Yeremey O. Krivoshey is a Partner with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Yeremey has particular expertise in COVID-19 related consumer litigation, unlawful fees and liquidated damages in consumer contracts, TCPA cases, product recall cases, and fraud and false advertising litigation.  He has represented clients in a wide array of civil litigation, including appeals before the Ninth Circuit.

Yeremey served as trial counsel with Mr. Bursor in Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, where, in May 2019, the jury returned a verdict for $267 million in statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Since 2017, Yeremey has secured over $100 million for class members in consumer class settlements.  Mr. Krivoshey has been honored multiple times as a Super Lawyers Rising Star.

Yeremey is admitted to the State Bar of California.  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, as well as the District of Colorado.

Yeremey graduated from New York University School of Law in 2013, where he was a Samuel A. Herzog Scholar.  Prior to Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yeremey worked as a Law Clerk at Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C, focusing on employment discrimination and wage and hour disputes.  In law school, he worked at the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States Department of Justice.  In 2010, Yeremey graduated cum laude from Vanderbilt University.

Representative Cases

  • Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2019).  Yeremey litigated claims against a national health-care debt collection agency on behalf of people that received autodialed calls on their cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  Yeremey successfully obtained nationwide class certification, defeated the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, won summary judgment as to the issue of prior express consent and the use of automatic telephone dialing systems, and navigated the case towards trial.  With his partner, Scott Bursor, Yeremey obtained a jury verdict finding that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 534,712 times, entitling class members to $267,349,000.

Selected Published Decisions

  • Goodrich, et al. v. Alterra Mountain Co., et al., 2021 WL 2633326 (D. Col. June 25, 2021), denying ski pass company’s motion to dismiss its customers’ allegations concerning refunds owed due to cancellation of the ski season due to COVID-19.
  • Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2014 WL 4793935 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014), denying enforcement of forum selection clause based on public policy grounds.
  • Brown v. Comcast Corp., 2016 WL 9109112 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016), denying internet service provider’s motion to compel arbitration of claims alleged under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
  • Chaisson, et al. v. University of Southern California (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 25, 2021), denying university’s demurrer as to its students’ allegations of unfair and unlawful late fees.
  • Choi v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., 2019 WL 4894120 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019), denying tampon manufacturer’s motion to dismiss its customer’s design defect claims.
  • Horanzy v. Vemma Nutrition Co., Case No. 15-cv-298-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Apr. 16, 2016), denying multi-level marketer’s and its chief scientific officer’s motion to dismiss their customer’s fraud claims.
  • McMillion, et al. v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2017 WL 3895764 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2017), granting nationwide class certification of Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims by persons receiving autodialed and prerecorded calls without consent.
  • McMillion, et al. v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2018 WL 692105 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2018), granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations in certified class action.
  • Perez v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2020 WL 2322996 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2020), denying insurance company’s motion to dismiss or stay assigned claims of bad faith and fair dealing arising out of $267 million trial judgment.
  • Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2020 WL 1904533 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020), upholding constitutionality of $267 million class trial judgment award and awarding $89 million in attorney’s fees.
  • Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 WL 7017050 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12. 2015), denying manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment as to customer’s false advertising claims.

Selected Class Settlements

  • Strassburger v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al. (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2021) pending approval of $83.6 million settlement to resolve claims of theme park members for alleged wrongful charging of fees during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Juarez-Segura, et al. v. Western Dental Services, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug. 9, 2021) granting final approval to $35 million settlement to resolve claims of dental customers for alleged unlawful late fees.
  • Moore v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. (Ill. Cir. Ct. July 22, 2020) $11.2 million settlement to resolve claims of tampon purchasers for alleged defective products.
  • Retta v. Millennium Prods., Inc., 2017 WL 5479637 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017) granting final approval of $8.25 million settlement to resolve claims of kombucha purchasers for alleged false advertising.
  • Cortes v. National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C. (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020) granting final approval to $6.8 million settlement to resolve claims of persons who received alleged autodialed calls without prior consent in violation of the TCPA.
  • Bayol et al. v. Health-Ade LLC, et al. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019) – granting final approval of $3,997,500 settlement to resolve claims of kombucha purchasers for alleged false advertising.