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.

Business Law
Unfair Competition
Fraudulent/Deceptive Business Practices

Evelia Davila, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. ABM Industries Inc.; American Building Maintenance Co.; ABM Onsite Services West Inc; ABM Services Inc.; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Jul. 16, 2021 | Result Date: May 20, 2021 | Filing Date: Mar. 22, 2018 |

Case number: 2:18-cv-03919-FMO-MRW Arbitration –  $407,500

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas V. Girardi
(Girardi & Keese)

Keith D. Griffin
(Girardi & Keese)

Ebby S. Bakhtiar
(Livingston Bakhtiar)

Jad Sheikali
(McGuire Law PC)

David L. Gerbie
(McGuire Law PC)


Defendant

Teresa C. Chow
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)

Casie D. Collignon
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)

Matthew D. Pearson
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)


Facts

Evelia Davila and Larry Wade were employed by ABM Industries, Inc. from 1999 through 2018. In 2018, plaintiffs were informed by ABM that as of August 2017, ABM knew it suffered a data breach that allowed third parties to access plaintiffs' Private Identifiable Information. Plaintiffs were informed that the third parties obtained their PII through a "phishing" attack, where unauthorized individuals infiltrate unsecure networks by sending malware through email servers to obtain valuable information, install dangerous software, and/or accomplish other nefarious objectives. The following year, ABM suffered another similar data breach. Plaintiffs brought a class action against ABM.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended defendants were negligent and reckless by allowing a "phishing" attack, resulting in third parties accessing plaintiffs' PII. Plaintiffs contended defendants violated their privacy because they entrusted defendants with their personal, financial and other confidential information and defendant failed to protect that information from the unauthorized third parties. Plaintiffs contended their PII was stolen and misappropriated, exposing them to fraud, identity theft, and other harms.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions.

Result

The case settled for $407,500 which consisted of $300,000 in attorneys fees/costs and $7,500 each for the class representative. Class Members are entitled to one or two years of credit monitoring, free fraud consultation, and identity theft restoration.


#137355

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

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