Photo of Virginia Bell Flynn

Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes, health care litigation, including ERISA and out-of-network issues, and consumer litigation in over 21 states nationwide. As a result of new legal developments, she increasingly counsels clients to ensure they comply with the myriad of growing laws in the consumer law with a particular emphasis on the intersection of TCPA and HIPAA.

Please join Consumer Financial Services Partner Dave Gettings and his guests and colleagues Jessica Lohr and Virginia Flynn who discuss their recent service as jurors on criminal cases, while also providing valuable insight to litigators into what a case looks like from the jury box.

Jessica defends consumer reporting agencies, national banking institutions, and mortgage

On October 12, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, reversing the dismissal of a lawsuit on the grounds that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does not extend to unwanted business texts. In Chennette v. Porch.com, the Ninth Circuit held TCPA statutory protections extend not only to individuals, but also to business entities.

Effective September 1, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) has finally updated its Commercial Rules and Mediation Procedures, concluding a two-year internal review. The amendments provide greater procedural discretion to arbitrators, further streamline expedited arbitrations, change the amount-in-controversy requirements for certain arbitration paths, and provide express confidentiality protections, among other things.

First, the amended

Wednesday, August 31 • 2:30 – 3:30 p.m. ET

Arbitration agreements continue to be a pressing issue in consumer-facing agreements. The United States Supreme Court recently issued several important decisions impacting how consumer arbitration agreements will be interpreted and enforced by the courts, including in the important arena of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions.

Escalating efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls, state attorneys general announced on August 2 that they have established a nationwide Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force. The task force comprises attorneys general from all 50 states and will investigate and prosecute companies suspected of allowing or using illegal robocalls from foreign entities. While the states have

Class-action plaintiffs do not get a free pass on constitutional standing requirements, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reminded litigants sua sponte in Drazen and Godaddy.com, LLC v. Pinto last week when it vacated a district court’s approval of a $35 million class-action settlement. Although the parties had not briefed the issue before the

On July 6, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted final approval of a multimillion-dollar, class-action settlement in Parker v. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, et al., No. 21-740 (M.D. Fla.) to resolve claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against furniture companies Stoneledge Furniture LLC and Southwestern Furniture of

In late June 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave final approval for a $2.5 million class-action settlement in Johnson v. Moss Brothers Auto Group to resolve claims brought against a motor vehicle dealer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The settlement resolves a class action, pending since 2019,

On March 24, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion, upholding separate district court decisions finding that a system that sends promotional text messages to phone numbers randomly selected from a database of customer information is not an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The concise

On March 22, the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court’s order and underlying decision in Wit et. al. v. United Behavioral Health and Alexander et al. v. United Behavioral Health (Case Numbers 20-17363, 20-17364, 21-15193, and 21-15194). In doing so, the court undid a pair of orders that had required UnitedHealthcare Group, Inc.’s (United) behavioral