Call Us Today 860.232.7200

Connecticut Class Action Lawyers

Our Practice

Eagan, Donohue, Van Dyke & Falsey, LLP’s Connecticut class action lawyers have successfully litigated numerous consumer class actions, and has been appointed by state and federal courts to serve as class counsel. Representative cases include excessive and undisclosed late fees, retail sales overcharges, penalty clauses, data and privacy breaches, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and violations of state consumer protection laws. Eagan, Donohue, Van Dyke & Falsey, LLP prides itself on being a litigation law firm handling cases all the way to a jury verdict, and through any subsequent appeal. We handle cases in both state and federal court.

What is a Class Action?

A class action is a type of lawsuit where one or more named plaintiffs bring a lawsuit on behalf of all members of a similarly situated group to recover damages for the entire group. The members of this group are called the “class.” The class action procedure allows all claims that would not otherwise be economical to pursue to be brought in one lawsuit. The resolution of a class action lawsuit determines the rights of the entire class, except for those class members who choose to exclude themselves from the class. Those class members who do not exclude themselves will be bound by any judgment entered in the case, whether favorable or adverse.

Representative Defendants

  • Amazon.com
  • Babies R Us
  • Coldwater Creek, Inc.
  • Mothers Work, Inc. (Motherhood ®, Motherhood Maternity ®, Motherhood Nursingwear ®, Mimi Maternity ®, A Pea In The Pod ®, Maternity Mall ®, Destination Maternity TM, and iMaternity ®)
  • Rent-A-Center, Inc.
  • Rent-Way, Inc.
  • SBC/SNET
  • Target Corporation
  • Toys R Us
  • Pep Boys
  • Bank of America
  • Countrywide
  • Samsung
  • Carrier IQ
  • Sony
  • U-Haul
  • LA Fitness
  • Rite Aid
  • Lane Bryant

Results

The following are a small sample of the results Eagan, Donohue, Van Dyke & Falsey, LLP’s Connecticut class action lawyers have achieved for our clients.  These results are based on the merits of each case. Each case had unique facts and circumstances, similar or better results cannot be guaranteed.

Suburban Services, Inc. v. SNET Information Services, Inc. – $2,747,955 settlement

Peter M. Van Dyke filed a class action on behalf of Plaintiff, Suburban Services, Inc., and more than 16,000 class members, against Defendants, SBC Communications, Inc., Southern New England Telephone Company, SNET Information Services, Inc., SBC Knowledge Ventures, L.P., and SBC SNET Yellow Pages, claiming that the terms and conditions of the class members’ advertising contracts did not allow for assessment of a $25.00 flat fee for late payments, plus 1% interest per month thereon, and that the acts of Defendants constituted a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a, et seq., and a breach of contract.

Plaintiff and the class members claimed money damages, punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, interest, costs of suit, and costs of all notices and things that the Court may require for the class members.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement with an approximate economic value of $2,747,955, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs of administration, for the class members.  The settlement agreement provided for direct cash payments, account credits and credits for future advertising to class members.

Todd Lessard v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc./
Blass v. Rent-Way, Inc. – $7,391,527 settlement

Peter M. Van Dyke filed a class action on behalf of Plaintiff, Todd Lessard, and more than 60,000 class members, contending that Defendant, Rent-A-Center East, Inc., violated the Connecticut Consumer Rent-To-Own Agreement Act, C.G.S. § 42-240 et. seq. (the “Act”), and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. § 42-110a et seq., by utilizing rental-purchase agreements that did not comply with the Act’s requirements.  Plaintiff further contended that Defendant violated the Act by charging class members for insurance other than property insurance.

Plaintiff and the class members claimed money damages, punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, interest, costs of suit, and costs of all notices and things that the Court may require for the class members.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement with an economic value of approximately $7,391,527 for the class members, exclusive of administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an incentive payment.  The settlement agreement provided for cash payments and free rent vouchers.

Prepayment Penalty Class Action – $855,000 settlement

Peter M. Van Dyke filed a class action on behalf of a Plaintiff, and more than 400 class members, contending that a Defendant breached its contracts, was unjustly enriched, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §§ 42-110a et seq., by wrongfully overcharging, collecting and retaining prepayment penalty fees from Plaintiff and the class members.

Plaintiff and the class members claimed money damages, punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, interest, costs of suit, and costs of all notices and things that the Court may require for the class members.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement with an economic value of approximately $855,000 for the class members, exclusive of administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an incentive payment.  The settlement agreement provided for cash payments.

Jennifer Blass, et al v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al – $82,426.98 settlement

Peter M. Van Dyke filed a class action on behalf of three Plaintiffs, and more than 11,000 class members, contending that Defendants, Toysrus.com, Inc., Toysrus.com, LLC, and Babiesrus.com, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com, LLC violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §§ 42-110a et seq. by wrongfully overcharging, collecting and retaining sales tax from Plaintiff and the class members.

Plaintiff and the class members claimed money damages, punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g, interest, costs of suit, and costs of all notices and things that the Court may require for the class members.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement with an economic value of approximately $82,426.98 for the class members, exclusive of administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an incentive payment.  The settlement agreement provided for cash payments.

Pamela Blass, et al v. Mother’s Work, Inc. – $318,964.07 settlement

Peter M. Van Dyke filed a class action on behalf of two Plaintiffs,  and more than 40,000 class members, contending that Defendant, Defendant, Mothers Work, Inc., violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §§ 42-110a et seq. and Massachusetts General Laws c. 93A by wrongfully overcharging, collecting and retaining sales tax from Plaintiff and the class members.

Plaintiff and the class members claimed money damages, punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g and M.G.L. c. 93A, attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g and M.G.L. c. 93A, interest, costs of suit, and costs of all notices and things that the Court may require for the class members.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement with an economic value of approximately $318,964.07 for the class members, exclusive of administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an incentive payment.  The settlement agreement provided for cash payments and gift certificates.