436205 (RAK)
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in MDL 1673 (remanded) and multi-state action involving monopolization and concerted conduct regarding abuse of Intellectual property rights. Settlement of $8,150,000 pending.            

Jeff Lohman, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 03-419802
Counsel for consumer class of new car purchasers alleging antitrust violations in policies implemented to deter importation of less expensive Canadian automobiles to the U.S. Settlement of $30,000,000 finalized in 2012.

In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, MDL. No. 1827
Counsel for consumers who indirectly purchased LCD products for inflated prices as a result of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy. Settlement of $571,000,000.

Brannning, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. 
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.1-05-CV-045719
Counsel for retail consumers who purchased Apple products that used an estimated purchase price and Apple resellers that were harmed as a result of Apple’s unfair trade and business practices. Class Certification is currently on appeal.

Wallace, et al. v. Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc., et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Case No. 5:11-cv-00127-KSF
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel re multi-level marketing class action involving violations of RICO

 Bruce Saucier, et al. v. United States Smokeless Tobacco Company
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 02CC00181
Co-Counsel for consumer class of indirect purchasers of smokeless tobacco alleging monopolization and antitrust violations by producer of 90% of the moist snuff sold in the U.S. Class certified in 2004. $96,000,000 settlement approved in 2008.      

In Re Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case Nos. 3:09-MD-02087-BTM (KSC) and 3:09-CV-01088-BTM (KSC)
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel for consumer class alleging violations of state consumer protection, false advertising and unfair competition statutes in the sale, marketing and distribution of the Hydroxycut products. Settlement of $14,000,000 pending.     

Helen Polonitza, et al. v. Medallion Products, Inc., et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 05CC00030
Counsel for nationwide consumer class of purchasers of Liquid Lense, alleging false advertising of the efficacy of the product. Defendant agreed to disgorge and refund up to $5,779,410 to the class in 2006.

 Alan Hemphill, et al. v. San Diego Association of Realtors, et al. 
United States District Court Case No. 04-CV-1495 BEN (JMA)
Counsel for consumer class of 28,000 local real estate Multiple Listing Service (MLS) users alleging price fixing of MLS support services against MLS providers and five associations of realtors. Permanent injunction and $6,000,000 settlement approved in 2005.

 John Bahl, et al. v. Metabolife International, Inc.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIN006263
Counsel for consumer class of Metabolife users alleging illegal advertising policies and price fixing. Permanent injunction and coupon settlement in excess of $10,000,000 for class finalized in 2005.

 Nadine Saubers, et al. v. Kashi Company
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case No. 3:13-cv-00899-JLS-BLM
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in civil consumer protection class action for violations of the California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law in the misbranding and misrepresentation in connection with the sale and marketing of certain Kashi consumer food products. Pending.

Telet Martin v. First International Bank, et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIN035066
Counsel for customer who alleged bank manager borrowed $20,000 in exchange for preferential treatment on loan application, and failed to repay same. Settlement $20,000 in September, 2004.

Steve Johnson, et al. v. Cox Communications, Inc.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIN031197
Counsel for class of digital cable subscribers alleging false advertising of “on demand”movies. Case settled in 2004 for $826,000 in free movies to class.

Robert Waldon, et al. v. Arizona Public Service Company
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case No. 313-cv-02086-L-WVG
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel to recover losses sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the negligent operation by Defendants in maintaining and operating their electrical equipment in a reliable manner which resulted in the 2011 Southern California blackout. Pending.

Thomas Sprague, et al. v. Qualcomm
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 730565
Counsel for class of employees who were deprived the benefit of their stock options when a division of Qualcomm was sold to Ericsson. Settlement $11,000,000.

7-Eleven OFFF, et al. v. The Southland Corp., et al.
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 722272-6
Counsel for a class of approximately 1,200 California 7-Eleven franchise owners in a breach of contract/franchise dispute action against The Southland Corp., McLane and others. Settlement $32,000,000.

Lawndale Medical Clinic, et al. v. Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co., et al.
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 767832-9
Counsel for class of 900,000 cellular telephone users in San Francisco Bay Area in antitrust case.  $35,000,000 Settlement.

 Joseph Quattrini, et al. v. Pana-Pacific, et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 766649
counsel for eight businesses in complex antitrust litigation against numerous large corporations including Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company and AirTouch Communications.  Confidential settlement.

Harry Betts, et al. v. Raymond James & Associates, et al.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. N71973
Counsel for a group of elderly investors in breach of fiduciary duty/elder abuse case.  Class certified in the interests of justice despite only approximately 10-20 members. Case settled for $185,000.

 Harvey Dunn v. Kirtland & Packard
Santa Monica Superior Court Case No. SC 024498
Counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice case relating to the failure to reasonably settle an accounting malpractice case which resulted in a substantial adverse judgment against the accountant. Girardi & Keese represented plaintiff in related insurance bad faith cases.  Settled for $1,250,000.

Meilin Hua v. Southland Corporation
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.LC031658
Franchise dispute between parent company of 7-Eleven and franchisee relating to failure to follow procedures during the Northridge earthquake. Despite summary judgment, counsel was able to obtain a rare stay of execution of the commercial unlawful detainer ruling during the almost two year pendency of the appeal, allowing the franchisee time to transition her occupation while still supporting her family.

In Re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
United States District Court District of Minnesota, MDL No. 2522
Member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in consumer class action in connection with security breach of Target’s systems. Pending.