San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco Offices
858-674-6641 | vCard
Alan M. Mansfield has practiced primarily in the area of national consumer class action and public interest litigation since 1991, focusing on healthcare, telecommunications, and consumer privacy issues. His clients and co-counsel have included such public interest organizations as the California Medical Association, Consumer Watchdog, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Mr. Mansfield has been involved in numerous significant healthcare matters, including a class action against Anthem Blue Cross for improperly closing certain health plans, which resulted in a settlement requiring defendant to limit plan rate increases and requiring any plan changes to be without medical underwriting for several years (Feller v. Anthem Blue Cross, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2010-00368587-CU-BT-VTA) and a similar claim that is on-going against Blue Shield of California (Martin v. Blue Shield, pending in San Francisco Superior Court); a class action (DOE v. Anthem Blue Cross, pending in San Diego Superior Court) representing consumers prescribed specialty HIV/AIDS medications that were required to participate in a mandatory mail order program, which program was suspended indefinitely as a result of the action; and a class action representing a number of California pharmacists seeking to require Pharmacy Benefits Managers to provide data required under state law, obtaining a significant decision from the Ninth Circuit interpreting the scope of the First Amendment as applied to California pharmacists' claims under California law that is currently the subject of review before the California Supreme Court (Beeman v. Anthem Prescription, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14687 (9th Cir., July 19, 2011, en banc review granted). He was also involved in the “Joe Camel” teen smoking case, Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057.
As part of his commitment to public interest litigation, Mr. Mansfield was one of the lead counsel in Garrett v. City of Escondido, 465 F.Supp. 2d 1043 (S.D. Cal. 2006), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which successfully challenged the legality of the City of Escondido’s immigration landlord-tenant enforcement ordinance, resulting in one of the first decisions addressing the constitutionality of local ordinances or state laws addressing immigration issues. Based on that and other work in the community performed by both him and the previous firm for which he was the managing partner (Rosner & Mansfield LLP), he and his firm was awarded the 2007 Public Service by a Law Firm Award by the San Diego County Bar Association. He also assisted the ACLU in obtaining a significant First Amendment victory regarding the improper seizure by the U.S. Government of property belonging to members of the Mongols Motorcycle Club, where the government recently dismissed all appeals (Rivera v. Melson, No. 2:09-cv-02435 DOC (JCx)(C.D. Cal.)).
Highlights from other recent successful actions where he was appointed as one of the lead class counsel include a class action against American Honda for misrepresenting gas mileage on Honda Civic Hybrids, resulting in a settlement valued at over $400 million (Lockabey v. American Honda, S.D. Sup. Ct. Case No. Case No. 37-2010-00087755-CU-BT-CTL); and an action involving the unauthorized billing of consumers for overdraft fees on checking and debit account, resulting in the creation of a $35 million common fund and significant cy pres contributions to several non-profit organizations (Closson v. Bank of America, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC 04436877). He also prevailed, after a two-week long class action arbitration in January 2009, on behalf of a class of senior citizens residing at a senior living community who were charged entrance fees in violation of California’s landlord-tenant laws, obtaining significant relief for the benefit of the class members and contributions for Alzheimer’s Disease research (VanPelt v. SRG).
Mr. Mansfield was also one of the lead counsel in a class action against Sprint Communications for charging customers improper telephone fees for data plan communication, resulting in a settlement that fully refunded the vast majority of such charges (Taylor v. Sprint Communications, Case No. C07-CV-2231-W (RJB)); a class action involving billing customers for previously promised airtime, resulting in a class action settlement that gave over 1 million customers the ability to claim full reimbursement for the uncredited airtime (Nelson v. Virgin Mobile, Case No. 05-CV-1594-AJB); a case challenging Sprint’s failure to provide a cancellation window when it imposed certain additional fees against customers in July 2003, resulting in a class-wide settlement returning Early Termination Fees that had been charged to consumers, as well as improving certain disclosure practices (UCAN v. Sprint Spectrum LP, San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC 814461); and Maycumber v. PowerNet Global Telecommunications, Case No. 06-cv-1773-H (RBB) (S.D. Cal.), which challenged the practice of charging a “Network Access Charge” as a tax when it was not, resulting in a significant refund of such charges. Mr. Mansfield also represented the public interest group UCAN in an action before the California Public Utilities Commission involving improper billing for Early Termination Fees, resulting in a refund of over $18 million in fees to over 100,000 former Cingular Wireless customers (In Re Cingular Wireless, CPUC Case No. I.02-06-003), as well as an action challenging AT&T California’s practice of terminating 911-only service to California residents in violation of the Public Utilities Code, resulting in a multi-million dollar fine and an order requiring significant practice changes (UCAN v. SBC California, CPUC Case No. C.05-11-011).
Mr. Mansfield has written extensively on a number of subjects, including being the primary author of the chapter and update on the scope of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act in Anti-Trust and Unfair Competition Law - Third, published by the California Bar Association, and is one of the authors of the current revision of that chapter for the Fourth Edition of that treatise. He also has been the author of numerous published articles, including “Class Action Waivers After the Supreme Court Decision in AT&T v. Concepcion”, San Diego ABTL Report (Summer 2011) and the San Diego Defense Bar Journal (Summer 2011); “Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court: Re-affirming the Vitality of Private Enforcement of the Unfair Competition Law”, State Bar of California Competition Magazine (Spring 2011)(co-authored with Pamela M. Parker); and “Supreme Court’s Most Recent Prop. 64 Decision Provides Guidance On Standing”, San Diego ABTL Report (Winter 2011). Other articles he has authored include “Is Your Client Prepared to Comply With the Data Security Breach Notification Laws?”, San Diego Association of Business Trial Lawyers Report (Spring 2007); “Has The Class Certification Inquiry Changed Due To Proposition 64?”, State Bar of California Anti-Trust and Unfair Competition Section (May 2005); “Hartwell: Are Courtroom Doors Open To Litigation Involving Regulated Industries?”, San Diego ABTL Report (August 2002); “Litigation Issues Arising from the Use of Websites,” Practicing Law Institute (April 2001); “Kraus, Cortez and Future Battlegrounds In Representative Actions Under the Unfair Competition Law,” Consumer Attorneys of California Forum (July/August 2000) (co-authored with Mark A. Chavez); “Private Enforcement of California’s Consumer Protection Unfair Business Practices Act,” CAOC Annual Meeting (November 1997); “Life After BMW v. Gore - Who Is Now The Trier of Fact?,” PLI (Fall 1997).
Mr. Mansfield is a regular speaker and panelist in continuing legal education programs relating to California’s consumer protection statutes, including making presentations to the California Center for Judicial Education and Research (July 2001), the Privacy Foundation (October 2011, March 2009, February 2007 and October 2005), and the Naval College for JAG Officers (May 2004). He has also been a panelist on litigating arbitration provisions after Concepcion in a national symposium for “Litigating Class Actions” for which he prepared an analysis (LSI, May 2012); on the proper scope of expert analysis in the context of class certification for which he prepared an analysis (AAJ, May 2009); and a panelist in February 2008 for a Lexis-Nexis conference entitled “Weathering Mass Tort and Class Action Settlements and Negotiations”. He has also made several presentations to both the Enright Inn of Court and the Southern District Judicial Conference on state and federal data breach notification laws.
Mr. Mansfield was previously responsible for several years for the consumer law group in the San Diego office of the largest class action firm in the United States, now known as Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. One of the most successful actions involved the DMV motor vehicle Smog Impact Fee, which ultimately resulted in over $350 million in consumer refunds (Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 449).
Mr. Mansfield is the past editor of the ABTL Report for the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and on its Board of Governors and Editorial Board, has previously served on the Board of Directors of the National Association for Consumer Advocates, and is a current member of the American Bar Association, the Anti-trust Section of the California Bar Association, the San Diego County Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Consumer Attorneys of California and San Diego. He is currently a member of the William B. Enright Inn of Court and recently completed serving a three-year term as a Lawyer Representative for the Southern District of California at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.
Mr. Mansfield received his B.S. degree, cum laude, in Business Administration - Finance from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo in 1983 and his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Denver School of Law in 1986. He is admitted to the Bar of the State of California, to the United States District Courts for all Districts of California and to the Third, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal.