Jimmie represents tenants against some of the largest corporate landlords in the country. His class actions challenge security-deposit deductions, late fees, utility billing, and other move-out charges under Civil Code §§ 1950.5 and 1671, in state and federal court. His work includes Norman v. Essex Property Trust, Inc., a proposed $27.95 million settlement in total relief for more than 200,000 California renters, pending court approval. If approved, it would be the largest recovery in a California security-deposit class action.
He came to plaintiff-side work through the defense bar. Jimmie began his career at Gordon & Rees, defending Fortune 500 companies against mass tort and class action claims, and opened his own plaintiff-side practice in 2009. He has represented tenants, employees, and consumers since.
He has pursued class claims against Conservice, MG Properties, Willmark Communities, Sequoia Equities, Essex Property Trust, Greystar, PAMA Properties (Nijjar Properties), and AvalonBay. In Ray v. Conservice, he obtained injunctive relief requiring the utility billing company to give tenants, on request, the provider invoices behind their bills.
Jimmie’s practice is concentrated in California tenant and consumer protection law: Civil Code § 1950.5 security-deposit cases, late-fee and utility-billing claims, and related consumer statutes, with wage-and-hour class actions alongside. Nearly all of it is against institutional landlords and the vendors that bill for them.
Jimmie takes the cases that have to be planned before they are filed and then carried for years: a class defined with certification in mind, discovery sequenced to get there, and a settlement structured so the money actually reaches tenants. The defendants are institutional landlords with national defense counsel. He runs these cases from the first complaint to the final distribution, and the firm staffs them so he can.
Proposed class settlement, pending court approval, providing $27.95 million in total relief for more than 200,000 California renters: a $19.25 million non-reversionary cash fund and $8.7 million in automatic turnover debt forgiveness, together with programmatic relief barring landlords from retaining vendor discounts on turnover work. If approved, it would be the largest recovery in a California security-deposit class action.
Co-lead counsel in a certified class action on behalf of approximately 33,000 California renters alleging systematic misappropriation of security deposits under Civil Code § 1950.5. Certification was won over opposition from more than twenty defendants. The $12.5 million settlement ($10 million in cash, $2.5 million in debt relief) returned approximately 135% of class damages.
Class action for unlawful withholding of security deposits and excessive late fees under Civil Code §§ 1950.5 and 1671. Settled for $9.8 million in total relief on behalf of a putative class of more than 80,000 California renters. Final approval and judgment entered June 2025.
Class action on behalf of former Willmark tenants challenging security-deposit deductions under Civil Code § 1950.5. Resolved in a class settlement providing $4.75 million in total relief, including a cash fund for class members and cancellation of tenant debt.
Class action on behalf of tenants billed for utilities by Conservice who asked for, but did not receive, the underlying provider bills. The settlement requires Conservice, on a tenant’s request, to produce the provider invoices and formulas behind the tenant’s charges within 30 days, and to name the provider and billing period on its statements.
Ten-day jury trial on behalf of 24 individual plaintiffs against their former employer for wage-and-hour violations. The jury returned a near-unanimous verdict awarding more than 90 percent of the damages sought.
Putative tenant class action challenging security-deposit deductions and the referral of tenant balances to collections.
Putative tenant class action alleging systematic violations of Civil Code § 1950.5 against the largest apartment manager in the country, with over $76 billion in assets under management.
Putative tenant class action alleging systematic violations of Civil Code § 1950.5 against a publicly traded landlord worth $26 billion.
Putative tenant class action against the Nijjar/PAMA landlord network over allegedly unlawful security-deposit deductions.
If you’re considering a class action against a well-resourced defendant in California, I’d like to hear about it.