FCRA Class Actions

Posted On: May 23, 2008 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at del.icio.us Digg FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at Digg.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at Spurl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at Simpy.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at NewsVine Blink this FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at blinklist.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at Furl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at reddit.com Fark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at Fark.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20Texas%20Roadhouse%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Plaintiff%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Northern%20District%20of%20Illinois at Yahoo! MyWeb

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases—In re Texas Roadhouse: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of Illinois

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 over Defense Objection

Two class action lawsuits – one in Illinois and one in Pennsylvania – were filed in against defendants Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC and Texas Roadhouse, Inc., for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), alleging that defendants printed information on credit card and debit card customer receipts that FACTA required be excluded therefrom. In re Texas Roadhouse Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 7, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiff’s lawyer in the Pennsylvania class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois; plaintiff in the Illinois class action supported the motion. Id. Defense attorneys opposed pretrial coordination, and alternatively filed motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer the class actions to Kentucky, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, explaining at page 1: “Common discovery is likely, as defendants have suggested that discovery related to their credit and debit card receipt policies will be company-wide. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” The Judicial Panel also agreed that the Northern District of Illinois was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1-2.

Download PDF file of In re Texas Roadhouse Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litigation Transfer Order

Posted On: May 22, 2008 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at del.icio.us Digg FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at Digg.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at Spurl.net Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at Simpy.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at NewsVine Blink this FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at blinklist.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at Furl.net Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at reddit.com Fark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at Fark.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BSullivan%20v.%20Greenwood%20Credit%20Union%3A%20In%20Case%20Of%20First%20Impression%20First%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Summary%20Judgment%20In%20Favor%20Of%20Defense%20In%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Holding%20Creditor%26%238217%3Bs%20Letter%20Was%20A%20%26%238220%3BFirm%20Offer%26%238221%3B%20Under%20FCRA at Yahoo! MyWeb

FCRA Class Action Defense Cases–Sullivan v. Greenwood Credit Union: In Case Of First Impression First Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In FCRA Class Action Holding Creditor’s Letter Was A “Firm Offer” Under FCRA

Affirming Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense in Class Action Alleging Violations of FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), Class Action Complaint Properly Dismissed because, as Matter of First Impression, Offer of Credit Satisfies FCRA if Creditor will not Deny Credit to Consumers who Meet Pre-Selection Criteria First Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Greenwood Credit Union alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) arising out of “an unsolicited letter to a consumer about the offering of credit for a home loan.” Sullivan v. Greenwood Credit Union, 520 F.3d 70, 71 (1st Cir. 2008). Greenwood had purchased credit reports for purposes of pre-screening individuals, and then sent home loan offers to “a list of individuals meeting certain minimal credit requirements”: the class action complaint alleged that the unsolicited letters fall within the FCRA and that consumer credit information had been obtained for an improper purpose; defense attorneys argued that the FCRA permits obtaining credit reports for various purposes, including extending a “firm offer of credit.” Id. The First Circuit explained at page 71, “This case is about plaintiff's efforts to collect that statutory penalty for a class of consumers; there is no claim [he] was wrongfully denied credit.” The thrust of the class action claims was that the offer of credit “was based on such minimal criteria and the actual extension of credit was so contingent on other conditions that the letter could not be a firm offer of credit.” Id. Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the class action complaint, and the district court granted the motion. As a matter of first impression in the First Circuit, the Circuit Court considered the phrase “firm offer of credit” and affirmed.

Defense attorneys argued that Greenwood limited its offer of credit to homeowners “having at least $10,000 in revolving debt and a credit score of 500 or greater.” Sullivan, at 71. Greenwood did not obtain a consumer’s entire credit report; rather, it obtained from the credit reporting agency only contact information for consumers who met these criteria. Id., at 71-72. Greenwood then sent consumers a letter offering them, for a limited time, loans up to 100% of the value of their home at “some of the lowest rates in decades”; however, the letter did not provide the interest rate being offered, nor did it state the duration of the loan. Id., at 72. The letter noted, however, “Limited time offer to customers who qualify based on equity, income, debts, and satisfactory credit. Rates and terms subject to change without notice. Most loan programs require both a satisfactory property appraisal and title exam for final approval.... If at time of offer you no longer meet initial criteria, offer may be revoked.” Id. The letter also informed consumers as to the steps they could take if they wanted to stop receiving prescreened offers of credit. See id. Plaintiff responded to the letter by filing the class action complaint, id. Plaintiff’s theory was that Greenwood had not extended a “firm offer of credit” because the letter “‘is lacking crucial terms for it to be an offer’ and ‘is so vague and lacking in terms as not to constitute an “offer capable of acceptance”.’” Id. The class action complaint sought statutory damages of $1,000 per class member on behalf of approximately 2 million individuals, id.

Continue reading "FCRA Class Action Defense Cases–Sullivan v. Greenwood Credit Union: In Case Of First Impression First Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In FCRA Class Action Holding Creditor’s Letter Was A “Firm Offer” Under FCRA" »

Posted On: May 21, 2008 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at del.icio.us Digg CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at Digg.com Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at Spurl.net Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at Simpy.com Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at NewsVine Blink this CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at blinklist.com Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at Furl.net Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at reddit.com Fark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at Fark.com Bookmark CAFA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BKorn%20v.%20Polo%20Ralph%20Lauren%3A%20California%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20%20Motion%20To%20Remand%20Class%20Action%20To%20State%20Court%20Holding%20Defense%20Established%20Class%20Action%20Alleging%20Song-Beverly%20Act%20Violations%20Involved%20More%20Than%20%245%20Million at Yahoo! MyWeb

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren: California Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand Class Action To State Court Holding Defense Established Class Action Alleging Song-Beverly Act Violations Involved More Than $5 Million

Defense Evidence in Support of Removal of Class Action to Federal Court Adequately Established Removal Jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in California state court against Polo Ralph Lauren alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendant requested personal information from customers as part of credit card transactions in violation of California Civil Code § 1747.08. Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1202 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court alleging removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); plaintiffs moved to remand the class action to state court on the grounds that defendant failed to establish the requisite diversity or amount in controversy. Id. As the district court explained, “CAFA grants district courts original jurisdiction over civil class actions filed under federal or state law in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant and the amount in controversy for the putative class members in the aggregate exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)). The district court refused to remand the class action to state court, holding that defendant sufficiently established CAFA removal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff first argued that Polo Ralph Lauren did not establish that it was not a citizen of California, Korn, at 1201; the district court rejected this argument, noting that plaintiff is bound by the judicial admission in his complaint that defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, id., at 1203. Accordingly, the federal court held plaintiff “bound by the allegations in his complaint that assert defendant's citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, is in Delaware and New Jersey.” Id. Plaintiff next argued that the defense failed to establish the $5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement. Id., at 1201. While the class action complaint did not seek a specific amount of damages, the district court observed that the class action seeks “statutory civil penalties for the alleged violations [of] up to $1000 per violation.” Id., at 1202. Further, as part of the documentation supporting removal of the class action to federal court, defense attorneys had submitted a declaration establishing that Polo Ralph Lauren had “processed more than 5,000 credit card transactions over the last year in the state of California.” Id. The district court held that this was sufficient.

Continue reading "CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren: California Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand Class Action To State Court Holding Defense Established Class Action Alleging Song-Beverly Act Violations Involved More Than $5 Million" »

Posted On: April 27, 2008 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at del.icio.us Digg FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at Digg.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at Spurl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at Simpy.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at NewsVine Blink this FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at blinklist.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at Furl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at reddit.com Fark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at Fark.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238212%3BIn%20re%20OSI%20Restaurant%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Eastern%20District%20Of%20Pennsylvania at Yahoo! MyWeb

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases—In re OSI Restaurant: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Eastern District Of Pennsylvania

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of FACTA Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, and Agrees with Defense Recommendation of Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the Transferee Court

Four class action lawsuits were filed against OSI Restaurant Partners (OSI) alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) based on OSI’s failure to delete certain information from customer credit and debit card receipts. The class actions were pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (two), and the Western District of Pennsylvania and Northern District of Illinois (one each). In re OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 20, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; all parties agreed that pretrial coordination was appropriate, but plaintiffs’ lawyers in two of the class actions argued that the Western District of Pennsylvania was the appropriate transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion for centralization, but agreed with defense attorneys that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was the appropriate transferee court. Id.

Download PDF file of In re OSI Restaurant Partners Transfer Order

Posted On: April 17, 2008 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at del.icio.us Digg FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at Digg.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at Spurl.net Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at Simpy.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at NewsVine Blink this FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at blinklist.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at Furl.net Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at reddit.com Fark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at Fark.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases%26%238211%3BMurray%20v.%20New%20Cingular%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Limits%20%3Ci%3ECole%3C%2Fi%3E%20Opinion%20And%20Resolves%20Several%20Fair%20Credit%20Reporting%20Act%20%28FCRA%29%20Issues%20Of%20Importance%20To%20Class%20Action%20And%20Non-Class%20Action%20Cases%20Alike at Yahoo! MyWeb

FCRA Class Action Defense Cases–Murray v. New Cingular: Seventh Circuit Limits Cole Opinion And Resolves Several Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Issues Of Importance To Class Action And Non-Class Action Cases Alike

Three Class Action Lawsuits Involving Six Issues Under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Equally Important to Class Action and Non-Class Action Cases, Grouped Together for Resolution by Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit yesterday issued an opinion that resolved various issues of interest under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) presented by three lower court opinions – the putative class action styled Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., out of the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 04 CV 7666, the putative class action styled Bruce v. KeyBank N.A., out of the Northern District of Indiana, Case No. 2:05cv330, and the putative class action styled Price v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., out of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 05-C-947 – explaining that the cases involve “issues that have arisen in numerous suits” and that each of the three cases “presents at least two issues, several of which recur in multiple appeals.” Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 523 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2008) [Slip Opn., at 2]. The Circuit Court organized its discussion around issues, rather than the facts of each appeal, id., so we summarize the opinion without providing an introductory factual summary of the cases. (For the convenience of the reader, the facts underlying the Murray class action may be found in lower court opinion at Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 432 F.Supp.2d 788 (N.D. Ill. 2006), the facts underlying the Bruce class action may be found in lower court opinion atBruce v. KeyBank N.A., 2006 WL 3743749 (N.D. Ind. December 15, 2006), and the facts underlying the Price class action may be found in the lower court opinion at Price v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 2007 WL 1521525 (E.D. Wis. May 22, 2007). Additionally, our summary of the district court decision in Murray may be found here.) The issues addressed and conclusions reached by the Seventh Circuit, of importance to class action and non-class action cases alike, are: (1) whether an offer of credit must be valuable to all or most recipients, id., concluding the offer must be “firm” but need not be ‘valuable,” id., at 5, (2) whether an offer of “free” merchandise can constitute an offer of “credit,” id., concluding that it may, id., at 6, (3) whether flyers must contain all material terms of the offer of credit, id., concluding that it need not, id., at 8, (4) whether the fact that the terms of the offer may vary means that the offer is not “firm,” id., concluding that an offer may be firm even though “some matters [are left] for future determination,” id., at 10, (5) whether 6-point type is “conspicuous,” id., concluding that it is not, id., at 12, (6) whether use of 6-point type is a “willful” violation of the FCRA, id., concluding that it would be reckless “today” to do so but was not so at the time the documents in question were prepared, id., at 15.

Must an offer of credit must be valuable to all or most recipients? In Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc., 389 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit held that if one offers a product (such as furniture) along with a “token line of credit,” then the FCRA requires that the credit offer have value to the consumer: “’From the consumer’s perspective, an offer of credit without value is the equivalent of an advertisement or solicitation [for the product rather than the loan].’” Murray, at 3 (quoting Cole, at 726-27). The Circuit Court noted that plaintiffs have twisted Cole to argue that it requires “even a simple offer of credit [to be] valuable enough to justify the use of consumers’ credit files.” Murray, at 3. These efforts must fail, the Seventh Circuit held, because the FCRA “calls for a firm offer of credit but not a valuable firm offer of credit.” Id., at 4 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c)(1)(B)(i)). By contrast, “[t]he problem in Cole was how to disentangle an offer of merchandise from an offer of credit when they are made jointly.” Id. Cole thus does not apply to cases involving “pure offers of credit.” Id., at 5.

Continue reading "FCRA Class Action Defense Cases–Murray v. New Cingular: Seventh Circuit Limits Cole Opinion And Resolves Several Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Issues Of Importance To Class Action And Non-Class Action Cases Alike" »

Posted On: January 17, 2008 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at del.icio.us Digg FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at Digg.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at Spurl.net Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at Simpy.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at NewsVine Blink this FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at blinklist.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at Furl.net Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at reddit.com Fark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at Fark.com Bookmark FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Killingsworth%20v.%20HSBC%3A%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Reverses%20District%20Court%20Orders%20Dismissing%20Of%20FCRA%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuits%20Holding%20FCRA%20Amendment%20Barring%20Private%20Rights%20Of%20Action%20Not%20Retroactive at Yahoo! MyWeb

FCRA Class Action Defense Cases-Killingsworth v. HSBC: Seventh Circuit Reverses District Court Orders Dismissing Of FCRA Class Action Lawsuits Holding FCRA Amendment Barring Private Rights Of Action Not Retroactive

Class Action Complaints Alleging FCRA Violations Erroneously Dismissed because FACTA Amendments Eliminating Private Rights of Action for FCRA § 1681m Violations cannot be Applied Retroactively to Class Action Claims Premised on Violations that Occurred Prior to FACTA’s Effective Date Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff Linda Killingsworth filed a class action against Household Bank (now HSBC Bank Nevada) alleging that the prescreened credit card offer extended to her by the Bank prior to August 20, 2004 violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and plaintiff Erick Sawyer separately filed a class action against his auto insurance carrier, Ensurance Insurance Services, alleging that in connection with issuing him an auto policy in October 2004 it “violated the FCRA by charging him a higher rate based on negative information in his credit report without giving him notice of that adverse action, and also by using his initial credit information for subsequent renewals of his policy when corrected credit information would have qualified him for a lower rate.” Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 616 (7th Cir. 2007). The class action complaints were filed in the Northern District of Illinois, and defense attorneys in each class action moved to dismiss the complaint based on Section 311 of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which amended the FCRA to eliminate certain private rights of action under the FCRA. Id., at 617 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(h)(8)). In each case, the district court agreed and dismissed the class action complaint, id. Both plaintiffs appealed and the Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and issued a single opinion address the question of whether Section 311, which became effective on December 1, 2004, “impairs rights [plaintiffs] possessed prior to the new statute's effective date and therefore has an impermissible retroactive effect if applied to them.” Id. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Killingsworth’s class action, concluding that the retroactive application of Section 311 was improper as to her claims, but the Circuit Court remanded for further proceedings as to Sawyer’s class action complaint, concluding that “the retroactivity question cannot be decided at the pleading stage because the conduct alleged in his [class action] complaint straddles FACTA's effective date.” Id.

The issue before the Seventh Circuit was “whether an amendment to the [FCRA] eliminating private rights of action has an impermissible retroactive effect when applied to FCRA claims that accrued prior to the amendment's effective date.” Killingsworth, at 616. Section 311 of FACTA added subsection (h) to FCRA § 1681m so as to eliminate private rights of action for violations of § 1681m. Killingsworth received an offer of credit prior to August 20, 2004, but did not file her class action lawsuit until October 2005. Id., at 617. Her class action alleged a violation of § 1681m(d), and defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the ground that no private right of action existed based on Section 311’s amendment to the FCRA. Id., at 617-18. The district court agreed and dismissed Killingsworth’s class action, id., at 618. For his part, Sawyer applied for auto insurance in October 2004, his auto policy took effect on December 20, 2004, and it was renewed twice at six-month intervals. Id., at 618. Sawyer also filed his class action lawsuit after the effective date of Section 311; his class action alleged a violation of § 1681m(a). Id. However, the class action alleged further that “Ensurance failed to consider interim changes to his credit rating and instead relied on his initial credit score when subsequently renewing his policy,” thus implicating acts taken after Section 311’s effective date. Id. As in Killingsworth, defense attorneys moved to dismiss Sawyer’s class action on the ground that no private right of action existed; the federal court agreed and dismissed Sawyer’s class action. Id.

Continue reading "FCRA Class Action Defense Cases-Killingsworth v. HSBC: Seventh Circuit Reverses District Court Orders Dismissing Of FCRA Class Action Lawsuits Holding FCRA Amendment Barring Private Rights Of Action Not Retroactive" »

Posted On: November 23, 2007 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at del.icio.us Digg FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at Digg.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at Spurl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at Simpy.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at NewsVine Blink this FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at blinklist.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at Furl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at reddit.com Fark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at Fark.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Boscov%27s%20Department%20Store%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20But%20Selects%20District%20of%20New%20Jersey%20As%20Transferee%20Court at Yahoo! MyWeb

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases-In re Boscov's Department Store: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects District of New Jersey As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Over Objection, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 but Agrees With Plaintiff's Request to Transfer Class Actions to District of New Jersey

Three class action lawsuits were filed against Boscov’s Department Store alleging violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). In re Boscov’s Dep’t Store, LLC, Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 3119372, *1 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 17, 2007). Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of Maryland. Maryland plaintiffs supported the motion; Pennsylvania plaintiffs agreed pretrial coordination was appropriate but argued that the Western District of Pennsylvania was the appropriate transferee court; and New Jersey plaintiffs opposed centralization but alternatively argued that the District of New Jersey was the appropriate transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class actions but rejected defendant’s request for transfer to Maryland and Pennsylvania plaintiff’s request for transfer there even though Boscov was headquartered in Pennsylvania, id. Rather, the Panel stated that all three forums would be appropriate, and selected New Jersey Illinois because it has “the capacity to handle this litigation and a transferee judge with time and experience to steer this litigation on a prudent course." Id.

NOTE: This case highlights the risk a defendant runs in assuming that they will be successful in choosing a forum by way of MDL centralization.

Download PDF file of In re Boscov's Department Store Transfer Order

Posted On: October 18, 2007 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at del.icio.us Digg FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at Digg.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at Spurl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at Simpy.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at NewsVine Blink this FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at blinklist.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at Furl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at reddit.com Fark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at Fark.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-Ehrheart%20v.%20Lifetime%20Brands%3A%20Pennsylvania%20Federal%20Court%20Denies%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss%20FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Because%20Class%20Action%20Complaint%20Adequately%20Alleged%20Injury%20And%20Willful%20Misconduct at Yahoo! MyWeb

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases-Ehrheart v. Lifetime Brands: Pennsylvania Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss FACTA Class Action Because Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Injury And Willful Misconduct

Allegations in Class Action Complaint that Defendant had been “Repeatedly Informed” of FACTA’s Requirements but Failed to Timely Comply Sufficient to Establish “Willful” Violation of FACTA so as Defeat Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Lifetime Brands for violating the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Ehrheart v. Lifetime Brands, Inc., 498 F.Supp. 753, 754 (E.D. Pa. 2007). The class action complaint alleged that defendant “willfully” failed to redact credit card information from electronically printed customer receipts, id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action for failure to state a claim, arguing that plaintiff had not pleaded injury in fact and that defendant had not acted willfully, id. The district court disagreed with the defense and denied the motion, holding that the class action complaint adequately pleaded claims under FACTA.

Recognizing that it was entitled to consider exhibits to the class action complaint in ruling upon the defense Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and that it need not accept as true “bald allegations” or “legal conclusions,” Ehrheart, at 755, the district court first held that a claim under FACTA does not require proof of identity theft. The class action alleged that defendant gave plaintiff credit or debit card receipts that violated FACTA because they contained more than the last five digits of card and/.or the expiration date of her credit card. Id. That is all that is required: “FACTA does not require that a plaintiff have suffered actual monetary damages in order to sue for violation of the Act” but, rather, provides for statutory damages irrespective of whether any actual injury is suffered. Id., at 755-56. Accordingly, the court rejected defense arguments challenging the class action complaint for failure to allege actual injury.

Continue reading "FACTA Class Action Defense Cases-Ehrheart v. Lifetime Brands: Pennsylvania Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss FACTA Class Action Because Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Injury And Willful Misconduct" »

Posted On: September 28, 2007 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at del.icio.us Digg FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at Digg.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at Spurl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at Simpy.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at NewsVine Blink this FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at blinklist.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at Furl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at reddit.com Fark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at Fark.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20TJX%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20The%20District%20Of%20Kansas at Yahoo! MyWeb

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases-In re TJX: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The District Of Kansas

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rejects Transferee Court Recommendations of Various Plaintiffs Opting Instead to Transfer Class Actions to District of Kansas as Requested by Defense

Six class action lawsuits (followed by “tag-along” class actions) were filed against The TJX Companies for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) because TJX allegedly included certain information on customer credit card receipts. In re The TJX Cos., Inc., Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 505 F.Supp.2d 1379, 1379 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2007). Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of Kansas. Id. The Kansas class action plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, id. The plaintiffs in the other federal district did not oppose centralization, but argued alternatively for California, Illinois, Massachusetts or Nevada as the transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action litigation and agreed with defense attorneys that the District of Kansas was the appropriate court Id., at 1380.

Download PSF file of In re TJX Transfer Order

Posted On: September 14, 2007 by Michael J. Hassen Email This Post Bookmark:
Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Charlotte%20Russe%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Central%20District%20of%20California at del.icio.us Digg FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Charlotte%20Russe%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Central%20District%20of%20California at Digg.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Charlotte%20Russe%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Central%20District%20of%20California at Spurl.net Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Charlotte%20Russe%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Central%20District%20of%20California at Simpy.com Bookmark FACTA%20Class%20Action%20Defense%20Cases-In%20re%20Charlotte%20Russe%3A%20Judicial%20Panel%20On%20Multidistrict%20Litigation%20%28MDL%29%20Grants%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Centralize%20Class%20Action%20Litigation%20In%20Central%20District%20of%20California at NewsVine