Skip to Main Content

Melissa L. Yeates

Partner

D   484.270.1409
F   610.667.7056

Melissa L. Yeates is a Partner in the Firm’s Fiduciary, Consumer Protection, and Antitrust Group. A seasoned litigator with nearly two decades of experience litigating in federal courts nationwide, Ms. Yeates manages and litigates complex class action litigation, with a focus on consumer fraud, unfair trade practices, breach of contract and implied duties, warranty, and antitrust actions.

Melissa has played a leading role in the Firm’s successful litigation of claims against numerous large corporations accused of defrauding consumers and engaging in anticompetitive conduct. Her practice has also focused on new matter development, including the investigation and analysis of consumer fraud, antitrust, and securities matters. Prior to joining the Firm, Melissa clerked for the Honorable Stanley S. Brotman in the District of New Jersey and defended corporations in complex commercial, antitrust, product liability, and patent matters. Ms. Yeate's 12 years of experience as a litigator at large defense firms makes her uniquely suited to evaluate potential claims, develop litigation strategy, and negotiate cooperatively and effectively with defense counsel. Ms. Yeate currently represents consumers and entities in class action litigation against, among others, General Motors Company, FCA US LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Bank of Nova Scotia, Netflix, Hulu, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and the federal government.

Memberships

  • American Bar Association
  • Delaware Bar Association

Community Involvement

Melissa has a strong commitment to pro bono work and has volunteered for the Office of the Child Advocate, Philadelphia Reads and Delaware Volunteer Legal Services.  She is an active supporter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Story Changers, an organization which helps African children receive an education, daily meals, medical aid and emotional support.

Awards/Rankings

  • Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer, 2019-2021
  • Law Clerk for The Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Experience

Current Cases

  • CASE CAPTION Borough of Longport and Township of Irvington v. Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC
    COURT United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    CASE NUMBER 21-cv-15303-SRC
    JUDGE Stanley R. Chesler
    PLAINTIFF Borough of Longport and Township of Irvington
    DEFENDANTS Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC

    Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on August 13, 2021 alleging that, as providers of video programming and cable television service, Defendants were required to file an application for “individual certificates of approval or a system-wide franchise[.]” See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:5A-16. Defendants failed to apply for and obtain certificates of approval and municipal consents and/or a system-wide franchise. Defendants are providing cable television service throughout New Jersey without authorization, and in contravention of the New Jersey Cable Television Act (“CTA”). Such certificates of approval and/or franchise would have authorized Defendants to use public rights-of-way to provide their cable television service and video programming, provided that Defendants make payments to each municipality in which it provides service. The required payment is equal to a percentage of the gross revenues derived from subscription fees paid by subscribers in each municipality. Defendants were required to obtain certificates of approval and municipal consents and/or a system-wide franchise before providing cable television service and video programming in the Borough of Longport and Township of Irvington, and the other New Jersey municipalities. Defendants’ failure to obtain such approval and/or franchise did not relieve Defendants of the obligation to pay fees based on a percentage of their gross revenues derived from subscription fees paid by subscribers in each municipality. Defendants have failed to comply with N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:5A-30 because they have failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other Class members the required fees. Plaintiffs seek to require Defendants to abide by the CTA, and pay what they owe to New Jersey municipalities.

  • CASE CAPTION       The Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, The Operating Engineers Trust Fund of Washington, D.C., and The Stone & Marble Masons of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Health and Welfare Fund v. United States of America
    COURT United States Court of Federal Claims
    CASE NUMBER 19-cv-00353-EMR
    JUDGE Eleni M. Roumel
    PLAINTIFF The Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, The Operating Engineers Trust Fund of Washington, D.C., and The Stone & Marble Masons of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Health and Welfare Fund
    DEFENDANTS United States of America
    CLASS PERIOD N/A

    Plaintiffs filed an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims to recover monies illegally assessed and collected from Plaintiffs through the United States government’s unlawful interpretation and application of Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, codified in 42 U.S.C. § 18061 (the “Act” or “ACA”). As part of the Act’s implementation, the Transitional Reinsurance Program was created and includes a Transitional Reinsurance Contribution (the “Contribution”) imposed on certain “contributing entities.” The Contribution serves to fund reinsurance payments to health insurance issuers that insure high risk individuals as new enrollees. Those entities deemed “contributing entities” were required to pay the Contribution to the federal government during the transition period, including benefit years 2014 through 2016. On July 30, 2021, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that self-administered, self-insured multiemployer plans were not properly considered contributing entities and leaving the case open for discovery on behalf of a class of self-insured multiemployer employee health and welfare benefit plans as to whether Defendant’s imposition of the Contribution on Plaintiffs violates the Due Process and/or Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. An amended complaint was filed on September 14, 2021 and the case is now proceeding through discovery.