Class Action


The pursuit of a class action lawsuit holds a number of advantages for individual plaintiffs with common claims against a common defendant, but experienced and skillful legal counsel is critical to the success of the lawsuit.

At Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., L.P.A., our Cleveland class action attorneys have a wealth of experience managing and leading class action lawsuits in Ohio and nationwide. We offer our clients personalized attention throughout the case, and we also work as class or liaison counsel in support of other lawyers and law firms.

Advantages of a Class Action

  • Sharing of costs between many plaintiffs, making invaluable discovery and litigation economically feasible
  • Combining resources of several different law firms to pursue the rights of an entire class of individuals
  • Leveling the playing field, particularly when the defendant is a large corporation with limitless resources

Our attorneys devote attention, time and resources to the proper handling of class action and mass tort litigation in pursuit of excellence on behalf of our clients. We work cases from start to resolution, from filing of the complaint on through appeal, if necessary.

We represent clients, collaborate with counsel across the country and work with experts around the world on a variety of complex cases involving a range of services, including:

At Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, we do not warehouse cases. We spend time and energy to select the cases we are going to dive into 100 percent, considering the best interests of our clients and our ability to provide individual attention and responsiveness throughout the process.

Our success has not gone unnoticed by large multinational corporations. Our more than 50 years of experience in plaintiff’s litigation has also led us to devote a significant portion of our practice to the defense of major corporations facing serious class action/mass tort exposure such as:

  • In Re: Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1535. We have been one of the lead firms defending the welding rod industry. This unique adaptation of a plaintiff’s firm has led to multiple extensive federal trials garnering national headlines.

Representative Plaintiffs’ Cases and Results

Our results, whether verdicts or settlements, speak to the immense capabilities and experience of our law firm:

  • In the 1990s, we entered into mass tort litigation by successfully representing* more than 50 clients who had been injured by an over-the-counter drug called L-Tryptophan (In Re: Showa Denko K.K. L-tryptophan Products Liability Litigation Action, MDL No. 865). Injuries ranged from death and paralysis to excessive fatigue.
  • 1992 saw the beginning of the national breast implant litigation (In Re: Silicone Gel Breast Implant Litigation, MDL No. 926). Our leadership role began when we were chosen to sit on the national settlement committee and act as liaison counsel for the state of Ohio. We represented more than 700 clients and played a significant role in the 12,000 hour discovery process.
  • In 1997, we were chosen to be a member of the lead counsel committee in the In Re: Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., Accufix Atrial “J” Leads Products Liability Litigation, MDL. No. 1057. Telectronics and its Australian parent were sued for the improper design of a heart pacemaker lead. We acted as trial counsel in a summary jury trial that resulted in a verdict of $265 million against Telectronics. Thereafter, we were part of the negotiating team that settled the case on a national level for $95 million. By that time, Telectronics was out of business and had limited assets.
  • In May 2000, we acted as sub-class counsel for the people who had sustained the most significant injuries in the $4.8 billion diet drug settlement (In Re: Diet Drugs (Phentermine, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203).
  • Also in the 2000s, we took the lead role in the In Re: Inter-op Hip Prosthesis Product Liability Litigation, MDL 1401, negotiating and overseeing the interests and rights of approximately 30,000 class members in the $1.1 billion settlement.
  • In 2002, we were appointed co-lead and liaison counsel for the In Re: Ford Motor Company Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1488. The litigation involved allegations that the design of the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor subjected the vehicles to unnecessary risk of explosion oftentimes with catastrophic injuries being suffered by police officers.

Please see our results, page for several other examples of verdicts and settlements we have obtained on behalf of clients in commercial and security fraud litigation and several other areas.

Schedule a Meeting With an Experienced Attorney Today

Weisman, Kennedy & Berris is the distinctive small firm you seek with large firm resources, capabilities, networks and experience. Contact us today at 216-781-1111or toll free at 800-475-1189 to schedule a free initial consultation with a defective product class action attorney.

*Every case is different and can be evaluated only upon the facts unique to that particular case. Therefore, information contained in this website concerning the results in any case may NOT be viewed as a representation, prediction, warranty or guarantee by Weisman, Kennedy & Berris of like or similar results in any other case.