skip to content
Class Action

Class Action


Defending complex class actions is one of the cornerstones of Smith Moore Leatherwoods’ litigation practice.  Indeed, Smith Moore Leatherwood’s Class Action Team has been involved in many of the leading class actions in the Southeast and beyond.  They understand the high stakes involved in class actions and have the procedural and substantive knowledge to carefully navigate these complex matters.

Over the years, Smith Moore Leatherwood has handled class actions in numerous substantive areas.  The Class Action Team has defended financial services companies, insurers, health care providers, and manufacturers, among others, in all manner of class actions, including consumer claims, trade practices claims, billing practices claims, investment and tax claims, and product liability claims.  The Class Action Team has also served as evaluating counsel for reviewing the propriety of class settlements.

While all class actions have some similarities, Smith Moore Leatherwood’s Class Action Team also recognizes the differences in litigating class actions in different forums.  The Class Action Team is experienced in defending class actions in state and federal courts throughout the Southeast and elsewhere, including in the North Carolina Business Court.  Knowing and evaluating the differences in these forums at the beginning of a case and recognizing the procedural rights to remove or transfer a case can be crucial.

See also Financial Service Litigation and Securities and Investment Litigation.



(336) 378-5368
(336) 378-5353
(864) 751-7633
(704) 384-2625
Partner, Litigation Leader
(336) 378-5240
Partner in Charge, Appellate Practice Leader
(919) 755-8759
Partner, Education Industry Leader
(336) 378-5331
(864) 751-7624
(336) 378-5208

Representative Cases:

  • Reittinger v. Lincoln Financial, United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.  Defended putative  nation-wide class action alleging that certain life insurance policies were sold in furtherance of an illegal tax shelter scheme on the basis that they were barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
  • Hapgood v. USAirways, United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina.  Defended nation-wide class action against US Airways relating to its refund policy on "nonrefundable tickets."  A motion to dismiss was filed on the basis that the claims were barred federal law regulating air carriers and the case settled shortly thereafter.
  • Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company, North Carolina Superior Court, Guilford County; North Carolina Court of Appeals; North Carolina Supreme Court.  Defended nation-wide class action relating to the marketing of various life insurance products.
  • Faircloth v. Sovereign Bank, United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina; United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.  Defended class action relating to the origination and securitization of residential mortgages.
  • Bumpers v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina.  Defended class action relating to the origination and securitization of residential mortgages.
  • Skinner v. IMPAC Funding Corporation, Durham County Superior Court, North Carolina; North Carolina Court of Appeals.  Defended class action in lending origination case.
  • Duplin v. UCR, Inc., North Carolina Superior Court.  Sought de-certification of class action because manageability considerations.
  • Nobles v. First Carolina Communications, Inc., North Carolina Superior Court.  Defended class certification in a case which on appeal established for the first time the need for findings of facts and conclusions of law in class certification orders.

* Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in any future legal representation.

Thought Leadership

Each of our lawyer's e-mail address is provided with his or her biography. If you are not a current client of our firm, you should not e-mail our lawyers with any confidential information or any information about a specific legal matter, given that our firm may presently represent persons or companies who have interests that are adverse to you. If you are not a current client and you e-mail any lawyer in our firm, you do so without any expectation of confidentiality. We will not establish a professional relationship with you via e-mail. Instead, you should contact our firm by telephone so that we can determine whether we are in a position to consult with you about any legal matters before you share any confidential or sensitive information with us.