L. Timothy Fisher has an active practice in consumer class actions and complex business litigation and has also successfully handled a large number of civil appeals.
Mr. Fisher has been actively involved in numerous cases that resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for consumers and investors. Mr. Fisher has handled cases involving a wide range of issues including nutritional labeling, health care, telecommunications, corporate governance, unfair business practices and consumer fraud. With his partner Scott A. Bursor, Mr. Fisher has tried five class action jury trials, all of which produced successful results. In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Mr. Fisher obtained a jury award of $50,024,611 — the largest class action award in California in 2009 and the second-largest jury award of any kind. In 2019, Mr. Fisher served as trial counsel with Mr. Bursor and his partner Yeremey Krivoshey in Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, where the jury returned a verdict for $267 million in statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Fisher was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1997. He is also a member of the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Missouri. Mr. Fisher taught appellate advocacy at John F. Kennedy University School of Law in 2003 and 2004. In 2010, he contributed jury instructions, a verdict form and comments to the consumer protection chapter of Justice Elizabeth A. Baron’s California Civil Jury Instruction Companion Handbook (West 2010). In January 2014, Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Mr. Fisher to a four-year term as a member of the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.
Mr. Fisher received his Juris Doctor from Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley in 1997. While in law school, he was an active member of the Moot Court Board and participated in moot court competitions throughout the United States. In 1994, Mr. Fisher received an award for Best Oral Argument in the first year moot court competition.
In 1992, Mr. Fisher graduated with highest honors from the University of California at Berkeley and received a degree in political science. Prior to graduation, he authored an honors thesis for Professor Bruce Cain entitled “The Role of Minorities on the Los Angeles City Council.” He is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court). Mr. Fisher litigated claims against Global Vision Products, Inc. and other individuals in connection with the sale and marketing of a purported hair loss remedy known as Avacor. The case lasted more than seven years and involved two trials. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff and the class in the amount of $40,000,000. The second trial resulted in a jury verdict of $50,024,611, which led to a $30 million settlement for the class.
In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases – Handset Locking Actions (Alameda County Superior Court). Mr. Fisher actively worked on five coordinated cases challenging the secret locking of cell phone handsets by major wireless carriers to prevent consumers from activating them on competitive carriers’ systems. Settlements have been approved in all five cases on terms that require the cell phone carriers to disclose their handset locks to consumers and to provide unlocking codes nationwide on reasonable terms and conditions. The settlements fundamentally changed the landscape for cell phone consumers regarding the locking and unlocking of cell phone handsets.
In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases – Early Termination Fee Cases (Alameda County Superior Court and Federal Communications Commission). In separate cases that are a part of the same coordinated litigation as the Handset Locking Actions, Mr. Fisher actively worked on claims challenging the validity under California law of early termination fees imposed by national cell phone carriers. In one of those cases, against Verizon Wireless, a nationwide settlement was reached after three weeks of trial in the amount of $21 million. In a second case, which was tried to verdict, the Court held after trial that the $73 million of flat early termination fees that Sprint had collected from California consumers over an eight-year period were void and unenforceable.
Selected Published Decisions:
Melgar v. Zicam LLC, 2016 WL 1267870 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (certifying 10-jurisdiction class of purchasers of cold remedies, denying motion for summary judgment, and denying motions to exclude plaintiff’s expert witnesses).
Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 WL 7017050 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12. 2015) (denying motion for summary judgment).
Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., 2015 WL 1932484 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) (certifying California class of purchasers of refrigerators that were mislabeled as Energy Star qualified).
Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 1252 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss claims alleging unlawful late fees under California Civil Code § 1671).
Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., 2015 WL 9685557 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) (denying motion for summary judgment in case alleging false advertising of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children).
Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2014 WL 4793935 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (denying motion to transfer venue pursuant to a forum selection clause).
Forcellati v. Hyland’s Inc., 2014 WL 1410264 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) (certifying nationwide class of purchasers of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children).
Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 30 F.Supp.3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging underfilling of 5-ounce cans of tuna).
Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., 2013 WL 5781673 (E.D. Cal. October 25, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging that certain KitchenAid refrigerators were misrepresented as Energy Star qualified).
Forcellati v. Hyland’s Inc., 876 F.Supp.2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (denying motion to dismiss complaint alleging false advertising regarding homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children).
Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC, 2012 WL 2513458 (C.D. Cal. March 22, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging false and misleading advertising by 5-hour Energy).
Clerkin v. MyLife.com, 2011 WL 3809912 (N.D. Cal. August 29, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in case alleging false and misleading advertising by a social networking company).
In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 186 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2010) (affirming order approving $21 million class action settlement).
Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 571 (2007) (affirming order denying motion to compel arbitration).
Selected Class Settlements:
Melgar v. Zicam (Eastern District of California) – $16 million class settlement of claims alleging cold medicine was ineffective.
Gastelum v. Frontier California Inc. (San Francisco Superior Court) – $10.9 million class action settlement of claims alleging that a residential landline service provider charged unlawful late fees.
West v. California Service Bureau, Inc. (Northern District of California) – $4.1 million class settlement of claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (Southern District of New York) – $9 million class settlement of false advertising claims against protein shake manufacturer.
Morris v. SolarCity Corp. (Northern District of California) – $15 million class settlement of claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Retta v. Millennium Products, Inc. (Central District of California) – $8.25 million settlement to resolve claims of bottled tea purchasers for alleged false advertising.
Forcellati v. Hyland’s (Central District of California) – nationwide class action settlement providing full refunds to purchasers of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children.
Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool (Eastern District of California) – class action settlement providing $55 cash payments to purchasers of certain KitchenAid refrigerators that allegedly mislabeled as Energy Star qualified.
In Re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation (Northern District of California) – $4.5 million class action settlement of claims alleging that a computer graphics card was sold with false and misleading representations concerning its specifications and performance.
Hendricks v. StarKist Co. (Northern District of California) – $12 million class action settlement of claims alleging that 5-ounce cans of tuna were underfilled.
In re Zakskorn v. American Honda Motor Co. Honda (Eastern District of California) – nationwide settlement providing for brake pad replacement and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses in case alleging defective brake pads on Honda Civic vehicles manufactured between 2006 and 2011.
Correa v. Sensa Products, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court) – $9 million settlement on behalf of purchasers of the Sensa weight loss product.
In re Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation (Contra Costa County Superior Court) – $38.6 million settlement on behalf of Pac Bell customers who paid an allegedly unlawful late payment charge.
In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litigation (Northern District of California) – $4 million settlement, which provided for cash payments of between $50 and $325.80 to class members who purchased the Haier HNCM070E chest freezer.
Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court) – $30 million settlement on behalf of a class of purchasers of a hair loss remedy.
Guyette v. Viacom, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court) – $13 million settlement for a class of cable television subscribers who alleged that the defendant had improperly failed to share certain tax refunds with its subscribers.