Law Offices of William R. Weinstein and its principal, William R. Weinstein, concentrate on the prosecution of class actions on behalf of plaintiffs in diverse areas of practice including consumer fraud, securities and complex corporate litigation, and disability rights. The firm’s cases involve classes ranging in size from hundreds and thousands to millions of class members, and potential damages in the millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. The cases have been and currently are being prosecuted in a number of federal and state trial and appellate courts across the country. By vigorously utilizing the Class action procedure, Mr. Weinstein and his firm seek to achieve the dual goals of fairness and justice under our state and federal judicial systems and the greatest recovery on behalf of as many affected persons with the same or similar claims as possible.

A number of the cases prosecuted by Mr. Weinstein have truly been at the cutting edge of the law:

• Mr. Weinstein successfully appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff and consumers and rejected an FCC preemption defense asserted by Cingular in connection with a breach of contract claim for the alleged failure by Cingular to provide customers with the contractually promised service at the contractually promised rate. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 606 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2010).

• Mr. Weinstein successfully achieved approval of a settlement under the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires the City of New York to extend disabled parking accommodations to all severely mobility-disabled persons, regardless of New York City residency – thereby expanding a restricted policy that had been in place for more than 40 years. Florio v. City of New York, No. 06-cv-6473 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 22, 2010).

• Mr. Weinstein successfully appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and had decided in favor of consumers the issue of whether California state law precluding the enforceability of class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements is preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007).

• Mr. Weinstein successfully precluded the application of a class action waiver under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act where the customer agreement provided that it was governed by Kansas law on behalf of a class of New York wireless telephone customers in connection with New York State Excise Tax charges. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Arbitration Reference No. 1425000444 (JAMS New York 2006). Thereafter, Mr. Weinstein successfully petitioned the federal court to compel Sprint to continue arbitrating the matter. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2008 WL 4865050 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2008), aff'd, 2009 WL 648623 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2009)

• Mr. Weinstein commenced a case challenging gift card dormancy fees in February 2004, many months before the New York State Legislature substantially restricted the use of dormancy fees by gift card sellers, and the claims were thereafter sustained on appeal. Lonner v. Simon Property Group, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 100, 866 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2d Dept. 2008).

• Between 2000 and 2002, Mr. Weinstein spearheaded the successful prosecution of a class action challenging the practice by one of the largest credit card issuers of crediting payments to lower APR cash advance balances before higher APR purchase balances – a practice finally addressed and restricted nationwide by federal legislation in 2009-10. Broder v. MBNA Corp., 281 A.D.2d 369, 722 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1st Dept. 2001)

• In the later 1990’s, Mr. Weinstein oversaw the successful prosecution of claims in a consolidated AMEX arbitration on behalf of 97 claimants arising out of an options trading Ponzi scheme. In re Henry Hackel, 245 A.D.2d 124, 665 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1st Dep't 1997), appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 814, 681 N.Y.S.2d 474 (1998).

• In the later 1990’s, Mr. Weinstein prosecuted several cases challenging the practices of mutual funds investing in illiquid securities in violation of their fundamental investment restrictions, including investments in mortgage-backed derivatives that were the forerunners of the complex derivative securities contributing substantially to the current economic crisis. Rodney v. KPMG, 143 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1998); Krouner v. American Heritage Fund, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9783 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 1996).

If you would like to speak or meet with Mr. Weinstein about a potential matter, please send an email via this link, or call our White Plains office, as follows:

Law Offices of William R. Weinstein

199 Main Street, 4th Floor   

White Plains, New York 10601

Phone: (914) 997-2205

Fax: (646) 448-8215

DISCLAIMER

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP NOR SHOULD THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS UNTIL YOU HAVE MET WITH AN ATTORNEY AND SIGNED A RETAINER AGREEMENT FORMALLY ENGAGING THIS FIRM. ALL SITUATIONS DIFFER - PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT THE ADVICE OF A LAWYER BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS REGARDING ANY LEGAL MATTERS REFERRED TO HEREIN. THIS WEB SITE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY.