Class Action Defense Blog

Class Action Against Car Manufacturer was a Catalyst Behind Recall Program thus Entitling Plaintiffs to Attorney Fee Award as "Prevailing Party" under California law New Jersey Federal Court Holds

In March 1994, following consumer complaints, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into whether the Bendix 10 ABS had a safety-related defect warranting a recall. In October 1995 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against DaimlerChrysler for, inter alia, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, alleging that Chrysler vehicles equipped with Bendix 10 ABS were defective. And in April 1996, Chrysler voluntarily recalled vehicles equipped with Bendix 10 ABS, thereby ending the NHTSA's investigation. Chin v. DaimlerChrsyler Corp., 461 F.Supp.2d 279, 281 (D. N.J. 2006). But in March 1996, plaintiffs had amended their class action complaint to allege that Chrysler vehicles equipped with Bendix 9 ABS also were defective, as the product was "largely interchangeable [with the Bendix 10] and suffer[ed] from virtually identical defects." Id. The NHTSA informed Chrysler in September 1996 that it would begin investigating customer complaints involving the Bendix 9 ABS, and soon thereafter the company voluntarily recalled vehicles equipped with Bendix 9 thereby ending the NHTSA investigation. Id.

Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, but the district court denied the motion in March 1997 and the following month Chrysler publicly announced its recall of vehicles with Bendix 9 ABS. Chin, at 281. However, defense attorneys successfully defeated plaintiffs' effort to certify the lawsuit as a class action: in September 1998, the district court denied plaintiffs motion for class certification on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that common questions of law would predominate over individual issues, as required by Rule 23(b)(3), because the court would be required to apply the laws of 52 jurisdictions if a nationwide class were certified. Id., at 281-82. As the district court observed, "[f]or nearly all intents and purposes, Plaintiffs' class-action came to an end" with the denial of the motion to certify a class action. Id., at 281.

Continue reading "DaimlerChrsyler Class Action Defense Case- Chin v. DaimlerChrsyler: New Jersey Federal Court Holds California Law Applies And Class Action Materially Influenced Automobile Recall Decision Justifying Award Of Attorney Fees" »

Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions

Entity that Employed Significant Number of Putative Class Members was an Indispensable Party under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and could not be Joined in Class Action Without Destroying Federal Court Diversity Jurisdiction thus Necessitating Dismissal of Class Action Complaint New York Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Clear Channel Communications and Clear Channel Broadcasting for violations of New York's labor laws, alleging that defendants "made and continue to make unauthorized deductions from the wages of sales representatives for the New York radio stations that Defendants own and operate." Mattera v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 70, 71-72 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiff invoked federal court jurisdiction solely on the basis of diversity, id., at 72. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, id.; the thrust of the defense motion was that the class action failed to name Capstar Radio Operating Company (the owner of the two radio stations where plaintiff worked) as a defendant, and that joinder of Capstar would eliminate diversity jurisdiction thereby compelling dismissal of the action, id., at 73. The district court agreed with the defense and dismissed the class action.

Plaintiff was a sales representative, selling advertising spots or on-air time for two of the 1200+ radio stations defendants own and operate. Mattera, at 72. Sales representatives were received biweekly draws against commissions earned on each sale. The commissions were to be "paid one month after the contract for a sale is executed and the advertising spot purchased is aired,." But if the customer failed to pay for the service within 120 days then there would be a "charge back," with the entire amount of the commission deducted from the employee's next paycheck. According to the allegations in the class action complaint, the customer, "typically an advertising agency or corporation with a longstanding relationship with Defendants," would pay the bill more than 120 days after service, but in such instances defendants would not reverse the charge back. Id.

Continue reading "CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Mattera v. Clear Channel: New York Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Labor Law Class Action For Failure To Join Indispensable Party" »

Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Voluntary Payment Doctrine did not Apply where Plaintiff Could only get Copies of Hospital Records through Service Company and Plaintiff is an Adequate Class Representative if her Agent Requests and Pays for Hospital Records Illinois Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Smart Corporation, a company which contracted with hospitals to place its own employees on site to retrieve and copy hospital medical records for patients, alleging that it overcharged hospital patients for such services in violation of common law, Illinois' Inspection of Hospital Records Act and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and claiming also unjust enrichment. Ramirez v. Smart Corp., ___ Ill.App.3d ___ (Ill.App. February 16, 2007). Plaintiff's lawyer sought class certification, and defense attorneys moved for summary judgment. Slip Opn., at 1-2. The trial court granted the defense motion and denied class certification.

Plaintiff had suffered an injury and received treatment at a hospital. As part of her workers compensation claim, plaintiff's lawyer sought her hospital records. Smart retrieved and copied the records - consisting of 6 pages - and sent a bill for $34.78 itemized as follows: a basic fee of $15 and a $1 per page copy fee bringing the total photocopy charge to $21, a retrieval/search fee of $10, and shipping/handling fee of $3.78. Ramirez, at 2. Plaintiff's law firm paid the bill before plaintiff reviewed it. Id., at 3. The trial court denied class certification and granted the defense motion for summary judgment. The court refused to certify a class action because it found plaintiff to be an inadequate class representative in that her lawyer had reviewed and paid the bill, not the plaintiff. Id., at 4. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defense holding that plaintiff's claims were barred by the voluntary payment doctrine, and additionally finding that the charges were not deceptive or unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Fraud Act and that plaintiff could not seek damages under the Hospital Records Act because that statute allows a patient to compel production of hospital records. Id.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Ramirez v. Smart Corp.: Illinois State Court Affirms In Part And Reverses In Part Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In Class Action Against Hospital Record Retrieval/Copy Service" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

California defense attorneys will be confronted once again by a greater number of employment law class action cases than any other category, though public accommodation/ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and antitrust class action lawsuits came close to keeping law labor class actions out of the top spot for a second consecutive week. In an effort to assist the class action defense lawyer in anticipating the claims against which she or he may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class actions filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe.

This report covers the time period from February 16 – February 22, 2007. Approximately 49 class action lawsuits were filed in these California state and federal courts during that time period. Employment law class action filings typically lead the list of new weekly lawsuits, often by a wide margin. This past week labor law class action cases regained the top spot with 12 new filings (24%). Public accommodation/ADA claims came in second with 9 new lawsuits (18%), with new antitrust class action lawsuits right behind at 8 new cases (16%). The only other category to break the 10% threshold involved federal securities laws class action claims, with 6 new actions (12%).

Posted In: Class Actions In The News

As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of Regulation X. Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate regulations for RESPA, and the regulations are set forth in 24 CFR § 3500.1 et seq. The regulations provide for the preparation of a special information booklet to be given to borrowers at time of a loan application in § 3500.6, which provides:

§ 3500.6. Special information booklet at time of loan application

(a) Lender to provide special information booklet. Subject to the exceptions set forth in this paragraph, the lender shall provide a copy of the special information booklet to a person from whom the lender receives, or for whom the lender prepares, a written application for a federally related mortgage loan. When two or more persons apply together for a loan, the lender is in compliance if the lender provides a copy of the booklet to one of the persons applying.

(1) The lender shall provide the special information booklet by delivering it or placing it in the mail to the applicant not later than three business days (as that term is defined in § 3500.2) after the application is received or prepared. However, if the lender denies the borrower's application for credit before the end of the three-business-day period, then the lender need not provide the booklet to the borrower. If a borrower uses a mortgage broker, the mortgage broker shall distribute the special information booklet and the lender need not do so. The intent of this provision is that the applicant receive the special information booklet at the earliest possible date.

Continue reading "24 CFR § 3500.6—Special Information Booklet At Time Of Loan Application Under Regulation X (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act-RESPA)" »

Posted In: Statutes & Rules

As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of Regulation X. Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate regulations for RESPA, and the regulations are set forth in 24 CFR § 3500.1 et seq. The regulations provide for coverage of RESPA in § 3500.5, which provides:

§ 3500.5. Coverage of RESPA

(a) Applicability. RESPA and this part apply to all federally related mortgage loans, except for the exemptions provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Exemptions. (1) A loan on property of 25 acres or more.

(2) Business purpose loans. An extension of credit primarily for a business, commercial, or agricultural purpose, as defined by Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226.3(a)(1). Persons may rely on Regulation Z in determining whether the exemption applies.

(3) Temporary financing. Temporary financing, such as a construction loan. The exemption for temporary financing does not apply to a loan made to finance construction of 1- to 4-family residential property if the loan is used as, or may be converted to, permanent financing by the same lender or is used to finance transfer of title to the first user. If a lender issues a commitment for permanent financing, with or without conditions, the loan is covered by this part. Any construction loan for new or rehabilitated 1- to 4-family residential property, other than a loan to a bona fide builder (a person who regularly constructs 1- to 4-family residential structures for sale or lease), is subject to this part if its term is for two years or more. A "bridge loan" or "swing loan" in which a lender takes a security interest in otherwise covered 1- to 4-family residential property is not covered by RESPA and this part.

Continue reading "24 CFR § 3500.5—Coverage Of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Under Regulation X " »

Posted In: Statutes & Rules

Judicial Panel Grants Unopposed Request for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 but Agrees with Defense Attorneys and Non-Moving Plaintiffs that Class Actions Should be Centralized in Southern District of California

Six class action lawsuits were filed against Morgan Stanley in Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas federal courts alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying certain employees as exempt from overtime pay and/or by assessing improper deductions against employee compensation. In re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Overtime Pay Litig. (No. II), 471 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1353-54 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Illinois and Texas plaintiffs moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) to centralize the lawsuits for pretrial purposes in the Northern District of Illinois; defense attorneys and the remaining plaintiffs supported centralization but argued for transfer to the Southern District of California. Id. The agreed that the Southern District of California was an appropriate transferee court, in part because “[a]n earlier action against the Morgan defendants raising similar claims has just recently settled in that district.” Id., at 1354. “More significantly,” in the Panel’s view, “the Morgan defendants and the [Connecticut, new Jersey and New York plaintiffs] . . . state that they have reached a ‘global settlement’ under which a consolidated complaint would be filed in the California district, the matter would be related to the now-settled Southern District of California action, and Judge Roger T. Benitez, who presides over the Southern California action, would administer a settlement resolving the claims against the defendants on a nationwide basis.” Id. Thus transferring the actions to that district would not only place the litigation before a court “already familiar with the issues” but “may further enhance the prospects for a just and speedy resolution” of the various lawsuits. Id.

NOTE: This case provides another illustration of the fact that the Judicial Panel is not restricted in its selection of transferee forums. The Panel is free to select a forum where none of the actions is pending if it determines that forum to be the best choice.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Whether Lender Violated TILA, RESPA or State's Consumer Loan Act Irrelevant to Determination of Class Certification Motion because Plaintiffs Adequately Alleged such Violations Washington Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against their lender NovaStar Mortgage for violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) alleging that it failed to disclose it paid mortgage brokers a yield spread premium (YSP) in connection with their loans; the class action complaint was premised on NovaStar's purported failure to provide written disclosures required by the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Washington's Consumer Loan Act (CLA), and the plaintiffs' deeds. Pierce v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., 238 F.R.D. 624, 625 (W.D. Wash. 2006). In response to plaintiffs' first motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action, the district court agreed with defense attorneys that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate numerosity or typicality as required by Rule 23(a) and also failed to establish the predominance and superiority elements required by Rule 23(b); it therefore denied the motion, but did so without prejudice. Id. On plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, the court rejected defense objections and granted the motion.

By way of background, to establish a violation of the CPA one must prove "(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) that impacts the public interest; (4) and causes injury to the plaintiff in his or her business or property; and (5) such injury is causally linked to the unfair or deceptive act." Pierce, at 626 (citation omitted). A plaintiff may satisfy the first two elements by proving that the act in question is a per se unfair trade practice: "A per se unfair trade practice exists when, by statute, the Legislature declares an unfair or *627 deceptive act in trade or commerce and the statute has been violated." Id., at 626-27 (citations omitted). Under Washington law, "[a] violation of the CLA . . . is explicitly deemed a violation of the first and second elements of the CPA," id., at 627 (citation omitted). In denying the first motion for class certification, the district court believed that "verbal disclosures and independent knowledge of the YSP were relevant to determining whether NovaStar violated the CPA." Id., at 626. Plaintiffs' lawyers disagreed, arguing in the renewed motion that "verbal disclosures are irrelevant to class certification because they seek to establish a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act by proving that NovaStar violation the Consumer Loan Act." Id.

Continue reading "Pierce v. NovaStar-Class Action Defense Cases: Washington Federal Court Certifies Truth-In-Lending/Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Class Action Against NovaStar Mortgage Based On Failure To Disclose Yield Spread Premiums (YSPs)" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions, RESPA/TILA Class Actions

Plaintiffs in Securities Fraud Class were on Inquiry Notice of Claims Against Company thus Rendering Class Action Complaint Barred by Statute of Limitations New York Court Holds

Several securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed in federal courts against MBIA and various individual defendants alleging that certain financial statements contained materially misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The actions were consolidated in the Southern District of New York, and defense attorneys moved to dismiss on the grounds that claims were time barred and that the allegations in the class action complaints failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud cases. In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 473708 (S.D.N.Y. February 13, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The district court concluded that the class action claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and dismissed the complaint.

The class action complaint alleges that in 1998 MBIA - which is in the "primary business [of] selling financial guarantee insurance to public finance and structured finance clients" - entered into retroactive reinsurance agreements to protect itself against an anticipated $170 million loss in order to avoid a downgrade of its AAA rating. MBIA, at 3-4. According to the complaint, MBIA entered into a series of side agreements with the reinsurance companies that were not publicly disclosed for the purpose of inducing the reinsurers to cover the $170 million loss; under these side agreements, "MBIA promised to transfer insurance policies on the highest rated bonds in its portfolio, along with the associated premiums, to the Reinsurers over a period of six years." Id., at 4-5. The complaint also alleged that MBIA improperly booked these premiums as income rather than as loans. MBIA's disclosures of these transactions painted a positive picture for the company, see id., at 5-6; however, in the months following MBIA's disclosures, several published reports explained the trade-offs realized through the deals, some viewing the strategy as "the bond insurance equivalent to Houdini" and others viewing it as "innovative," id., at 6-7. And in 2002, a 66-page research report by Gotham Partners on MBIA detailed credit concerns involving the company's guarantee portfolio, which MBIA immediately criticized in a press release that "contained no factual discussion of the transactions related by the [research] report." Id., at 8-10.

Continue reading "MBIA Class Action Defense Case-In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation: New York Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Finding Class Action Claims Time-Barred By Inquiry Notice" »

Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions, PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions

In Multifaceted Action Against Several Defendants, Illinois Court Grants Ernst & Young's Defense Motion to Dismiss, Grants Timmis Law Firm/Lawyers Defense Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Grants Deutsche Bank Defense Motion for Stay

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against various lawyers, accountants, and bankers with whom they had consulted in connection with minimizing tax liability arising from the sale of their respective companies because the IRS subsequently determined that the tax saving strategy recommended to plaintiffs was "illegal" and they "ended up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the transactions." Olson v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 461 F.Supp.2d 710, 714 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court. Certain defendants then moved to dismiss the class action complaint, and other defendants moved to compel arbitration under a clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and still other defendants moved for a stay of proceedings, id. The district court granted the defense motions.

The tax strategy recommended to plaintiffs involved digital option contracts, sometimes called Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives (COBRA). Olson, at 714-15. We do not summarize here the convoluted and complicated fact pattern underlying the class action complaint. Suffice it to say that plaintiffs were persuaded by some of the law firm defendants to use digital options as a tax shelter in connection with the sale of their companies, the IRS subsequently determined such tax shelters to be illegal, and that plaintiffs suffered substantial damages as a result. The law firm defendants also allegedly advised plaintiffs not to participate in an IRS amnesty program and, even after the IRS determination, defendants failed to "retract, modify, or qualify their advice that the tax strategy was legal." Id., at 716.

Ernst & Young moved to dismiss the 10 claims against it, which included claims for fraud, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Illinois Consumer Fraud Act), conspiracy, declaratory relief, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted the motion finding that the class action complaint alleged only that Ernst & Young was involved "in the initial creation of the COBRA tax strategy in 1999": plaintiffs "[did] not allege that [Ernst & Young] provided any professional services to Plaintiffs; received any fees from Plaintiffs directly or as a result of any transaction Plaintiffs engaged in; communicated with Plaintiffs in any way; or had any relationship with Plaintiffs whatsoever. While the Complaint does allege that [Ernst & Young] had a relationship with Jenkens and Deutsche Bank, Plaintiffs do not allege that relationship led to any damages to Plaintiffs." Olson, at 718. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the class action claims against Ernst & Young, but did so without prejudice. Id.

Continue reading "Jenkens & Gilchrist Class Action Defense Case-Olson v. Jenkens & Gilchrist: Illinois Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Against Law Firm/Lawyers Involved In Tax Shelter Ultimately Held Illegal By IRS" »

Posted In: Arbitration, Class Action Court Decisions