gabriela

Home/Articles/Gabriela Chambi

About Gabriela Chambi

Gabriela Chambi is a litigation attorney who focuses her practice on employment and labor law, civil rights, professional malpractice and complex litigation.

Prior to joining Carr Maloney, Gabriela was a Law Clerk for the Montgomery County (MD) District Court, where she drafted written opinions for all twelve District Court Judges while managing the civil motions docket caseload.

Gabriela graduated from the American University Washington College of Law, where she was the Note and Comment Editor for the American University International Law Review. In addition to being a Bar Association (DC) Public Interest Fellowship Recipient and Reif Fellowship Finalist, she co-authored “Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Finance: Regulatory Response in the European Union” in the American Bar Association’s 2017 ‘Year in Review’.

While attending Law School, Gabriela was also a Law Clerk for both the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Foreign Litigation and for the Honorable Robert A. Salerno, Associate Judge for the District of Columbia Superior Court.

Gabriela is fluent in Spanish.

Associate, Carr Maloney PC

The Supreme Court to Examine “Excessive” ERISA Fees

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the class action ERISA case, Hughes v. Northwestern University, Docket No. 19-1401, to determine whether a retirement plan that pays or charges its participants fees that are significantly higher than those of other available investments is breaching its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  In short, the Supreme Court’s review could determine what qualifies as a plausible claim for relief in a “defined contribution” retirement plan.

In Hughes, five Plaintiffs filed the action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting six […]

By |2021-09-15T12:21:59-04:00September 15th, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action, Labor & Employment|Topics: , , , |
Read the Full Article

Supreme Court to Determine whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act displaces the States Secret Privilege

On November 8, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the class action case, Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, Docket No. 20-828.  In Fazaga, members of a Muslim community in Southern California filed suit against the FBI and various FBI agents, alleging that the government’s secret surveillance of them was not lawful because it was based on their religious beliefs and practices.  More specifically, three Muslim men allege that the FBI targeted them because of their religion by using a confidential informant to gather information about Muslims as part of a counterterrorism investigation. […]

By |2021-09-07T14:27:58-04:00September 7th, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action, General|Topics: , , |
Read the Full Article

The Supreme Court Narrows the TCPA’s Autodialer Provision: Facebook Can Text You

On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Noah Duguid, No. 19-511, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 1742 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2021), siding with Facebook in narrowing the federal ban on unsolicited robocalls and robotexts.   The Court held that Facebook did not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”) by sending security related text messages to the Plaintiff, Noah Duguid.  Duguid sued Facebook after receiving several text messages from Facebook alerting him that someone tried to access his Facebook account from an unknown browser, when he never had a […]

By |2021-04-05T17:27:35-04:00April 5th, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action, Consumer Protection|Topics: , , , |
Read the Full Article

Update: Settlement in Facebook’s Facial Recognition Technology Suit Against Facebook

On Friday, February 26, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge, Judge Donato approved a $650 million settlement of the privacy lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly using photo face-tagging and other biometric data without the consent of its users. This is one of the largest settlements for a privacy violation to date in the United States. We previously discussed this case last year in the blog post titled, “Class Actions and Privacy Laws – Could Facial Recognition Technology Be Changing the Face of the “injury-in-fact” Requirement for Class Actions?” As previously discussed, in the earlier post of February 2020, […]

By |2021-03-02T11:56:10-05:00March 2nd, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action, Cybersecurity & Privacy|Topics: , , |
Read the Full Article

Robinhood – No Longer the Heroic Outlaw Who Steals from the Rich to Give to the Poor

On January 28, 2021, Brendon Nelson filed a four-count class action lawsuit in (the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) against Robinhood Financial, LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC and Robinhood Markets, Inc., for Breach of Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligence, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. This class action comes after a market frenzy fueled by traders who utilize Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum to discuss stocks, sent shares of GameStop soaring which caused losses (in the billion-dollar range) to hedge funds that were shorting the stocks.

More […]

By |2021-02-01T14:06:00-05:00February 1st, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , , , , |
Read the Full Article

Zoom Facing Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breaches and Privacy Violations

Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, individuals and businesses have gotten creative about how to gather and meet for everything from company meetings to happy hours to high school reunions and weddings.  While applications like Skype and FaceTime have been popular for years, Zoom is the program that is on the tip of everyone’s tongue—mainly because it allows numerous people to meet and talk to each other via video link all at the same time.  Originally developed as a video-conferencing program for businesses, Zoom, for the first time, is now serving individual users for activities having nothing to […]

By |2020-04-20T11:40:00-04:00April 20th, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action, Cybersecurity & Privacy|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

DC Court of Appeals Refuses to Impose Strict Liability Under the TCPA

In a significant decision regarding the applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), the D.C. Court of Appeals recently held that the TCPA does not impose strict liability on a person or entity whose goods or services are advertised in an unsolicited fax. Instead, the Court ruled that the Act may impose vicarious liability on a person or entity on whose behalf unsolicited fax ads were sent, regardless as to who actually sent the faxes.

In FDS Rest., Inc. v. All Plumbing, Inc., No. 16-CV-1009, 2020 D.C. App. LEXIS 111 (Mar. 26, 2020), FDS […]

By |2020-04-09T09:44:10-04:00March 31st, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

Class Actions and Privacy Laws – Could Facial Recognition Technology Be Changing the Face of the “injury-in-fact” Requirement for Class Actions?

Facial recognition software has grown exponentially over the past several years. It is used almost everywhere, from airports, shopping centers, law enforcement and even Facebook. Many states have also issued privacy laws protecting consumers from these types of invasions of privacy. For example, Illinois enacted The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which has been in the news lately. 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq. (2008). This statute requires companies to obtain written releases from individuals before collecting their “face geometry” and other biometric data.

A recent case demonstrates the strict application of this statute. In 2015, […]

By |2020-02-18T13:54:16-05:00February 18th, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action, Cybersecurity & Privacy|Topics: , , |
Read the Full Article

Junk Faxes – The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Battle of the “Unsolicited Advertisement”

On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in PDR Network, LLC, et al. v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Docket No. 17-1705. This case involves the receipt of an unsolicited fax and whether such a fax violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The Court declined to squarely answer the question, but instead, sent it back to theCourt of Appeals for additional review.

Generally, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) anyone can sue if they receive an unsolicited ad by fax. This is exactly what happened in PDR Network. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic […]

By |2019-11-26T13:19:03-05:00June 27th, 2019|Practice Areas: Consumer Protection|
Read the Full Article

The District of Columbia Circuit in the Spotlight: Does Bristol-Myers Apply to Class Action Lawsuits?

The appeal at issue originated from a class action lawsuit filed by Whole Foods Market’s employees in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., 297 F.Supp. 3d 114 (D.D.C. 2018). Specifically, on June 22, 2017, Whole Foods Market’s employees filed a class action lawsuit for unpaid wages. The class consisted of current and former Whole Foods Market employees from the District of Columbia and several states. The employees claimed that they were not paid their entitled bonuses as a result of managers manipulating certain labor cost and […]

By |2020-04-15T10:19:51-04:00June 3rd, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: |
Read the Full Article

The Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Classwide Arbitration

On April 24, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court held that an ambiguous arbitration clause is not sufficient under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to force class arbitration on a non-consenting party. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-1988. The Court concluded that lower courts may not draw an inference from an ambiguous agreement that the parties consented to class arbitration and that neither silence nor ambiguity can establish a party’s consent to class arbitration under the FAA. This is because, according to the Court, parties’ consent to arbitrate is the foundational principle of arbitration agreements.

Lamps Plus […]

By |2019-11-26T13:17:43-05:00May 6th, 2019|Practice Areas: Labor & Employment|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

SCOTUS To Review Whether A Third-Party Defendant Can Remove a Class Action to Federal Court

On September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether, under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a third-party defendant can remove a class action from state to federal court. Home Depot USA, Inc., U.S. No. 17-1471. CAFA allows “any defendant” to remove actions from state to federal court if certain jurisdictional requirements are met.

This case arose when Citibank N.A. brought a debt collection action against George
Jackson in state court alleging he failed to pay for a water treatment system he bought using a Citibank credit card. Jackson filed a counterclaim against Citibank and third-party class […]

By |2019-11-26T13:14:56-05:00November 8th, 2018|Practice Areas: General|Topics: |
Read the Full Article
© Carr Maloney P.C., All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer.

Enter your email address to get the latest Class Action Blog articles delivered to your inbox!
Sign Up!