"Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Class actions are pursued on behalf of a class or group or collective of people with a common issue of law or fact.  They are a way for many people to seek justice in a single lawsuit, especially for small claims that would not otherwise be brought on their own.  Class actions exist in the United States under state and federal law and they are increasingly available in European Member States.

RJ Gaudet & Associates LLC investigates and files new class actions on behalf of customers, investors, and employees.  The firm is pleased to cooperate with friendly and interested co-counsel in the U.S and Europe, provide legal or strategic advice, or issue opinions on legal liability. The firm has submitted comments to the European Commission with respect to its consultation over collective redress.

In Singh v. Soraya Motor Co. et al. (W.D. Wash.), the firm represents customers of automobile dealerships that charged for optional products that customers did not understand and did not give their consent to purchase.

In Barboni v. Republic of Argentina, Case No. 06 Civ. 5157 (S.D.N.Y.), a federal court in New York appointed the firm to serve as class counsel on behalf of a class of worldwide investors, many of whom reside in Italy, owning May 2004 Euro Medium Term Note Programme bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina.  The claims arise from Argentina’s default on those bonds in December 2001 which is the largest sovereign default in modern history.  Although Argentina’s economy has improved since 2001, it still refuses to make payments on its defaulted bonds.

In Almanza v. United States, Case No. 13-cv-130 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), Mr. Gaudet has assisted the prosecution of a COPRA and Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in class action against the United States Government on behalf of Customs officers who were required to take a mandatory course as a condition for continuing with their jobs but were not compensated for mandatory time spent studying in order to pass the course. The case settled for $1.7 million on behalf of the employees.

In Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc, Case No. 04-02819 (D.N.J.), the firm represented seven class members in opposing the terms of an inadequate and unfair class settlement in New Jersey with defendant De Beers as the result of antitrust violations that inflated the price of diamonds.  The firm gained a reputation for being the only objector’s counsel that represented clients who were not willing to settle, on a principled basis, for a relatively modest and quick payment.

In Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., Case No. 05-3222 (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Gaudet represented himself in objecting to excessive attorney’s fees sought by Class Counsel, who requested as much as $825/hour, and incentive fee awards of $325,000 for the Class Representatives in a class settlement in California of antitrust claims with West Publishing over the inflated prices of bar review preparation courses.  The U.S. District Court in Central District of Los Angeles subsequently eliminated $325,000 in incentive fee awards and reduced the attorney’s fee award to Class Counsel by $10 million, thereby saving this money for the Class settlement fund for distribution to Class members.