Haley D. Torrey

Senior Attorney

About

Haley Torrey is involved in a variety of matters for DLA Piper's global litigation group, focusing on class actions, product liability matters, and consumer protection laws. Haley has assisted clients in all phases of litigation, including pre-trial discovery, motions practice, trial and appellate review.

Areas of FocusLitigation Arbitration and Investigations

Bar admissionsNew JerseyPennsylvania

CourtsUnited States District Court for the District of New JerseyUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

EXPERIENCE

Won dismissal for global consumer company in a putative class action in the SDNY alleging that the product label for Dulcolax® Soft Chews and Dulcolax® Liquid Laxative, misleadingly claims to be all natural, and does not contain any synthetic ingredients, when allegedly contains synthetic ingredients. The plaintiff asserted claims for violations New York’s consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350 and for unjust enrichment. The Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Won dismissal for NYU in the defense of five putative nationwide class actions filed in the SDNY seeking the refund of tuition and fees after Covid-19 forced the University to pivot to remote learning and defeated class certification and obtained dismissal in a sixth. These cases assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and violations of New York’s consumer protection laws, GBL 349. In denying class certification, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish commonality, typicality, adequacy, that her counsel was inadequate, and individualized issues predominated. The plaintiff initially appealed the denial and dismissal to the Second Circuit, but gave up during briefing and the case is now resolved.
Won dismissal of a putative class action in the EDNY against British Airways arising from a criminal attack on their computer systems. The named plaintiff initially asserted four claims for (1) New York's consumer protection law, GBL 349, (2) negligence, (3) implied contract, and (4) violations of the NY data breach statute. We filed a pre-motion letter demonstrating the plaintiff lacked standing, that his claims were pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act, and that he failed to state a claim. At the pre-motion conference on our motion to dismiss, the Court found that the plaintiff lacked standing, his claims were pre-empted, and questioned his ability to state a claim under the NY data breach statute. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, which we again moved to dismiss. The Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Won dismissal for a global airline in the defense of a putative class action filed in the Northern District of Illinois regarding an alleged failure to provide refunds in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Won dismissal for a national automotive manufacturer in multiple putative class actions alleging consumer fraud and warranty claims relating to claims that certain model vehicles are defective because exhaust fumes may enter the passenger compartment.
Secured dismissal of a global financial services company in defense of claims arising from what the plaintiff characterizes as a data breach. The plaintiff initially tried to state 12 claims on behalf of a nationwide putative class: negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, bailment, and violations of Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 ("California Constitution"), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“CRA”), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (Section 349), and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-aa. After we filed our first motion to dismiss, the plaintiff abandoned five of the claims, and then voluntarily dismissed the action while our second motion to dismiss was pending.
Obtained a favorable settlement for a global computer company in the defense of a putative class action in the EDNY. The complaint alleges violations of New York's consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, and a consumer fraud claim under N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1, et seq. We obtained a favorable settlement, which the Court has preliminarily approved.
Obtained a favorable settlement for British Airways in the defense of a putative nationwide class action filed in the SDNY alleging a breach of contract regarding an alleged failure to provide refunds in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Current representation of a global computer company in a multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple statewide and nationwide class actions alleging that the company promotes and makes available apps that constitute illegal gambling. Claims alleged in the various class actions include, civil RICO, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and state loss recovery statutes. We have filed a motion to dismiss, and was granted in large part.
Current representation of a global food and beverage company in the defense of a putative class action in the SDNY. The complaint challenges the labeling of its International Delight Coffee Creamer by describing it as a "coffee creamer" that is "delightfully creamy" when the product allegedly does not contain “cream or dairy ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate.” On behalf of a putative Texas class and a multi-state consumer fraud class, the plaintiff attempts to allege: violations of either the Texas or New York consumer protection statute on behalf of the named plaintiff; violations of other states’ consumer protection statutes; breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment. We have moved to dismiss.
Current representation of the same global food and beverage company in a copy-cat case in the Northern District of Illinois.
Current representation of the same consumer company in a putative class action in the Northern District of California alleging that the product label for Unisom Sleep Slumbers gummies misleadingly claims to be all natural, and does not contain any synthetic ingredients, when allegedly contains synthetic ingredients. The plaintiff asserts claims for claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. ("UCL"), False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. (“FAL”), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"), and common law claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. We will be moving to dismiss.
Current representation of a global airline against putative class action claims in the SDNY that its statement "fly responsibly" and carbon offset program violate the New York consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, various other state consumer protection statutes, and attempt to state claims for breach of express warranty/implied warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. We have moved to dismiss.
Current representation of a global food and beverage company in the defense of a putative class action in the SDNY. The complaint challenges the "carbon neutral" certification of a line of bottled waters and attempts to state claims for violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"), violations of New York’s consumer protection act, GBL 349 and 350, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. In response to a Rule 11 letter, the plaintiff amended once and added a new plaintiff asserting claims under the Massachusetts consumer protection law. We will be moving to dismiss.