This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Negligent Misrepresentation
California Recording Law

Emily Fishman and Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tiger Natural Gas Inc., Community Gas Center Inc., John Dyet, and Does 3 - 100

Published: Apr. 26, 2019 | Result Date: Feb. 22, 2019 | Filing Date: Aug. 18, 2017 |

Case number: 3:17-cv-05351-WHA Settlement –  $3,700,000

Judge

William H. Alsup

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel L. Balsam
(Law Offices of Daniel L. Balsam)

Jacob N. Harker
(Law Offices of Jacob N. Harker)

Kimberly A. Kralowec
(Kralowec Law PC)

Kathleen S. Rogers
(Kralowec Law PC)


Defendant

Leah E. Capritta
(Holland & Knight LLP)

Janet Chung
(Holland & Knight LLP)

Vince L. Farhat
(Holland & Knight LLP)

Thomas D. Leland
(Holland & Knight LLP)

Christine M. Reilly
(Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP)

Danielle Newman
(Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP)

Emily M. Speier
(Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP)


Facts

Emily Fishman filed a putative class action against Tiger Natural Gas Inc., Community Gas Center Inc., and John Dyet in relation to CGC's practice of calling Pacific Gas and Electric customers to promote Tiger's capped-rate program program for supplying natural gas.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations were made by CGC, and other Dyet telemarketing companies, during the phone solicitations to PG&E customers as to Tiger's program/pricing and PG&E pricing trends, and the sales calls were recorded by defendants without customers' consent. Plaintiffs alleged violations of California's Recording Law, breach of oral contract, violations of PG&E Gas Rule 23, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Regulations on Core Transport Agents, violations of False Advertising Law, and violations of Unfair Competition Law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations and denied all liability.

Result

The parties reached a preliminarily approved settlement agreement, under which defendants agreed to pay $3.7 million into a settlement fund, net proceeds of which to be distributed equally between approximately 27,000 plaintiff class members.

Other Information

A final approval hearing has been set for June.


#131457

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390