Skip to content

Notable Results

image of large conference table in nice office notable results

Ku & Mussman, P.A. is a highly skilled litigation firm. We have successfully prosecuted numerous class action matters resulting in multi-million dollar resolutions. We have also successfully prosecuted hundreds of actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to bring access for the disabled community. Moreover, the firm has successfully appealed several erroneous rulings in the Fourth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals effectively changing the law of those Circuits. We have also successfully defended meritless appeals in the Second Circuit and the United States Supreme Court as noted below.

Notable Results – Class Actions

Kardonick, et. al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Class Action Case No. 10-cv-23235. Ku & Mussman was a participating firm that brought a class action complaint which alleged that Chase engaged in breaches of contract, breaches of implied covenant, and violations of the unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes of various states, in connection with marketing and administering Chase Payment Protection Products. A class action settlement was reached in which Chase has agreed to create a Settlement Fund of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), plus additional consideration in the form of credit to the unpaid balances of certain Charged-Off Class Members.

Smith v. Intuit Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00222.  Ku & Mussman served on a litigation team alleging that Intuit’s free TurboTax edition included exorbitantly high interest rates. Specifically, they alleged the “free” online edition of TurboTax charges illegal and outrageously high fees to consumers who choose to defer their TurboTax fees, opting instead to have the fees deducted from their tax refund. The Court granted final approval for a $6.55 million class action settlement resolving claims that Intuit’s free TurboTax edition included exorbitantly high interest rates.

Barba et al. v. Shire U.S., Inc. et al., No. 13-21158 (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 2013)
Ku & Mussman served on litigation team in a nationwide class of purchasers of Adderall XR, a prescription drug commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Plaintiffs alleged that the drug manufacturer illegally extended its patent protection to deprived consumers of less expensive generic competition. The case settled for $14.75 million and final approval was granted by the Court in November 2016.

Triplett v. Discover BankMDL No. 2217 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 15, 2011) (Ku & Mussman served on a litigation team that obtained a $10,500,000 million preliminary settlement reached on behalf of national class of purchasers against Discover Bank alleging breach of contract and unfair trade practices in the marketing and administration of credit card “Payment Protection”).

In re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2709 (W.D. Mo. filed Dec. 2015) Ku & Mussman served as part of a litigation team representing a putative class of consumers who purchased obsolete motor oil from Dollar General stores across the country due to deceptive advertising and labeling. The plaintiffs sought a number of remedies, including injunctive relief and damages, under various state laws prohibiting deceptive and unfair trade practices. On March 21, 2019, Court approved Class certification for consumers in 16 states involved in the lawsuit. The matter was ultimately settled for $28.5 million and final approval was granted by the Court in June 2021.

In re Budeprion XL, MDL No. 2107 E.D. Pa. 2:09-cv-2811. Court granted final approval of national class action settlement on behalf of consumers who purchased Budeprion XL, 300mg or Bupropion Hydrochloride XL, 150mg. As a result of the Settlement, Defendants who manufacture and distribute the drug, have agreed to injunctive relief consistent with federal regulations to ensure that the key practices complained of in this litigation permanently cease, providing a substantial benefit to the purchasing public. The measures include removing allegedly misleading labeling information, further disclosure of the drug’s testing procedures, monitoring the investigation of consumer complaints, improving quality control and publishing information on future voluntary recalls. Ku & Mussman served on the litigation team with Kanner & Whiteley, LLC who was appointed as lead counsel and Golomb Spirt Grunfeld as liaison counsel, among others. No. 2107 E.D. Pa. 2:09-cv-2811.

Patterson v. JTH Tax, Inc. d/b/a Liberty, No. 11-62472 (S.D. Fla. filed Nov. 17, 2011) (Ku & Mussman brought class action representing Florida purchasers of Liberty tax preparation services alleging deceptive trade practices in the imposition of rapid access loan fees. Matter was consolidated before Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation, MDL No: 2334. The consolidated matter was later settled for $5,300,000.00 for the class).

Notable Results – ADA & Rehabilitation Act

Florida Disabled Outdoors Association, et al. v. Florida Division of Recreation and Parks, et al., Case No. 05-10073-CIV-MOORE (2006 Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss).

Smith v. Lowry Park Zoological Society of Tampa, Inc, et al., Case No. 8:07-CV-333-T-27TBM (2009 Order granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment).

Brown v. St. John’s University, Case No.1:08-cv-02218-ARR -VVP (2010 Order denying Defendants’ numerous motions to dismiss on various grounds including standing and motion for summary judgment based on a claimed religious exemption to the ADA).

Brown v. Showboat Atlantic City Propco, LLC, Case No.1:08-cv-05145-NLH-JS (2010 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part and Denying Defendant’s Cross Motion).

Hernandez v. Wildlife Conservation Society d/b/a Bronx Zoo, Case No.1:10-cv-04916-DLC (2011 Entered into Court approved Stipulated Settlement with Zoo to make it wheelchair accessible under the ADA).

Walden v. City of Hampton, Virginia d/b/a Hampton Coliseum, Case No.4:10-cv-00127-RAJ-FBS (2011 Consent Order to bring the Hampton Coliseum into compliance with the ADA).

Gaylor v. Greenbriar of Dahlonega Shopping Center, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-00082-RWS (2013 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment).

Gaylor v. North Springs Associates, LLLP, Case No. 1:13-cv-01551-WCO (2014 Order Granting in part Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff).

Khan v. KIR Tampa 003, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-1683-T-17MAP (2015 Order granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying in part Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment).

Gilmore v. Audubon Nature Institute, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-4176 (2018 Entered into Court approved Consent Order with Zoo to make it wheelchair accessible under the ADA).

Jeffreys v. City of Greensboro d/b/a Greensboro Coliseum Complex, Case No. 1:18-cv-00411 (2019 Order granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying in part Defendant’s cross Motion for Summary Judgment).

Thomas v. Century 7909, LLC, Case No. H-21-466 (2022 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment).

Notable Results – Appellate Decisions

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Daniels, Sr. v. Arcade, L.P., Appeal No. 11-1191 (2012 Appeal granted by 4th Circuit after erroneous lower court dismissal. Appeals Court held that the District Court erred in determining that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims against Defendant. Upon evaluating the amended complaint for purposes of Defendant’s motion to dismiss and accepting all factual allegations and reasonable inferences as true, the Appeals Court concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged an “injury in fact” that was “fairly traceable” to Defendant’s actions. Accordingly, the Appeals Court vacated the District Court’s decision granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and remanded the matter for further proceedings).

Nanni v. Aberdeen Marketplace, Inc., Appeal No.16-1638 (2017 Appeal granted by 4th Circuit after erroneous lower court dismissal. Appeals Court found the District Court applied an overly stringent and erroneous requirement of specificity to its assessment of the Complaint. Appeals Court held that Plaintiff was not required to allege the specific goods, services, and conveniences that rendered the Marketplace a “more advantageous” place to stop than others along his travel route. The Court similarly rejected Defendant’s theory that Plaintiff was obliged to allege such specifics as the precise dates and arrangements for his return to the Marketplace, his reasons for returning, and the particular Marketplace establishments he plans to visit. The Appeals Court also rejected the District Court’s use of the Plaintiff’s litigation history and motives in analyzing the credibility of his allegations. Consequently, the Appeals Court reversed the District Court’s ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings).

United States Supreme Court

Aberdeen Marketplace, Inc. v. Nanni, Petition No.17-1444 (2018 U.S. Supreme Court denied Defendant/Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari. Consequently, reinforcing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding in favor of the Plaintiff, as noted above).

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Gaylor v. Hamilton Crossing CMBS, Appeal No.13-5848 (2014 Appeal granted by 6th Circuit after erroneous lower court dismissal. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded the District Court’s holding that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue. Appeals Court held that, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept all plausible allegations in the complaint as true, with all inferences drawn in Plaintiff’s favor, which District Court failed to recognize. Consequently, Plaintiff had Article III standing to support his Title III claim under the ADA and the matter was reversed and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings).

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Hernandez v. Berlin Newington Associates, LLC, Appeal No. 16-3824 (2017 Defendant appealed the Firm’s substantial attorney fee award by lower court to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. Defendant claimed that the lower court abused its discretion in approving billing rates, hourly time and expenses for Plaintiff’s attorneys. As a result, Appeals Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded the matter back to the District Court where additional fees and costs were assessed against Defendant).

You agree to receive email communication from us by submitting this form and understand that your contact information will be stored with us.

Ku & Mussman, P.A.

18501 Pines Boulevard, Ste. 209-A

Pembroke Pines FL 33029

CALL: (305) 891-1322

Website Accessibility Policy