Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Doneyda Perez v. DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC et al
Case Number:
8:16-cv-01440
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
- Aegis Law Firm
- Dykema
- Ellenoff Grossman
- Hathaway Parker
- Lewis Brisbois
- Mahoney Law Group APC
- Mayer Brown
- Messner Reeves
- Nesenoff & Miltenberg
- Parker Ibrahim
- Salusky Law Group
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
August 19, 2022
DirecTV's $9.4M Small Biz Deal OK'd As Law Firm A No-Show
A California federal judge said Friday she'll approve DirecTV's $9.4 million deal settling claims it preyed on mostly minority small businesses by signing them up for residential accounts and then penalizing them for misusing its service after a law firm opposing the deal failed to show at the hearing.
-
August 03, 2022
NY Law Firm Files Objection To DirecTV Settlement
A New York law firm is asking a California federal judge to reject a proposed $9.4 million settlement to resolve claims that DirecTV preyed upon mostly minority small businesses, alleging the satellite company is using the firm as a scapegoat in the case.
-
March 23, 2022
DirecTV Inks $9.4M Deal To End Small Businesses' Suit
DirecTV will pay $9.4 million to settle claims that it preyed upon mostly minority small businesses by intentionally signing them up for residential accounts and then penalizing the businesses for using them improperly, according to recent filings in California federal court.