Alan M. Mansfield
Alan M. Mansfield has practiced primarily in the areas of national health care, privacy, consumer and securities class action, and public interest litigation since 1989. His clients have included such public interest organizations as the California Medical Association, the Independent Physical Therapists of California, 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 the 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 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 and the California Supreme Court interpreting the scope of the First Amendment as applied to California pharmacists’ claims under California law (Beeman v. Anthem Prescription, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14687 (9th Cir., July 19, 2011), Beeman v. Anthem Prescription, 58 Cal. 4th 529 (2013).
He also has been actively involved in resolving numerous cases on behalf of patients with HIV/AIDS, including Doe v. CVS, S.D. Oh. Case No. 2:18 cv-00238-EAS-CMV (Ohio class action settlement approved in January 2020 arising out of Ohio ADAP mailing, providing for over $2 million in payments to affected individuals); Doe v. United Health Care, No. 13-cv-00864 (C.D. Cal. filed 2013) (national class action settlement approved in July 2014 permitting consumers to opt out of mail order program); Doe v. Cigna Health Care, No. 15-cv-60894 (S.D. Fla. filed 2015) (national settlement implemented in December 2015 that removed HIV/AIDS specialty medications from the mandatory mail order tier); Doe v. Blue Cross of California, No. 37-2013-31442 (San Diego Super. Ct. filed 2013) (California-only settlement implemented in May 2013 cancelling mandatory mail order program); Doe v. Anthem, Inc. (national settlement implemented in June 2016 that also removed HIV/AIDS specialty medications from the mandatory mail-order requirement tier for all of Anthem’s subsidiaries in the United States), and DOE v. Aetna, Inc. and Coventry Health Plans (nationwide settlement revising similar mandatory mail-order pharmacy programs). He was also one of the counsel who negotiated a settlement of claims by the IPTCA against a nationwide workers compensation claims processor, revising the procedures and review of submitting and adjudicating such claims. He is currently one of the primary counsel in an action against the California Department of Public Health and other entities for violating the privacy rights of hundreds of recipients of HIV/AIDS medications in California, as well as other significant health care matters.
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 (Rivera v. Melson,No. 2:09-cv-02435 DOC (JCx)(C.D. Cal.)). He was also involved in the “Joe Camel” teen smoking case, a landmark decision that permitted false advertising claims to proceed against a major tobacco company. Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057. He also volunteers as a pro tem commissioner for the San Diego County Superior Court handling small claims and traffic matters.
Highlights from other successful actions where he was appointed as one of the lead class counsel include a class action against 23andMe arising out of claims relating to early genetic testing results, which was resolved as a class action settlement in arbitration valued at over $10 million; a class action against Nvidia Corp. arising out of alleged defects in GPUs that resulted in class action settlement valued at over $50 million (In re Nvidia GTX 970 Graphics Card Litigation, N.D. Ca. Case No. 15-CV-00760-PJH); an 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. 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 class action lawsuits against various utilities, including 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 a class action 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 is currently the President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Diego Chapter (Secretary – 2017; Treasurer – 2018; Vice President — 2019); member of the Executive Committee (2008-present); Program Chair, 2017 ABTL Annual Seminar and 2018 ABTL Joint Board Retreat; Planning Committee member, 2016; Program Co-chair, 2009 ABTL Annual Seminar; Co-chair, mini-annual seminar, 2009, 2013 and 2015; Editor, ABTL Report (2004-2009). He also is a Master member of the Enright Inn of Court, and in that capacity has been a team leader for numerous committees responsible for making presentations to members of Inn.
He is a member of the Anti-Trust Section of California Bar Association (now California Lawyers Association), where he participated in committee that made presentation to State’s Anti-trust and Unfair Competition Law section related to Proposition 64 (2005). Previously Mr. Mansfield was a Lawyer Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, Southern District of California (6/2008 to 6/2010), where he helped create and make presentations to the Southern District of California Judicial Conference, as well as attended the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in 2009. He is also a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, San Diego Chapter, the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, and the American Bar Association.
Mr. Mansfield has been a panelist or speaker on numerous issues, including the following: California Center for Judicial Education And Research (July 2001) – participant in panel discussion on mechanics of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 (“UCL”) to state court judges in continuing legal education program for judges; The Rutter Group (2001) — panel discussion on mechanics of UCL; Consumer Financial Services Litigation (PLI, April 2000 and 2001) – participant in panel discussion on choice of law issues arising in nationwide class certification and jurisdictional issues arising from being engaged in Internet activities; Judge Advocate General Naval Training Center (Nov. 2004) – lectured on procedure and substance of state consumer protection statutes at training session for JAG officers from around the Western U.S.; Mealey’s Unfair Competition Law Annual Section 17200 Seminar (Nov. 2004) – participant in panel discussion on anticipated litigation issues under UCL; California State Bar Association, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Annual Seminar (May 2005) – participant in panel discussion on class certification issues arising under UCL in light of then recent amendments to Proposition 64; Southern District of California Judicial Conference (May 2008) – participant in panel discussion on identity theft issues and protections available to victims; Mealey’s “Weathering Mass Tort and Class Action Settlement Negotiations” (Feb. 2008) – participated in tele-seminar re: ethical issues involved in class actions; Privacy Foundation, University of Denver School of Law (February 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2015) – lectured and participated in several panels where discussed federal privacy issues; University of San Diego School of Law (Spring 2008) – guest lecturer in class on Mediation and Arbitration on class action mediation and arbitration issues; Privacy Advocates Seminar (May 2009) – Moderator of panel on trends and limitations in privacy litigation and potential role of cy pres awards in resolving privacy matters; State Bar of California Unfair Competition Law Section “Navigating the Waters: Understanding the Intricacies of California’s Unfair Competition Law” (June 2010) — panelist on recent developments under UCL.
Mr. Mansfield has also authored a treatise and articles on a variety of consumer law related issues. In 2003 Mr. Mansfield wrote the chapter and later the 2005 update on California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, published by the California Bar Association in California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law – Third, Ch. 19 at 150 (Matthew Bender & Co. 2003). He also assisted in the 2009 revision of the same chapter for the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, The State Bar of California, California State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Fourth, Ch. 19 (Cheryl Lee Johnson, ed., Matthew Bender & Co. 2009). Articles written by Mr. Mansfield include: The ABTL Annual Seminar Keynote Presentation “Watergate: The Ultimate Crisis Event”, ABTL Report San Diego (Winter 2017-18) at 6 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Another Post-Concepcion Twist – California Supreme Court Rules Claims for Public Injunctive Relief May Not Be Subject to Arbitration, ABTL Report San Diego (Spring 2017) at 17 (www.abtl.org/sd); Would You Consider Making Scriptural References in a Closing Argument? ABTL Report San Diego (Winter 2016) at 16 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); How Does Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. Change The Arbitration Equation In California? ABTL Report San Diego (Fall 2015) at 1 (co-authored with Michael Klitzke) (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Class Action Waivers After the Supreme Court Decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, ABTL Report San Diego (Summer 2011) at 4 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); republished in 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, Competition, The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2011)(co-authored with Hon. Pamela M. Parker); Supreme Court’s Most Recent Prop. 64 Decision Provides Guidance On Standing, ABTL Report San Diego (Winter 2011) at 1 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Dukes v. Walmart – the Ninth Circuit’s Analysis of How “Merits” Evidence is to be Weighed In Deciding Class Certification, ABTL Report San Diego (Summer 2010) at 7 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); The Proper Scope of Expert Analysis In the Context of Class Certification, Program Materials for American Association for Justice Annual Seminar (July 2009) (co-authored with W. Tucker Brown); The Revised Standards for Publication of Appellate Decisions, ABTL Report San Diego (June 2008) at 4 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Is Your Client Prepared to Comply With the Data Security Breach Notification Laws?, ABTL Report San Diego (Spring 2007) at 4 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Behind The Red Cover: A Writ Petition Primer, ABTL Report San Diego (November 2005) at 1 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Has The Class Certification Inquiry Changed Due To Proposition 64? Program Materials for California’s Unfair Competition Law After Proposition 64, State Bar of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section Seminar (May 2005); Litigation Involving Websites and Personal Privacy on the Internet – A Balance Gone Askew, Consumer Attorneys of California, Forum Vol. 32, No. 8 at 22 (October 2002)(co-wrote with William Doyle); Hartwell: Are Courtroom Doors Open to Litigation Involving Regulated Industries? ABTL Report San Diego (August 2002) at 1 (www.abtl.org/report/sd); Litigation Arising from the Use of Websites, Consumer Financial Services Litigation at 57 (PLI, April 2001); Nationwide Class Actions in State Court: Starting with Shutts, Consumer Financial Services Litigation at 263 (PLI, April 2000); Kraus, Cortez and Future Battlegrounds In Representative Actions under the Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Attorneys of California, Forum, Vol. 30, No. 6 at 233 (July/August 2000) (co-authored with Mark Chavez); Private Enforcement of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act, Program Materials for Consumer Attorneys of California Annual Seminar (November 1997); and Life After BMW v. Gore – Who Is Now the Trier of Fact?, Consumer Financial Services Litigation (Supplement) at 55 (PLI, April 1997).
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, to the United States District Court for the Districts of Colorado and Michigan, to the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Mr. Mansfield is Of Counsel to the Firm.