Articles Posted in Berniard Law Firm news

On February 10th, 2009, the Berniard Law Firm filed suit against Cox et. al. on behalf of a putative class over, what they allege to be, antitrust violations relating to set-top boxes and Cox’s rental policy of such. A putative class is one in which a collective group of people have all suffered a similar harm or common wrong. On March 4th, Cox (hereafter referred to as Defendant) filed a Notice of Removal to take the matter out of state court and put it into federal court. Less than a week later, Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, nothing more than a request for an extension to address the matter. This request was granted.

On the 12th of March, The Berniard Law Firm, with attorneys Madro Bandaries and Gregory DiLeo, filed to be entered as Interim Co-Lead Counsel with Madro Bandaries and Gregory DiLeo as interim liaison Co-Counsel. The defense filed a Motion to Stay on March 20th that specifically requested the Court to stop all litigation and wait for the MDL Panel to rule on what venue would be taken. The same day, the defense also filed a Motion to Expedite asking for the court to expedite consideration on this stay to avoid further delays. This request for expediting consideration of the stay was granted three days later.

While the defense has submitted an opposition to the Berniard Law Firm being considered lead counsel, filed on March 23, the Berniard Law Firm has filed with the court their desires to continue litigation of the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. Since then, various motions and responses have been filed regarding oppositions to stay the case. March 26th the Berniard Law Firm filed an opposition to Cox’s motion to stay pretrial proceedings citing the undue hardship suffered by the plaintiffs as they continue to be charged for what we allege to be an unfair service practice.

In a move intended to help protect the citizens of Louisiana from price-gouging and keeping companies from taking advantage of service monopolies, the Berniard Law Firm has joined with other area law firms in a class action against Cox cable.

The general intention of the case against Cox revolves around their refusal to provide their service without costly add-ons that gouge customers and prevent fair market practice. Cox’s refusal to allow customers to use cable boxes of their own when using the premium cable service they subscribe to is wholly unfair and constitutes a violation, in our opinion, of antitrust law. Cox customers are unable to do any arrangement but the one Cox forces, which is to contract with Cox for the rental of a set top or cable box that totals $5.25/month, $63.00/year. For customers who have used Cox for some time, these charges can add up.

Because Cox ties their premium cable services to piece of technology that they alone provide constitutes, in our opinion, a violation of regulations of trade that were put into effect by the government, both state and federal, to protect consumers from unfair business practices.