Class Action Defense Blog

Class Action Plaintiff not Entitled to Attorney Fee Award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Following District Court Dismissal of Class Action as Moot because Plaintiff was not “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Supreme Court Authority Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Calumet City, Illinois, alleging that she suffered damage because the enforcement of a local ordinance interfered with her ability to sell real property that she owned in the City; the class action complaint alleged that “the ordinance violated her right to procedural due process and unreasonably restrained the alienability of her property.” Walker v. Calumet City, Illinois, 565 F.3d 1031, 1032 (7th Cir. 2009). Specifically, the class action complaint challenged the City’s Point of Sale (POS) ordinance, which provides that real property within the city limits “cannot be sold until it is inspected and deemed in compliance with city codes, a fee is paid, and transfer stamps are issued.” Id. In the normal course of events, while the class action complaint was pending, plaintiff’s property was inspected under the City’s Rental Dwelling Inspection (RDI) ordinance, which requires annual inspections of rental properties to ensure compliance with city health, zoning and building codes. Id., at 1033. The inspection of plaintiff’s property revealed “multiple areas…where repair was necessary”; plaintiff completed the required repairs, and the City “pronounced her property compliant with the City’s building and zoning codes.” Id. Defense attorneys then moved to dismiss the class action as moot because, since plaintiff’s property passed the RDI, “an inspection under the POS ordinance to check for the same violations would be redundant.” Id. Over plaintiff’s objection, the district court dismissed the class action as moot based on the City’s representations that it would not enforce the POS ordinance against plaintiff, id., at 1032, 1033. Plaintiff then moved for an award of attorney fees, arguing that she was the “prevailing party” 42 U.S.C. § 1988; defense attorneys countered that the class action had been dismissed as moot “prior to any judicial determination on the merits.” Id., at 1033. The district court agreed with plaintiff and awarded her $189,000 in attorney fees, id. The Seventh Circuit reversed.

The Circuit Court did not find this to be a difficult case because, while the “catalyst rule” for evaluating attorney fee awards had been used in the Seventh Circuit prior to 2001, the Supreme Court rejected that rule in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), holding at page 606 that a party was not a prevailing party unless there was a “material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties.” Walker, at 1033-34 (citations omitted). This “alteration” in the relationship of the parties “must arise from a court order.” Id., at 1034 (citation omitted). The Seventh Circuit explained at page 1034, “In Buckhannon, the Supreme Court gave two examples of when a party should be considered prevailing: first, when ‘the plaintiff has received a judgment on the merits’; second, when the plaintiff has ‘obtained a court-ordered consent decree.’ [Citation.] In general, we have stated that ‘[i]t could not be clearer that a voluntary settlement by the defendant ... does not entitle a plaintiff to attorneys' fees.’ [Citation.]”

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases–Walker v. Calumet City: Seventh Circuit Reverses Attorney Fee Award To Class Action Plaintiff Holding Dismissal Of Class Action As Moot Did Not Make Plaintiff Prevailing Party" »

Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions

Summary Judgment in Labor Law Class Action Turned on Issues of First Impression Recurrent in Federal Court Class Action Appeals, Warranting Referral of Questions Underlying Class Action to California Supreme Court for Resolution Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against her employer, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, in California state court alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that Bayer misclassified pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) as exempt employees, and accordingly failed to pay them overtime or provide them with meal breaks to which they would be entitled as non-exempt employees. D'Este v. Bayer Corp., 565 F.3d 1119, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2009). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, and the district court granted Bayer’s motion for summary judgment “finding that [plaintiff] was exempt under California's outside sales exemption”’ and based on that finding, the district court did not address whether Bayer also was correct in relying on the “administrative exemption” in its classification of PSRs. Id., at 1122. Plaintiff appealed, id., at 1122. The Ninth Circuit observed that “The question whether PSRs are exempt under California's outside salesperson and administrative exemptions is the central issue in multiple class action lawsuits in the Ninth Circuit as well as in other circuits.” Id. Accordingly, the Circuit Court – pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court – certified two questions to the California Supreme Court, id., at 1120.

The Ninth Circuit summarized the relevant facts as follows. Bayer gave plaintiff a list of doctors and hospitals, as well as a list of products, for which she was responsible: “[Plaintiff’s] job was to communicate information about her Bayer products to her roster of doctors and seek their non-binding commitment to write prescriptions for those products. She was also responsible for communicating with hospitals in her territory to influence them to add the Bayer products for which she was responsible to their formularies.” D’Este, at 1121. Plaintiff was “trained on a message” and was required to “adhere closely to the information provided by Bayer about its products”; beyond this, however, “she had the freedom to develop her own strategy for communicating with and influencing doctors.” Id. Additionally, she “had flexibility regarding how she spent her day,” id., at 1122. Specifically, “[Plaintiff] developed her own schedule for meeting with the doctors on her list. She received little or no daily supervision, and saw her manager once every six to eight weeks.” Id. According to the class action complaint, plaintiff regularly worked more than 8 hours per day and more than 40 hours per week, id. For this, she received between $81,000 and $103,000 per year in compensation, id., at 1121. And plaintiff was “not required to keep or maintain set hours.” Id., at 1122.

Continue reading "Labor Law Class Action Defense Cases–D'Este v. Bayer: Ninth Circuit On Class Action Appeal Certifies Two Questions To California Supreme Court As Central Issues In Numerous Federal Court Class Action Appeals" »

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Improperly Removed to Federal Court under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because Defendant Failed to Adequately Establish that the $5 Million Amount in Controversy Requirement Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action in Georgia state court against Bank of America and its wholly-owned subsidiary FIA Card Services (collectively “BofA”) alleging insurance fraud, unfair and deceptive acts, bad faith, and violations of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); the class action complaint was premised on the allegation that BofA “[sold] a bundled insurance product, known as Credit Protection Plus, to ineligible individuals.” Thomas v. Bank of America Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 1636535, *1 (11th Cir. June 12, 2009). According to the class action, BofA’s credit protection plan provides benefits for various contingencies, including “credit life insurance, credit accident and sickness insurance, involuntary unemployment insurance, hospitalization, and unpaid family leave of absence.” Id. However, the class action complaint alleged that most benefits were conditioned on the customer being gainfully employed for at least 30 hours per week, and that BofA sold the product to individuals (such as plaintiff) who were not so employed. Id. Among the damages prayed for by the class action were treble damages and attorneys’ fees under RICO, id. The class action complaint did not identify the number of individuals in the proposed class or the amount of money sought as damages. Id. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), id. However, because the class action complaint was silent on the amount of damages sought to be recovered, it fell to BofA to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million; it sought to meet this burden by presenting evidence that it collected more than $4.8 million from almost 78,000 customers during the class period, and that because plaintiff sought treble damages and attorney fees “the amount in controversy clearly exceeded $5,000,000.” Id. Plaintiff moved to remand the class action to state court on the grounds that the $5 million threshold had not been satisfied; the district court agreed, finding the $4.8 million inaccurate because the class action “did not allege that all of the Georgia Credit Protection Plus customers were entitled to relief for the entire amount of their Credit Production Plus fees.” Id. BofA appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that under CAFA a class action is not removable until the defendant receives a document from the plaintiff “be it the initial complaint or a later received paper ... [that] unambiguously establish[es] federal jurisdiction.” Thomas, at *2 (citation omitted). The defendant then has 30 days to file a notice of removal, id. Here, however, the class action complaint does not unambiguously establish federal court jurisdiction under CAFA because it “provided no information indicating the amount in controversy or the number of individuals in the alternative classes.” Id. The Circuit Court concluded, therefore, that remand of the class action to state court was proper “because defendant has not shown the amount in controversy and the sizes of the alternative classes by a preponderance of the evidence,” id. Accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the district court. Id.

Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Complaint Alleging Deceptive Marketing Practices in Sale of Vioxx not Entitled to Class Action Treatment because Individual Issues will Predominate over Common Questions of Law or Fact California State Trial Court Holds

Various class action lawsuits against Merck were consolidated in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the title In re Vioxx Consolidated Cases; the class action lawsuits alleged that Merck knew of the cardiovascular dangers associated with Vioxx long before it voluntarily pulled it from the market. In re Vioxx Conxolidated Cases, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. JCCP4247 (April 30, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The consolidated class action complaint alleged that “Merck’s deceptive marketing practices violate the unfair competition law [(UCL)]…and false advertising law…, constitute deceptive trade practices under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act [(CLRA)]…, and resulted in unjust enrichment.” Id., at 2. Interestingly, the class action “[did] not allege that Vioxx itself harmed anyone or was ineffective, only that consumers lost money in purchasing it because it was more expensive than, but not better than less expensive [alternatives].” Id. Plaintiffs’ lawyers moved the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, arguing that “individual issues of causation and reliance predominate over any common issues because Merck knew different things about Vioxx at different times and class members, physicians and TPPs [third party payors] were exposed to different representations at different times and were influenced by representations to varying extents.” Id., at 3. Additionally, defense attorneys argued that individual issues will predominate as to economic injury, and that the named representatives’ claims are not typical of the claims of the class. Id. The trial court denied the motion for class action certification.

After summarizing the standards governing class action certification of UCL and CLRA claims, see In re Vioxx, at 3-4, and after readily determining that the numerosity and ascertainability requirements for class action treatment had been met, id., at 5, the trial court turned its attention to the question of typicality – that is, “whether a sufficient relationship exists between the injury to the named plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class.” Id., at 5 (citation omitted). The trial court found that the claims of the individual plaintiffs were not typical of the TPPs based on Merck’s evidence that “the decisionmaking that goes into purchasing Vioxx on an individual basis is entirely distinct from the process of putting it into a group formulary.” Id. The trial court found further that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of providing “substantial evidence” that common questions of law or fact will predominate over individual issues affecting the various class members. Id., at 6. The court did agree with plaintiffs that Merck engaged in a “uniform marketing scheme that was likely to deceive patients and physicians,” id., at 6-7, and that the information available to physicians was susceptible to common proof, id., at 8, but plaintiffs must additionally prove “damage suffered ‘as a result of’ a deceptive practice,” and this element was not subject to common proof, id., at 8-11. As the trial court explained at page 9, “Under all of plaintiffs’ causes of action, a central issue will be whether defendant’s alleged misrepresentations or nondisclosures were material to those who purchased Vioxx.” This means that plaintiffs will have to prove reliance, id., at 10, and the evidence presented in opposition to the motion for class certification demonstrates that class-wide proof of reliance will not exist. Id., at 10-11. And under the circumstances of this case, the necessary proof of reliance cannot be inferred. Id., at 11-12. Nor are the claims of the TPPs subject to common proof, id., at 11.

Continue reading "Merck Class Action Defense Cases–In re Vioxx: California Trial Court Denies Class Action Certification Of Putative Class Action Complaint Against Merck Arising From Sale Of Vioxx" »

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

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to District of New Jersey

Six class actions – two in Massachusetts and one each in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania – were filed against Staples alleging violations of state and federal labor laws; specifically, the class action complaints allege that Staples failed to pay its assistant, operations and/or sales managers overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and/or various state wage and hour statutes. In re Staples, Inc., Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. 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 New Jersey or Massachusetts, id. No one opposed the motion; four groups of class action plaintiffs supported the selection of New Jersey, while plaintiffs in the other two class actions favored Connecticut. Id. In the end, all parties agreed on New Jersey as the appropriate transferee court, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the District of New Jersey was the appropriate transferee court because “(1) this choice is supported by all parties at least in the alternative, and (2) this district is already presiding over a similar action against Staples which is in its final stages.” Id.

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Certification Order of Labor Law Class Action must be Reversed because District Court Failed to Conduct “Rigorous Analysis” of Rule 23’s Requirements for Class Action Treatment Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative nationwide class action against his former employer, T-Mobile, after it fired him for poor attendance; the class action complaint alleged labor law violations. Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009). Specifically, the class action alleged that “by charging back commissions advanced on sales of ‘deactivated’ prepaid service plans, T-Mobile violated the terms of the compensation program, failed to pay commissions earned by the sales representatives, and was unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of its employees' services without fully compensating them for such services.” Id., at 1262. T-Mobile’s compensation package for retail sales representatives consisted of an hourly wage plus commissions. Id., at 1261. The commissions were incentive-based, paid on the employee’s “net activations” – if a customer canceled service within 180 days of activation then T-Mobile would “charge-back” the commission previously paid “in order to reclaim that amount from the sales representative.” Id. Under T-Mobile’s plan, commissions paid within the 180-day window are “paid as an advance against commissions anticipated to be earned in the future” and “[c]ommissions are not earned until the expiration of the 180-day commission charge back window.” Id. Additionally, T-Mobile, in its sole discretion, determined whether sales qualified for commission payments, id. The class action complaint was filed in Florida state court, id., at 1262, but defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), id., at 1263. Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment and moved for summary judgment. Id. The district court denied T-Mobile’s summary judgment motion, and granted class action certification on behalf of a Florida class only. Id., at 1263-64. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), the Eleventh Circuit granted interlocutory review of the class action certification order and reversed. Id., at 1264.

The class action complaint did not impress the Circuit Court, which it characterized as “incomplete and ambiguous.” Vega, at 1263. The vague complaint “simply alleges: (1) that, because prepaid customers paid up-front for their service, T-Mobile ‘bore no risk of non-payment’; (2) that when T-Mobile charged its employees back for commissions on prepaid plans, ‘even though T-MOBILE received the full benefit of its agreement with the prepaid plan customers, T-MOBILE's commission based employees lost the benefits of those sales and the resulting commissions’; and (3) that ‘T-MOBILE has unfair [sic] and unjustly profited from its internal systems error by unduly charging back its employees on the prepaid plans and retaining its employee's [sic] wages for its own use and benefit.’” Id., at 1262. The class action asserted two claims – one for “unpaid wages” and one for “unjust enrichment” – arising out of the central allegation that “T-Mobile improperly withheld or charged back from its employees.” Id. The class action did not allege that employees nationwide were subject to the same compensation structure, id. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the district court certified the litigation as a class action despite two concerns: first, that a nationwide class “lacked commonality due to variations in the contract and employment laws of the fifty states,” and second, that the class action complaint’s allegations “focused on charge backs of commissions already paid, but indicated nothing about any failure to pay commissions in the first instance, the inclusion in the class of T-Mobile ‘employees ... who ... were entitled to receive[ ] commissions ... who did not receive their commissions’ would implicate claims falling outside the scope of the complaint, as pled, and, thus, failed the typicality requirement.” Id., at 1263-64.

Continue reading "T-Mobile Class Action Defense Cases–Vega v. T-Mobile: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification Order And Orders Lawsuit To Proceed On Individual Rather Than Class Action Basis" »

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

Class Action Alleging Violations of Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) Claiming Insurer used “Undisclosed Factors” to Compute Credit Scores and, Based on those Scores, Increase Insurance Premiums of Minorities should not have been Dismissed because Class Action did not Challenge Credit Scoring Per Se and because Class Action Claims were not “Reverse-Preempted” by McCarran-Ferguson Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various Farmers Group entities alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged disparate impact race discrimination in that Farmers “used ‘a number of undisclosed factors’ to compute credit scores and price homeowners’ insurance policies.” Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc., 565 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 5700-01]. According to the class action, “Farmers charged minorities higher premiums for homeowners’ property and casualty insurance than the premiums charged to similarly situated Caucasians.” Id., at 5701. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Id. The district court granted the 12(b)(1) motion on the grounds that the class action claims were “reverse-preempted” by federal law. Id. The Ninth Circuit reversed finding two errors in the district court’s ruling: “First, the district court erroneously read [plaintiff’s] claim as challenging the practice of credit scoring per se. Second, the district court erroneously interpreted Texas state insurance law as permitting disparate impact race discrimination that results from credit scoring, thereby triggering McCarran-Ferguson reverse-preemption.” Id.

Plaintiff, an African-American resident Texas, filed suit after Farmers increased the insurance premium on his homeowner’s policy by 9% on the basis of “unfavorable credit information” revealed by Farmers’ automated credit scoring system. Ojo, at 5703. The class action complaint alleged that Farmers used various factors to target minorities for higher premiums than those charged to “similarly situated Caucasians.” Id. After discussing the McCarran-Ferguson Act which leaves the business of insurance to state law, see id., at 5704-06, and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Texas state law, see id., at 5706-08, the Ninth Circuit noted that Farmers sought to use Texas state law “as a shield against any scrutiny of its credit scoring practices,” id., at 5709. The Circuit Court rejected this attempt, explaining at page 5709 that the class action “does not challenge Farmers’ use of credit scoring per se”; rather, the class action complaint challenges only Farmers’ use of certain “undisclosed factors” as part of its credit scoring system. The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiff that he should have been given an opportunity to conduct discovery in an effort to learn the specific factors used by Farmers’ as part of its credit scoring system. Id.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases–Ojo v. Farmers: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of FHA Class Action Holding Class Action Claims Not Reverse-Preempted And Class Action Did Not Challenge Credit Scoring Per Se" »

Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Clause Unconscionable thereby Warranting Denial of Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Arbitrate Individual Claims rather than Pursue Labor Law Class Action Complaint California State Court Holds

Plaintiff, the general manager of an El Pollo Loco restaurant, filed a putative class action against El Pollo Loco alleging violations of California’s labor code; the class action complaint alleged inter alia that defendant misclassified its general managers as exempt when they “spent the majority of their time performing nonmanagerial tasks” and that it wrongfully denied its general managers overtime compensation and meal breaks. Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 451 (Cal.App. 2009). As part of his employment, plaintiff received written materials that, in part, required that all work-related disputes be resolved through binding arbitration, governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Id., 449-50. Class action litigation was prohibited, but the parties were permitted “to conduct discovery and bring motions in an arbitration as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” id., at 450. Defense attorneys moved to compel arbitration of the class action complaint as to plaintiff’s individual claims only, id., at 451. Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration clause was unconscionable; defense attorneys argued that the clause was not unconscionable because employees were not required to sign the acknowledgement form by which they were bound to the arbitration clause. Id., at 452. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the clause was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Id., at 453. Under California law, an order denying a motion t compel arbitration is an appealable order. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1294. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

After summarizing the relevant law regarding arbitration agreements, see Olvera, at 453-54, the appellate court turned first to the issue of procedural unconscionability. The Court of Appeal explained at page 454, “Procedural unconscionability focuses on oppression or unfair surprise, while substantive unconscionability focuses on overly harsh or one-sided terms.” (Citations omitted.) California courts view these two factors on a sliding scale: “The more procedural unconscionability is present, the less substantive unconscionability is required to justify a determination that a contract or clause is unenforceable. Conversely, the less procedural unconscionability is present, the more substantive unconscionability is required to justify such a determination.” Id., at 454 (citations omitted). The appellate court found that the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable because of (1) the unequal bargaining power between the employees and the employer, which “makes it likely that the employees felt at least some pressure to sign the acknowledgment and agree to the new dispute resolution policy” even if the company insists that they were not required to do so, and (2) agreement to the dispute resolution procedure was “not an informed decision” because the description of the dispute resolution policy “was totally inaccurate.” Id., at 455-56.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases–Olvera v. El Pollo Loco: California Court Affirms Denial Of Motion To Compel Individual Arbitration Of Labor Law Class Action Holding Class Action Arbitration Waiver Unenforceable" »

Posted In: Arbitration, Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Trial Court Judgment in Class Action Alleging Starbucks Violated Labor Code by Sharing Tips with Shift Supervisors Required Reversal because California Law does not Prohibit Starbucks’ Shift Supervisors from Sharing in Tips California State Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Starbucks alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Labor Code; the class action complaint alleged that Starbucks alleged shift supervisors to participate in tip pools in violation of California law, specifically Labor Code section 351. Chau v. Starbucks Corp., 174 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal.App. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The trial court certified the litigation as a class action, id., at 2. Starbucks moved to decertify the class, but the motion was denied. Id., at 6. Prior to trial, the court granted plaintiff’s in limine motion to exclude evidence that shift supervisors serve customers, finding that such evidence was “irrelevant” (though it did allow some evidence on the matter). Id., at 7. Ultimately, the trial court awarded the class $86 million as restitution based on its finding at the conclusion of a bench trial that plaintiff had proved the UCL claim. Id., at 2. Starbucks appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Starbucks’ tip sharing policy did not violate California law: “The applicable statutes do not prohibit Starbucks from permitting shift supervisors to share in the proceeds placed in collective tip boxes.” Id. The Court explained that the tip-pooling practice challenged by the class action “concern[ed] an employer's authority to require equitable allocation of tips placed in a collective tip box for those employees providing service to the customer.” Id., at 2-3. The appellate court held at page 3, “There is no decisional or statutory authority prohibiting an employer from allowing a service employee to keep a portion of the collective tip, in proportion to the amount of hours worked, merely because the employee also has limited supervisory duties.” Accordingly, it reversed the trial court judgment.

Starbucks’ thousands of stores are staffed by baristas, shift supervisors, assistant store managers, and store managers. Chau, at 3. The Court of Appeal explained the differences between the store employees as follows: “Baristas are entry-level, part-time hourly employees responsible for customer service related tasks, such as working the cash register and making coffee drinks. Shift supervisors are also part-time hourly employees who perform all the duties of a barista, but are also responsible for some additional tasks, including supervising and coordinating employees within the store, opening and closing the store, and depositing money into the safe. A barista is eligible for promotion to shift supervisor after six months on the job. A store manager is a full-time salaried employee, and has the authority to recruit, hire, promote, transfer, schedule, discipline, and terminate baristas and shift supervisors. In some stores, a store manager is assisted by an assistant store manager, who is also a fulltime salaried employee.” Id., at 3-4. At trial, Starbucks introduced evidence that shift supervisors spend 90-95% of their time “performing the same jobs as baristas,” and that they had “no authority to hire, discipline, or terminate baristas.” Id., at 8. Moreover, shift supervisors are not considered “management” by the company, id. The trial court ruled against Starbucks because it found that shift supervisors “‘supervise’ and ‘direct’ the acts of other employees,” and that they were barred by California law to share in tip pools. Id., at 8-9.

Continue reading "Starbucks Class Action Defense Cases–Chau v. Starbucks: California Appellate Court Reverses $86 Million Class Action Judgment Against Starbucks Holding Labor Law Class Action Claims Failed" »

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of California

Two class actions – one in Central District of California and one in the Eastern District of California – were filed against Payless ShoeSource alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Act; specifically, the class action complaints allege that Payless “requests and records customers’ personal identification information in violation of California Civil Code § 1747.08.” In re Payless ShoeSource, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. 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 Eastern District of California; plaintiffs in the class actions did not respond to the motion, and defense attorneys represented that they supported the request. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Eastern District of California was the appropriate transferee court because no party objects to that district and the first-filed class action is pending there. Id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

District Court Erred in Remanding Class Action to State Court because Decertification Order and Dismissal of Co-Defendants Substantially Increased Remaining Defendant’s Liability such that Amended Class Action Complaint did not “Relate Back” to Original Class Action Complaint, Rendering Class Action Removable under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against various H & R Block companies alleging violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act; the class action complaint alleged that defendants “had used deceptive practices to sell ‘Peace of Mind’ insurance against mistakes by H & R Block that increased customers’ tax liabilities.” Marshall v. H & R Block Tax Services, Inc., 564 F.3d 826, 827 (7th Cir. 2009). The state court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the litigation as a nationwide class action, identifying three classes and defining the defendant class (which it also certified) as “any entity with the names ‘H & R Block’ or ‘HRB’ in its name, or otherwise affiliated or associated with [TSI], and which sold or sells the [Peace of Mind] product.” Id. Eventually all of the defendants were dismissed from the class action except H & R Block Tax Services (TSI), id. “Subsequently, however, the court decertified the defendant class at TSI's request, leaving TSI, which already was the only defendant, with no class-representative status since there was no longer a defendant class. TSI had asked the court to decertify the plaintiff classes as well, and while the court refused to do so, it did narrow the classes to residents of 13 states.” Id. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005), id. TSI argued that “decertification of the defendant class had made the case removable under the Class Action Fairness Act because the decertification occurred after the Act's effective date, and had increased TSI's potential liability notwithstanding the elimination of claims by residents of 37 states.” Id., at 828. Plaintiff argued that TSI’s liability had not increased because it had been jointly and severally liable for the misconduct of the other H & R Block defendants, id. The district court found that CAFA did not apply and remanded the class action to state court. Id. TSI sought and received leave to appeal the remand order, and the Seventh Circuit reversed.

The Seventh Circuit explained that TSI is the franchisor of the H & R Block retail tax offices – it does not operate them. Marshall, at 828. TSI claimed that, based on the decertification order, its potential liability has increased by $60 million, and argued that “a ruling that increases a defendant's potential liability may make a case originally filed before the effective date of the Class Action Fairness Act removable if the ruling comes after that date, unless the alteration in the scope of the plaintiff's claim ‘relates back’ to the original claim.” Id. (citations omitted). The district court remanded the class action to state court because it believed that “only a formal amendment of the complaint could commence a new action for CAFA purposes”; the Circuit Court disagreed, noting that such an interpretation would elevate form over substance. Id. Turning to whether the class action complaint adequately alleged joint and several liability, the Circuit Court concluded that the class action did not meet this test and that plaintiff now sought to “pin the entire liability of all the former members of the defendant class on TSI.” Id., at 829. The Seventh Circuit concluded at page 829, “They may, for all we know, be able to do so, but that will, so far as appears, enlarge TSI's liability; the plaintiffs have presented no evidence to the contrary.” This significant change in potential liability did not “relate back” to the original class action complaint – “the expansion of potential liability was a surprise.” Id. Accordingly, the district court erred in remanding the class action to state court, id.

Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions

Lender’s Disclosures that APR may Increase based on Information in Credit Report not Clear and Conspicuous Within Meaning of TILA so District Court Erred in Dismissing Class Action Complaint Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Chase Bank alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and Regulation Z promulgated thereunder; the class action complaint alleged that plaintiffs “have been the victims of a practice they now call ‘adverse action repricing,’ which apparently means ‘raising . . . a preferred rate to an essentially non-preferred rate based upon information in a customer’s credit report.’” Barber v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 566 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 5996 ]. Specifically, Chase increased plaintiffs’ annual percentage rate (APR) on their outstanding credit card balance from 8.99% to 24.24% based on information obtained from a consumer credit reporting agency; Chase stated that it increased the interest rate “‘outstanding credit loan(s) on revolving accounts . . . [were] too high’ and there were ‘too many recently opened installment/revolving accounts.’” Id., at 5995-96. The class action did not allege that Chase’s practice of increasing the APR based on information in a consumer’s credit report was illegal, but rather that Chase violated federal law by failing to fully disclose it to them. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to state a claim; the district court agreed with Chase and dismissed the class action. Id., at 5997. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed.

The Ninth Circuit explained, “We must decide whether a credit card company violates the Truth in Lending Act when it fails to disclose potential risk factors that allow it to raise a cardholder’s Annual Percentage Rate.” Barber, at 5994. Given the purpose of TILA – viz., “to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit,” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a) – the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Circuit Court explained that TILA requires disclosure of “[t]he conditions under which a finance charge may be imposed,” “[t]he method of determining the amount of the finance charge,” and, “[w]here one or more periodic rates may be used to compute the finance charge, each such rate . . . and the corresponding nominal annual percentage rate.” Barber, at 5998 (quoting § 1637(a)(1), (a)(3) & (a)(4)). And under Reg. Z, “creditors must make the required disclosures ‘clearly and conspicuously in writing.’” Id., at 5999 (quoting 12 C.F.R. § 226.5(a)(1)). According to the class action, “Chase failed to disclose completely under the Act why it would change the APRs of its cardholders, in violation of subsection 226.6(a)(2) of Regulation Z.” Id., at 6000.

Continue reading "TILA Class Action Defense Cases–Barrer v. Chase: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of TILA Class Action Holding “Buried” Disclosures Did Not As A Matter Of Law Comply With TILA" »

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

$360 Million-Plus Class Action Judgment Against Bank of America Properly Reversed by Court of Appeal because Offsetting Overdraft and Insufficient Funds Fees Against Public Benefit Deposits (such as SSI Benefits) does not Violate State Law California Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Bank of America alleging, inter alia, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); the class action complained that BofA improperly offset Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from bank accounts to cover sums owed the bank. Miller v. Bank of America, NT & SA, ___ Cal.4th ___, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 31 (Cal. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 4, 5]. Plaintiff opened an account with BofA in 1975; he began receiving SSI benefits in 1992, and in 1994 he began having those benefits deposited directly into his BofA checking account. Id., at 2. BofA erroneously placed $1800 in plaintiff’s account in January 1998, and a few months later it reversed the credit without notice to plaintiff or his consent. Id., at 2-3. In so doing, BofA created a negative balance in plaintiff’s account and, as soon as they were deposited into plaintiff’s account, BofA withdrew the entirety of his May, June and July 1998 SSI payments. Id., at 3. Each month, plaintiff complained that BofA’s conduct meant that he would not have the funds to live, and each month BofA returned the funds to his account, id. BofA also charged plaintiff insufficient funds fees that ranged from $14 to $32 each, up to a maximum of $160 per day. Id., at 3-4. Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the class action claims, but the trial court largely denied the motion on the grounds that triable issues of material fact exist, id., at 4-5. The trial court also granted plaintiff’s motion for class action certification; “the class consisted of all Bank customers who received directly deposited public benefit funds without regard to whether those class members had available alternate sources of income to cover their basic living expenses.” Id., at 5. At issue was the $284 million in NSF that BofA debited from customer accounts between January 1994 and May 2003. Id. In a bifurcated trial, a jury found against the bank, awarding $75 million in compensatory damages, plus $1000 in statutory damages to each class member. Id., at 5-6. After the bench trial, the trial court also found against the bank and awarded more than $284 million in damages as well as $1000 to each class member. Id., at 6. In so ruling, the trial court relied on Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank (1974) 11 Cal.3d 352, 356, which held that “a bank may not satisfy a credit card debt by deducting the amount owed from a separate checking account containing deposits that ‘derived from unemployment and disability benefits’ and, thus, were ‘protected from the claims of creditors.’” Id., at 1. Immediately after Kruger, the California legislature enacted Financial Code section 864, which “comprehensively governs the manner in which banks may exercise the right to set off debts” and “expressly excludes overdrafts and bank charges from the statute’s definition of debt.” Id. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments, “holding that Kruger did not apply to the Bank’s practice of debiting overdrafts and charging NSF fees to account holders who deposited public benefit funds.” Id., at 6. The California Supreme Court affirmed.

Continue reading "BofA Class Action Defense Cases–Miller v. Bank of America: California Supreme Court Upholds Reversal Of Class Action Judgment Holding Banks May Offset Overdraft/NSF Fees Against Public Benefit Deposits" »

Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Only One Group Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of New York

Eight class actions – four in New Jersey, two in Illinois and one each in California and New York – were filed against Bayer and various other defendants challenging “Bayer’s marketing and sale of Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage or Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin Plus Calcium, or both.” In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class actions alleged “Bayer marketed these products without approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration and deceived the plaintiffs and putative class members with respect to the safety and efficacy of the products.” Id., at 2. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in three of the class actions filed motions with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the district courts in which their own class action lawsuits were pending; plaintiffs in the California class action opposed centralization until the district court had ruled on their motion to remand their class action to state court. Id., at 1. Defense attorneys for two Bayer entities supported centralization of all of the class actions, including the California class action, in either Illinois or New York, id. At oral argument, the moving parties supported centralization in the Eastern District of New York, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id. The Panel further agreed that the Eastern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court, as it was supported by all parties and as Bayer is headquartered in New York “albeit in another federal district.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Motion to Remand Class Action to State Court Granted because $5 Million Amount in Controversy Required by Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) not Established because “Cost” of Complying with Possible Injunction not Sufficient to Support Removal Jurisdiction Washington Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff, a citizen of Florida, filed a class action in Washington state court against Motricity, a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Washington; the class action complaint alleged that Motricity, which “represents providers of mobile content in dealing with wireless carriers whose networks and billing services the providers use” and “receives a fee per content transaction billed to cellular telephone users,” violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by “placing unauthorized charges for mobile content on customers' bills.” Rynearson v. Motricity, Inc., 601 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1239 (W.D.Wash. 2009). The class action sought damages, treble damages, restitution, interest, attorney fees and costs, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Id., at 1239-40. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), id., at 1240. Plaintiff moved to remand the class action to state court, arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million. Id. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion

The district court noted that plaintiff did not contest that numerosity and minimal diversity existed under CAFA; rather, plaintiff focused on the CAFA requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $5 million. Rynearson, at 1240. The federal court explained at page 1240, “The burden of proving the amount in controversy depends on what the plaintiff has pleaded: (1) when the complaint does not specify an amount of damages, the party seeking removal must prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) when the complaint alleges damages in excess of the jurisdictional requirement, the requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the claim is actually for less than the amount in controversy requirement; and, (3) when the complaint alleges damages less than the jurisdictional requirement, the party seeking removal must prove the amount in controversy with legal certainty.” (Citation omitted.) In this case, the class action complaint did not seek a specific amount of damages so defendant was required to prove that the amount in controversy had been met, id. The thrust of the defense argument was that the cost of developing an “access code” system to comply with a possible injunction the district court may issue would exceed $5 million, thereby satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. Id. The district court disagreed, holding that the defendant’s interpretation of the class action complaint was flawed because “[t]he plain language of the complaint does not request Defendant to implement its own access code system.” Id. Accordingly, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the class action warranting remand of the class action to state court. Id., at 1240-41.

Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Complaint Alleging Violations of State and Federal RICO laws based on Employer’s Conspiracy to Hire Illegal Workers and Depress Wages of Legal Workers Satisfied Rule 23(a)’s Commonality and Typicality Class Action Requirements, and Requires Further Analysis by District Court as to Whether Rule 23(b)(3)’s Class Action Requirements had been Met Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against their employer, Mohawk Industries, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that defendant conspired with various temporary employment agencies to hire illegal aliens and depress wages. Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. May 28, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 2-3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, defendant’s activities violated state and federal racketeering laws, and defendant was “unjustly enriched by its criminal activities,” id., at 3. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action, ultimately resulting in a circuit court opinion that held the class action’s unjust enrichment claims failed but the class actions state and federal racketeering claims survived. Id., at 3-4. Plaintiffs’ lawyers moved to certify the litigation as a class action, id., at 5; the district court denied class action treatment because it found that the commonality and typicality requirements for class action certification had not been met, id., at 7. The district court also denied plaintiffs’ motion because it found that Rule 23(b)’s requirements for class action certification had not been met. See id., at 8-9. Plaintiffs’ appealed and the Eleventh Circuit reversed.

In denying class action certification, the district court found that commonality did not exist because defendant’s operations were “extremely decentralized,” contradicting the idea of “one grand conspiracy to employ illegal workers.” Williams, at 8. Also, plaintiffs claims were not typical because one of them never worked at a facility that used with temporary workers and because each of them “worked at only a handful” of defendant’s locations. Id. As for Rule 23(b)(2), the federal court found that the prayer for monetary relief was not merely incidental to their demand for injunctive relief, id., and that Rule 23(b)(3) had not been met because common issues did not predominate and because a class action was not the superior means of redress, in part because class action treatment would present an “unmanageable number of individual legal and factual issues,” id., at 8-9.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases–Williams v. Mohawk Industries: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of RICO Complaint And Remands For Further Consideration Of Class Action Certification" »

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

Class Action Complaint Alleging Various Defendants Conspired to Wrongfully Deny Authenticity of Warhol Paintings Survives Defense Motion to Dismiss New York Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (a not-for-profit charitable trust), the Estate of Andy Warhol (which was valued at $400 million and which originally owned 100,000 Warhol works of art), Vincent Fremont (the exclusive sales agent for the Foundation’s Warhol paintings) individually and in his capacity as Successor Executor of the Estate, Vincent Fremont Enterprises and the Andy Warhol Authentication Board (a not-for profit corporation responsible for authenticating the works of Andy Warhol) alleging inter alia violations of state and federal antitrust laws; the class action complaint asserted that defendants conspired to control the market for Warhol works. Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the amended class action complaint, The Foundation and the Board (the “central actors in the conspiracy”) have “complete control over the authentication of Warhol artwork by virtue of the Board’s status as sole recognized authentication authority for Warhol works and the Foundation’s publication of an official catalogue of Warhol works,” and “the Board has denied the authenticity of works that were previously owned by the Estate and stamped with serial numbers from the Estate…, routinely denies the authenticity of a certain percentage of Warhols, particularly when several from the same series are submitted…, has denied authentication as a means of retaliation…, has approached owners of Warhols to ‘lure’ them into submitting their works for authentication…, and changes its authentication policies when the change suits the Board’s financial interests….” Id., at 3. In essence, the class action alleges that defendants “use their control over the authentication methods to create a scarcity in the market for Warhol artwork and inflate the value of the Warhol works in the Foundation’s possession.” Id., at 3-4. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint. Id., at 2. The district court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

The class action complaint alleged that in 1989, plaintiff purchased a Warhol painting (later entitled “Double Denied”) for $195,000. Simon-Whelan, at 4. Plaintiff claims Warhol created the work in 1965, and that the Foundation and the Estate previously had authenticated the work. Id., at 4-5. In July 2001, plaintiff offered to sell the painting, id., at 5. Defendants “repeatedly urged” him to submit the painting to the Board, and represented to a prospective buyer that it “would not stand by the prior authentications” unless the painting was first submitted to the Board. Id. Plaintiff submitted the painting to the Board in December 2001; the Board denied that it was authenticate but plaintiff was told he could “resubmit the painting with additional documentation.” Id. “Plaintiff spent more than a year documenting the painting’s origin and history and resubmitted the painting with additional documentation in February 2003.” Id. The painting was again denied, id. Plaintiff alleges that the Board “fraudulently denied the authenticity” of the painting, id., at 5-6. The class action complaint alleged that, because of the denials,” Plaintiff was unable to sell any of the Warhols that he owned without first submitting them to the Board and that he was ultimately forced to sell his Warhols through third-parties at a fraction of the price.” Id., at 6.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases–Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation: New York Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Class Action Alleging Antitrust Violations In Authentication Of Warhol Works Of Art" »

Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Other Class Action Plaintiffs or by Common Defendants, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of New York

Six class actions – one in California and five in New York – were filed against Orleans Homebuilders and OHB Homes alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaints “arise from a purported massive financial scandal involving common defendant Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. (Satyam), one of India’s largest information technology and outsourcing companies.” In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class actions, “defendants deceived the investing public regarding Satyam’s business and finances, and thereby caused plaintiffs to purchase the company’s American Depositary Shares at artificially inflated prices.” Id. Plaintiffs in the California class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; initially, plaintiffs sought centralization in California, but ultimately agreed to centralization in the Southern District of New York, where the other five class actions were pending. Id. Only one class action plaintiff opposed centralization, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id. The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court because “Five of the six constituent actions, including the first-filed action, are already pending there, and the parties suggest that some discovery from accountants and banks may take place in the district.” Id., at 2.

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

Allegations in Securities Fraud Class Action Failed to Meet Heightened Pleading Requirements under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Warranting Dismissal with Prejudice of Class Action Complaint Washington Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Zumiez and three individual defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws; the class action complaint asserted that defendants “engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making materially false and misleading statements by making false and misleading statements and engaging in insider trading.” In re Zumiez Inc. Sec. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Wash. March 30, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 7]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, defendants made six different statements that were false or misleading, each of which concerned guidance given to investors and expectations for earnings growth. Id., at 7-8. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the grounds that it failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Id., at 9. The district court granted defendants’ motion.

The federal court began by noting that “One obvious difficulty with Plaintiffs’ theory is that, from arch until mid-October, Zumiez not only met, but significantly exceeded, its prediction of ‘mid-single digit’ comparable-store sales growth.” In re Zumiez, at 12. The district court explained at page 12, “Therefore, to raise a credible inference that the Company’s predictions during this time period were false or misleading, Plaintiffs must allege facts to suggest not only that Defendants knew of undisclosed problems within the company, but that these known problems (1) would somehow not manifest a negative effect on earnings until the later quarters, and (2) were not taken into account when calculating the Company’s projected earnings. Plaintiffs allege hardly any such facts, much less facts sufficient to raise a strong inference of wrongdoing.” The court considered plaintiffs’ claim that five of Zumiez’s 2007 earnings projections were false or misleading, see id., at 12-20, but ultimately found that the class action complaint “completely failed to raise a ‘strong inference’ that Defendants knowingly made false or misleading earnings projections,” id., at 20. The district court also considered plaintiffs’ challenges to “two statements that could arguably be viewed as assertions regarding current business performance, rather than forward-looking statements”; specifically, an October 18, 2007, statement that “the Company was ‘on track’ to grow earnings by at least 30%,” and a November 29, 2007, statement that “the Company’s month-to-date comparable-store sales growth were in line with its fourth quarter projections.” Id., at 20. To be actionable, these statements required allegations in the class action complaint of “specific facts sufficient to raise a strong inference that Brooks made the statements with deliberate recklessness to investors,” id., at 20-21 (citation omitted), but the court found no evidence to support such an inference, see id., at 21-23. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the class action complaint with prejudice.

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

Petition under Rule 23(f) for Permission to Appeal Class Action Certification Order Untimely and that Defendant and its Counsel “Would File – and Attempt to Justify – such a Blatantly Untimely Petition” is “Troubling” District of Columbia Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against DC Water and Sewer Authority (WA SA) alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the class action complaint asserted that WASA engaged in acts of discrimination in the hiring and promotion of employees. In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d 494, 495 (D.C. Cir. April 3, 2009). The district court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the litigation as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2), id. The class action was on behalf of “Black employees at WASA who sought and were denied positions, career ladder promotions, or other advancement, or whose advancement was delayed, or whose compensation was otherwise affected by WASA's alleged unlawful discrimination, from October 1996 through December 2000.” Id. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the litigation as a class action, and on March 27, 2007 WASA filed a motion for reconsideration of the class action certification order. Id. and n.1. The district court denied WASA’s motion for reconsideration on September 13, 2007, id., at n.1. On April 9, 2008, WASA asked the district court to “clarify” its certification order; on July 24, 2008, the district court “summarily denied” WASA’s motion. Id., at 495. Finally, on August 7, 2008, WASA petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal the district court's order certifying a class of WASA employees in an employment discrimination class action.” Id., at 494-95. The Circuit Court denied the petition was untimely.

By way of background, Rule 23(f) provides in part: “A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under this rule if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the circuit clerk within 10 days after the order is entered.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) (italics added). Various circuit courts have held that the 10-day period for seeking permission to appeal must be strictly construed, though some circuits have held that the 10-day period “resets” once a district court rules on a motion for reconsideration. In re DC Water, at 495-96 (citations omitted). Here, defense attorneys filed their petition almost 17 months after the district court entered its class certification order, and almost a year after the district court summarily denied WASA’s motion for reconsideration: “By any measure, then, the petition was far out of time.” Id., at 496. The Circuit Court easily dismissed WASA’s claim that the April 2008 “motion for clarification” somehow restarted the 10-day deadline in Rule 23(f), finding that defendant’s argument “runs counter to the plain language of Rule 23(f).” Id. Put simply, the district court order denying WASA’s motion for clarification was not “an order granting or denying class-action certification” as required by Rule 23(f), and to hold otherwise would allow any party “to restart [the 10-day clock] at any time simply by filing a pleading styled as a ‘motion to clarify.’” Id., at 496-97 (citations and footnotes omitted). The Circuit Court concluded at page 497, “In its dogged pursuit of an interlocutory appeal – based on the most tenuous (if not untenable) grounds – WASA has both disrupted the class action proceeding in the district court and wasted the resources of the parties and the court. We find it troubling that WASA and its lawyers would file – and attempt to justify – such a blatantly untimely petition.” (Citations omitted.) Accordingly, the Court denied defendant’s petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, id.

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

Sheer Size of Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud Violations did not Defeat Motions to Dismiss because Class Action Allegations were “Verbose” but “Disordered” and Required “More Definite Statement” Washington Federal Court Holds

Three class action complaints were filed against dozens of defendants alleging securities fraud in connection with Washington Mutual home lending business; specifically, the class actions alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under § 10(b), and under §§ 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act. The class actions were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, lead plaintiff appointed, and a consolidated class action complaint filed. Among the more than three dozen defendants named in the consolidated class action were officers and directors, including outside directors, underwriters and investment banks, and accounting firms. In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-3, 5]. The consolidated class action complaint was enormous, containing almost 400 pages (without exhibits), more than 1000 paragraphs, and citations to 89 confidential witnesses, id., at 5. The first 300 pages of the complaint consist of factual allegations of improper activity that claimed “(1) deliberate and secret efforts to decrease the efficacy of WaMu’s risk management policies…; (2) corruption of WaMu’s appraisal process…; (3) abandonment of appropriate underwriting standards for WaMu loans…; and (4) misrepresentation of financial results….” Id. Defense attorneys for various defendants filed five motions to dismiss the class action claims, id., at 1-2. And if plaintiffs believed that size alone would be sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss, then they were mistaken: in the end, the district largely granted the motion to dismiss concluding that Counts One, Two and Three required “a more definite statement of the grounds for their claims,” and that Counts Four, Five and Six should be dismissed with respect to “claims regarding WaMu’s August 2006, September 2006, and December 2007 securities offerings.” Id., at 2. (The federal court denied the motion to dismiss Counts Four, Five and Six to the extent they concerned WaMu’s October 2007 securities offering. Id.)

We summarize only briefly the federal court’s 33-page opinion. It is worth noting that the district court characterized the massive class action complaint as a “verbose and disordered pleading,” and concluded that it “failed to organize and clearly identify allegations in support of each element of the 10(b) claims against each defendant” even though more than 280 page of the complaint were directed toward these claims. In re WaMu, at 8. Relying on the heightened pleading requirements established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) which requires that “a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must ‘plead with particularity both falsity and scienter,’” id., at 15 (citation omitted), the district court found “Remarkably, Plaintiffs make no effort to connect a particular statement made by any defendant with allegations as to why that statement was false or misleading or with allegations of facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter,” id., at 17. The federal court also observed at page 17, “The first 300 pages of the Complaint fail to organize and identify the allegations supporting securities fraud as to each defendant, contain no useful cross-references or paragraph citations to connect the relevant allegations, and appear to include numerous irrelevant allegations, thereby depriving Defendants of proper notice of the grounds for the 10(b) claims against them.”

Continue reading "WaMu Class Action Defense Cases–In re Washington Mutual: Washington Federal Court Dismisses Majority Of Securities Fraud Class Action Claims Finding 400-Page 1000-Paragraph Class Action Complaint Lacked Specificity" »

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

Labor Law Class Action Challenging Defendant’s Classification of Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives as Exempt from Overtime Laws Dismissed on Defense Motion for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff Fell within Outside Sales Exemption Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical sales representative, filed a class action in Pennsylvania state court against her employer, AstraZeneca, alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that defendant improperly classified her as “exempt” and failed to pay her overtime required by Pennsylvania law. Baum v. AstraZeneca LP, 605 F.Supp.2d 669, 2009 WL 827920, *1 (W.D.Pa. 2009). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, id. Defense attorneys then moved for summary judgment on the class action claims, id. The facts are quite detailed: in broad terms, plaintiff’s job was to increase defendant’s market share by selling directly to physicians, which required that she build relationships with the doctors and exercise discretion in determining how best to pitch AstraZeneca to doctors. Id., at *2-*3. The defense motion was based on the argument that plaintiff “exercised substantial judgment and discretion while discussing pharmaceutical products with physicians.” Id., at *3. Plaintiff responded that she “gave the same canned speech to each physician.” Id. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defense as to the class action claims.

After summarizing the standard of review and the similarities between the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), see Baum, at *4-*5, as well as the outside sales exemption and administrative exemption, id., at *5-*6, the court turned to an examination of whether either of those exemptions applied. The district court readily concluded that plaintiff had been properly classified. Id., at *6. The federal court’s decision was based on its finding that plaintiff made sales and obtained orders, and had been employed for the purpose of doing so, see id., at *7-*12. Put simply, “where pharmaceutical representatives seek to obtain physician commitments to write prescriptions, these representatives make sales and are engaged in the process of making sales for purposes of Pennsylvania’s outside sales exemption.” Id., at *12. Further, the district court found that plaintiff’s job involved sales activity, confirming she was employed for the purpose of making sales. Id., at *12-*14. Moreover, as noted above, plaintiff spent 90% of her time in the field, id., at *14. Accordingly, the outside sales exemption applied, id., at *14-*15. The court also opined that it would find that the administrative exemption would also apply to plaintiff. Id., at *16. Accordingly, the district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the class action complaint. Id., at *16-*17.

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Plaintiffs in One of the Class Actions, and Transfers Actions to District of New Jersey

Two class actions – one in Connecticut and one in New Jersey – were filed against Aetna and affiliated entities, and other defendants (including Ingenix and its parent UnitedHealth Group), challenging Aetna’s “policies and practices for reimbursing its plan members’ visits to health care providers that are not part of the Aetna network,” that is, to “nonparticipating” or “out-of-network” providers. In re Aetna, Inc., Out-Of-Network "UCR" Rates Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 8, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class action complaints, filed by Aetna health plan members, alleged “that (1) the Ingenix database of billing information was flawed leading to lower reimbursement rates; and (2) Aetna improperly calculated the usual, customary and reasonable (‘UCR’) rates of reimbursement for out-of-network services based upon this data.” Id. Defense attorneys for Aetna 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 Connecticut, New Jersey or New York, but at oral argument limited its request to the district where the two class actions were already pending. Id. Plaintiffs in the New Jersey class action supported the motion and agreed on centralization in that district; plaintiffs in the Connecticut class action opposed centralization or, alternatively, argued for transfer to the District of Connecticut. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that “these two actions involve complex common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407…will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” Id. The Panel transferred the class actions to the District of New Jersey because, while either district court would be appropriate, “(1) Judge Faith S. Hochberg has been presiding over the action before her since July 2007 and she is well-versed with the issues involved in this litigation; and (2) two other related actions with similar claims against Aetna are also pending before her.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Against Law Firm Alleging Violations of Debt Collection Laws Warranted Class Action Treatment over Defense Challenge to Adequacy of Representation based on Claim that Class Action was Filed by “Professional Plaintiff” and over Challenge to Superiority Prong of Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action Certification Test based on Negative Net Worth of Defendant and FDCPA’s 1% Net Worth Cap on Liability Connecticut Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against the law firm of Wolpoff & Abramson alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Lemire v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 256 F.R.D. 321, 2009 WL 827764, *1 (D.Conn. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, Wolpoff’s communication with Connecticut consumers violated state law and therefore a per se violation of the FDCPA, id. Wolpoff argued that a violation of Connecticut debt collection law is not a per se violation of the FDCPA. Id. Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, id. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion and granted class action treatment.

After summarizing the well known rules for class action certification under Rule 23, see Lemire, at *2, the court turned to the merits of the motion. Wolpoff conceded that the numerosity test of Rule 23(a)(1) had been met, id., at *3. But as to commonality, Wolpoff argued that each collection letter sent to a Connecticut resident would have to be “analyzed individually to determine whether it contains actionable language” because different letters were sent to consumers who were represented by counsel than those who were unrepresented. Id. The federal court found, however, that the letters were similar in material respects and that the differences go to the merits of the class action claims. Id., at *3-*4. Given the “common content of Wolpoff’s letters” sent directly to consumers, the commonality test had been met. Id., at *4. And the letters to the attorneys were sufficiently similar to warrant class action treatment, and even if different could be addressed by dividing the group into two classes. Id., at *5. And the typicality test was satisfied because Wolpoff “failed to identify any unique ‘claims or defenses,’” id., at *6.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Lemire v. Wolpoff & Abramson: Connecticut Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To FDCPA Class Action Against Law Firm" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Failed to Allege Discrimination Against Employer that Calculated Pension Benefits under Pre-Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) Rules, Lawful at the Time, that Gave Less Retirement Credit to Pregnancy Leave than for Medical Leave Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against AT&T alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the class action complaint asserted that defendant discriminated against employees on the basis of sex and pregnancy by providing pension and other benefits on a seniority system that treated pregnancy differently from other medical conditions. AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. ___ (May 18, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-3]. AT&T has provided pension and other benefits to employees since 1914 “based on a seniority system that relies upon an employee’s term of employment, understood as the period of service at the company minus uncredited leave time.” Id., at 1-2 (footnote omitted). According to the allegations underlying the class action, from 1960s until the mid-1970s, AT&T gave employees full service credit for “disability” leave but a maximum of 30 days of credit for “personal” leaves of absence, and the company treated pregnancy leave as “personal” rather than disability. Id., at 2. AT&T modified this program in 1977 “entitling pregnant employees to disability benefits and service credit for up to six weeks of leave”; however, leave beyond 6 weeks was still treated as “personal” leave. Id. Both plans were lawful at the time they were in use, id. But in 1978 Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which made it unlawful to “treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions.” Id., at 3 (citation omitted). AT&T again modified its procedures to comply with the PDA, but it did not “make any retroactive adjustments to the service credit calculations of women who had been subject to the pre-PDA personnel policies.” Id. In the Ninth Circuit (where plaintiffs’ class action had been filed), case law held that “calculation of service credit excluding time spent on pregnancy leave violates Title VII,” id., at 4(citation omitted); in the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, case law held that “reliance on a pre-PDA differential accrual rule to determine pension benefits does not constitute a current violation of Title VII,” id. (citations omitted). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this conflict.

The Supreme Court defined the issue presented as “whether an employer necessarily violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k), when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only prior to the PDA, that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy leave than for medical leave generally.” AT&T, at 1. The Supreme Court held “there is no necessary violation; and the benefit calculation rule in this case is part of a bona fide seniority system under §703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…which insulates it from challenge.” Id. We do not discuss the opinion in greater detail. We note only that Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Breyer, arguing in essence that properly paying women today for service credit that should have been earned pre-PDA, is not a retroactive application of the law. Accordingly, AT&T’s conduct constitutes a “current violation of Title VII when, post-PDA, it did not totally discontinue reliance upon a pension calculation premised on the notion that pregnancy-based classifications display no gender bias.” AT&T, at 4 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Actions Alleging Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) may be Certified as a Class Action even if Putative Class Members Lack Standing to Prosecute UCL Claims in Their Own Name, but Class Representative Alleging Misrepresentation as Basis of UCL Class Action Claim must Demonstrate Actual Reliance on the Defendant’s Allegedly Deceptive or Misleading Statements California Supreme Court Holds

A class action lawsuit was filed in California state court against various tobacco industry defendants alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); specifically, the class action complaint asserted that defendants “conduct[ed] a decades-long campaign of deceptive advertising and misleading statements about the addictive nature of nicotine and the relationship between tobacco use and disease.” In re Tobacco II Cases, ___ Cal.4th ___, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 (Cal. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The class action complaint was amended numerous times; the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the litigation as a class action, filed in connection with the seventh amended class action complaint. Id., at 3. At the time the trial court granted class action status to the lawsuit, under California law an individual had standing to file suit alleging UCL violations even if the individual had not suffered any injury; following class certification, Californians passed Proposition 64, which amended the UCL so as to condition standing to file suit to a “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of [such] unfair competition.” Id., at 1-2 (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204). Additionally, prior to Prop 64 UCL representative actions did not have to satisfy the requirements for class action treatment under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, but Prop 64 explicitly requires such compliance, id., at 13. Based on the standing requirement imposed by Prop 64, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class “on the grounds that each class member was now required to show an injury in fact, consisting of lost money or property, as a result of the alleged unfair competition.” Id., at 2. The appellate court affirmed, “agreeing with the trial court that, post Proposition 64, individual issues of exposure to the allegedly deceptive statements and reliance upon them, predominated over class issues.” Id., at 9. But the California Supreme Court – in a 4-3 decision – reversed.

The California Supreme Court’s decision is ground-breaking: it represents the first opinion known to this author that allows an individual to be a member of a class even if that person does not have standing to file suit in his or her own name. The Supreme Court addressed two issues: “First, who in a UCL class action must comply with Proposition 64’s standing requirements, the class representatives or all unnamed class members, in order for the class action to proceed?” In re Tobacco II, at 2. This is the question on which we focus here. “Second, what is the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular what is the meaning of the phrase ‘as a result of’ in section 17204?” Id. While we do not discuss this aspect of the Court’s opinion, we note its holding: “We conclude that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as a basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions.” Id.

Continue reading "Prop 64 Class Action Defense Cases–In re Tobacco II: California Supreme Court “Turns Class Action Law Upside Down” And Holds UCL Class Actions May Be Certified Even If Class Members Lack Standing To File Suit In Own Name" »

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

Defense Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Granted because Defendants had no Duty to Disclose Merger Discussions Prior before Definitive Merger Agreement Reached and because Anonymous Source Insufficient to Satisfy Heightened Pleading Requirements of PSLRA (Private Securities Litigation Reform Act) New York Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Bioenvision and certain officers and directors, and Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund (Bioenvision’s largest pre-merger shareholder) alleging violations of federal securities laws; the class action complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Perseus-Soros under section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, and against the individual defendants and Perseus-Soros under section 20(a). Vladimir v. Bioenvision Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 857552, *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, “defendants artificially deflated the value of Bioenvision’s stock by issuing and by failing to correct or update statements that contained material misrepresentations and omissions as to Bioenvision’s plan to enter into a merger with Genzyme.” Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the grounds that the allegations in the class action complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Id. Defendants further argued that “they had no duty to disclose the merger discussions until May 29, 2007, the date when the merger was announced publicly.” Id. Plaintiffs countered that defendants’ failure to disclose the plan to sell Bioenvision to Genzyme had the practical effect of artificially suppressing Bioenvision’s stock price, causing damage to plaintiffs because they sold their stock before the merger was officially announced (at which time the stock price skyrocketed). Id., at 4. Essentially, the “false and misleading” statements consisted of disclosing that its “primary focus” was the development of cancer treatments when its real focus was to find a merger partner. Id., at *5. The district court granted the defense motion and dismissed the class action complaint.

Cutting to the heart of the federal court’s analysis, the district court held that under Second Circuit authority “‘a corporation is not required to disclose a fact merely because a reasonable investor would very much like to know that fact.’” Vladimir, at *7 (citation omitted). Put simply, “[t]here is no specific duty to disclose merger negotiations under SEC rules until they become definitive agreements.” Id. (citations omitted). And since there was no duty to disclose, defendants’ silence could not be deemed misleading. Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argued that the parties had reached a “definitive agreement” to merge in January 2007, thus creating the duty to disclose. Id. But as this allegation was supported only by an anonymous source, it failed to satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements. Id., at *7-*8. Further, as the federal court observed, “Under plaintiffs’ proposed rule, any public company that publicly described its core business or strategy – which is to say, every public company – would be required to disclose potential or actual merger negotiations. Statements that do not raise the subject of mergers, even tangentially, cannot impose a duty to disclose all material information concerning merger discussions.” Id., at *10. The district court ultimately concluded that the allegations in the class action complaint did not plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b), and in any event do not support a duty to disclose. Id., at *12. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss by the Bioenvision defendants. Id., at *13.

Continue reading "Securities Fraud Class Action Defense Cases–Vladimir v. Bioenvision: New York Federal Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint Failed To Meet Heightened Pleading Requirements Of PSLRA" »

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

Lender Motion for Summary Judgment as to Class Action Claims Alleging Lender Violated TILA and HOEPA Properly Granted because Disclosed Finance Charges Fell within TILA’s Tolerance for Accuracy and because HOEPA did not Apply as Transaction was not High-Cost Loan Alabama Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Accredited Home Lenders, dba Home Funds Direct, alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), which requires additional disclosures be made in connection with “high cost” loans; the class action complaint asserted that her lender “improperly understated the finance charge on credit it extended to her” and “failed t comply with the additional disclosure requirements” of HOEPA. Frazier v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 607 F.Supp.2d 1254, 2009 WL 931167, *1 (M.D.Ala. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, the lender improperly excluded several charges from its calculation of the finance charge – a claim the lender denied. Id., at *2. The class action sought rescission and damages, id., at *1. Defense attorneys moved summary judgment, id.; the lender argued that its disclosures were “accurate, complete, and in compliance with both TILA and HOEPA.” Id., at *2. The class action complaint alleged that the lender charged an “endorsement fee” for a service that was never provided, and that it charged an excessive fee for “a title search, a title examination, recording, and title insurance,” each of which allegedly should have been included in the finance charge. Id. Defense attorneys countered that the fees in question were “imposed by a third party” and that they were not excessive; further, the lender argued that the finance charge disclosed “falls within TILA’s tolerance for accuracy” (that is, one half of one percent of the loan amount). Id. Alternatively, defense attorneys argued that any errors fell within the safe harbor provision of TILA and fell outside the scope of HOEPA. Id. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the lender on the class action complaint.

The federal court observed that the “dispositive question” was “how to calculate properly the finance charge” for the loan extended to plaintiff. Frazier, at *2. The court observed that this task was complicated by “the imprecise language of TILA itself and the maze of federal regulations interpreting the statute.” Id. Turning to the merits, the district court rejected the lender’s claim that it was not responsible for charges imposed by third parties, observing that the relevant inquiry is whether it required the services in question. Id., at *3. But the court agreed with defense attorneys that the lender did not “require” the “endorsement fee” charged by the third party, particularly as no service was ever provided in connection with that third party charge, id. Accordingly, the federal court held that “the endorsement fee must be excluded from the finance charge.” Id. The question then, was whether the remaining fees were “excessive” and whether the lender understated that amount of the finance charge, id.

Continue reading "TILA Class Action Defense Cases–Frazier v. Accredited Home Lenders: Alabama Federal Court Grants Lender’s Summary Judgment Motion In TILA Class Action" »

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

Labor Law Class Action Against 3M Alleging Age Discrimination Warranted Class Action Certification Minnesota State Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against his employer, 3M, alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that 3M discriminated against employees on the basis of age with respect to leadership development opportunities, promotion decisions, compensation decisions, and job eliminations. Whitaker v. 3M Co., Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District, Case No. 62-C4-04-012239 (April 11, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 2-3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, 3M’s employment practices had a disparate impact on members of the putative class, id., at 3. Plaintiff’s attorneys moved the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action on behalf of “All persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a salaried exempt position below PS grade 180 at any time on or after may 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on or about their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of their employment with 3M.” Id., at 1. The trial court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

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

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by Common Class Action Defendants and by Vast Majority of Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of California

Twelve class actions – eleven in the Northern District of California and one in the Western District of Washington – were filed against Wal-Mart and Netflix alleging violations of antitrust laws; specifically, the class action complaints allege “defendants conspired to divide the online DVD rental market in violation of federal antitrust laws.” In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 10, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. (Forty-three (43) additional class action lawsuits were filed in various district courts, and were considered by the Court as potential tag-along class actions. Id. at n.1.) Plaintiffs in one of the California class actions 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 Northern District of California; plaintiffs in 35 of the class actions supported the motion, as did all defendants in the various class actions. Id. Plaintiffs in 9 of the potentially-related class actions supported centralization, but argued alternatively for coordination in various district courts in Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Puerto Rico, or West Virginia. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits (in part because it would “prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings…with respect to class certification”), and agreed that the Northern District of California was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1-2. The Judicial Panel explained in selection of the California district court as follows at page 2, “The vast majority of the actions are already pending in the Northern District of California before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Moreover, two of the defendants are headquartered in that district and, accordingly, relevant documents and witnesses are likely located there.” Accordingly, the Panel granted the motion and ordered all actions outside the district transferred to the Northern District of California, id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

FACTA Class Action Seeking $4.6 Million to $46 Million in Statutory Damages from Restaurant with Net Worth of $40,000 did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Class Action not “Superior” Method of Resolving Dispute Florida Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Florida state court against Mama Mia, “a local restaurant in Hollywood, Florida, with approximately $40,000 in net assets”; the class action alleged that defendant violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which requires that merchants truncate credit card and debit card numbers on electronically-printed customer receipts. Leysoto v. Mama Mia I., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 693, 694 (S.D.Fla. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, the receipts defendant provided to customers “displayed both the expiration date and full number of [the customers’] credit card.” Id. (The district court noted that defendant “ceased this practice, and began truncating customer receipts to merely four (4) card numbers, no later than June 26, 2008.” Id.) The class action complaint sought “statutory and actual damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs,” id. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, id., and plaintiff moved for class certification, arguing a Rule 23(b)(3) class action should be certified, id., at 694-95. Defense attorneys opposed class action certification on the grounds that class action treatment would expose defendant to statutory damages of $4.6 million - $46 million, even though plaintiff concedes he did not suffer any actual economic injury and even though there was no evidence that any member of the putative class suffered actual economic injury. Id., at 695 and n.5. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion.

The district court explained that the class certification motion “turns on two related questions: (1) whether potential class damages are a proper consideration at the motion to certify stage; and, if so; (2) whether the potential class damages in this matter preclude certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).” Leysoto, at 694. Of course, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that class action treatment was warranted, id., at 695 (citations omitted). FACTA provides for recovery of actual damages or statutory damages of “not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.” Id. (citation omitted). This is important because under Eleventh Circuit authority the district court “may consider potential class damages in adjudicating Plaintiff's Motion, and given the vast disparity between the requested statutory damages and the actual injury caused by Defendant, the class vehicle is not the superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this dispute.” Id., at 694.

Continue reading "FACTA Class Action Defense Cases–Leysoto v. Mama Mia: Florida Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment Of FACTA Class Action Because Potential Liability Vastly Disproportionate To Actual Damages Suffered By Putative Class" »

Posted In: Class Actions In The News, Certification of Class Actions, FCRA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Nationwide Class Action Complaint Alleging Unjust Enrichment and Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act Claims Warranted Class Action Treatment because Sale by Mercedes of Analog-Based Tele Aid Systems Involved Common Issues that Predominated over Individual Issues and because Balance of Rule 23’s Requirements for Class Action Certification had been Satisfied New Jersey Federal Court Holds

Ten separate class action lawsuits were filed in six different states against Mercedes-Benz and other defendants arising from vehicles equipped with the “Tele Aid” emergency response system; Mercedes-Benz moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the class action complaints for pretrial purposes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D.N.J. April 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 5]. The Judicial Panel granted the motion, and the various class actions were transferred to New Jersey, id., at 5-6. (The district court observed that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that minimal diversity exists; accordingly, the court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Id., at 2.) Once the class actions were centralized, the district court appointed interim class counsel and directed counsel to file a consolidated amended class action complaint, id., at 6. The putative nationwide class action complaint alleged causes of action for common law unjust enrichment and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act “premised on the contention that Mercedes made statements or omissions of material facts that it knew or should have known were false or misleading when promoting vehicles purchased by Plaintiffs that were equipped with ‘Tele Aid,’ an emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and cellular technology.” Id., at 2-3. At bottom, the class action claims are premised on the theory that Mercedes knew “that the analog network on which the Tele Aid systems contained in their vehicles depended would cease to function in 2008, but continued to market Tele Aid without disclosing that fact.” Id., at 6. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. Id., at 1. The district court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

The district court explained that plaintiffs’ task at the class action certification stage was to demonstrate that the claims in the class action complaint were susceptible to common proof at trial rather than relying on evidence that is individual to the putative class members. In re Mercedes-Benz, at 4. Plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment was supported in part by three expert reports; the experts supported plaintiffs’ claim that Mercedes failed to adequately inform customers that analog service would terminate at the end of 2007, even though “discontinuation of analog service in early 2008 was a regulatory certainty at the time the FCC finalized its rule on August 8, 2002.” Id., at 3. “Mercedes began including Tele Aid systems in most of its vehicles in 2000,” id., and “touted its ability to provide subscribers with emergency road-side assistance, remotely unlock doors, and track stolen vehicles,” id., at 7. Certain of these vehicles relied solely on analog signals over wireless telephone networks; the company subsequently sold vehicles that were capable of using both analog and digital signals. Id. We do not discuss the facts in greater detail here, see id., at 7-12. The basis of plaintiffs’ class action certification motion was that “this case is particularly well-suited to class treatment because (1) their claims ‘arise from a single course of conduct that affect[ed] large numbers of consumers,’ and (2) the costs to each class member of pursuing his or her suit would exceed any potential recovery.” Id., at 13. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment because (1) a nationwide class should not be certified as the claims of each named plaintiff are governed by the laws of their respective home states, which differ in material ways, and (2) common questions of fact do not predominate. Id., at 13-14.

Continue reading "Mercedes-Benz Class Action Defense Cases–In re Mercedes-Benz: New Jersey Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To Class Action Claims For Unjust Enrichment And Consumer Fraud Based On Analog-Based Tele Aid Sales" »

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

Class Action on Behalf of Florida Citizens Against Florida Corporation, Removed to Federal Court under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Properly Remanded to State Court because Home State Exception to CAFA Jurisdiction Applies First Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action in Florida state court against Kash N’ Karry Food Stores (a chain of grocery stores in Florida) alleging “alleging that Kash N' Karry had failed to adopt adequate security measures to protect its customers' credit card information.” In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, a computer hacker stole from defendant the credit and debit card information of approximately 1.6 million Kash N’ Karry customers, and limited the class action’s definition to Florida residents, id., at 3-4. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation coordinated plaintiff’s class action for pretrial purposes with two dozen other class actions in the District of Maine. Id., at 4. The other 24 class actions had been filed against entities that were related to Kash N’ Karry; specifically, its sister corporation Hannaford Brothers, and their common parent company, Delhaize America. Id. Plaintiff moved to remand his class action to state court under the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction; the district court granted plaintiff’s motion and the First Circuit gave defendant leave to appeal. Id. The Circuit Court stated that this case “presents an issue of first impression for this circuit regarding the application of the home state exception to federal jurisdiction under [CAFA].” Id., at 2. Defense attorneys argued that the class action complaint had been drafted to defeat CAFA jurisdiction “in violation of congressional intent”; plaintiff responded that the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied and, accordingly, that the district court order remanding the class action to state court was correct. Id. The Circuit Court affirmed the remand of the class action to state court, holding that the class action complaint fell squarely within the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction.

CAFA’s home state exception “requires a federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction if at least two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed.” In re Hannaford, at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)). The First Circuit observed that plaintiff’s class action complaint limits the scope of the class to Florida citizens, and is brought against a single corporation, Kash N’ Karry, which also is a Florida citizen. Id. The district court remanded the class action to state court on the basis of the home state exception, and the Circuit Court affirmed, rejecting defense attorney claims that “the application of CAFA's home state exception depends on a broader assessment of the claims brought by others who do not fall within the complaint's class definition or of the claims available to the class against other possible defendants.” Id.

Continue reading "CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–In re Hannaford Bros.: First Circuit Affirms Remand Of Class Action Holding Home State Exception To CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Jurisdiction Applies" »

Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Multidistrict Litigation, Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Complaint Alleging Consumer Fraud/Deceptive Practices Based on Alleged Misrepresentation by McDonald’s as to Whether its Potato Products Contained Certain Allergens did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Individual Issues Predominate Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action against McDonald’s alleging “violations of all of the fifty states’ and the District of Columbia’s consumer fraud and/or deceptive trade practices acts, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment”; the class action complaint asserted that plaintiffs suffer from “certain medical conditions” and were deceived by McDonald’s as to the ingredients contained in its french fries and hash browns. In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, McDonald’s would par-fry (or blanch) its potato products “in an oil made of 99% vegetable oil and 1% natural beef flavor”; the beef flavor, in turn, contained “hydrolyzed wheat bran and hydrolyzed casein (a dairy product).” Id. McDonald’s would advertise its potato products, however, as “gluten, wheat, and dairy-free,” thus making McDonald’s representations (according to the class action) “at best incorrect, if not intentionally misleading” – claims that McDonald’s denied. Id., at 2. (However, McDonald’s later corrected its disclosures about its potato products.) Plaintiffs disclaimed any physical injury from eating the potato products but alleged economic harm in that they would not have purchased products with allergens (i.e., gluten, wheat or dairy) but for McDonald’s misrepresentations. Id. The class action sought to recover the “actual economic harm” suffered by the putative class – “(i.e., the purchase price of the Potato Products) based on the difference in value between the gluten, wheat, dairy, and allergy-free products plaintiffs wanted and the non-conforming products they actually received.” Id., at 2-3. Plaintiffs’ moved the district court to certify the litigation as a nationwide class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. Id., at 3-4. The district court determined that class action treatment was not warranted and therefore denied plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

Plaintiffs proposed to define the nationwide class to include “All persons residing in the United States…(i) who purchased Potato Products from McDonald’s restaurants on or after February 27, 2002 through February 7, 2006 and (ii) who at the time of purchase had 3 been medically diagnosed with celiac disease, galactosemia, autism and/or wheat, gluten or dairy allergies.” McDonald’s, at 4. After summarizing the Rule 23 requirements governing class action motions and noting the “broad discretion” afforded district courts in deciding whether to grant such motions, see id., at 3-4, the court noted that plaintiffs sought certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, which requires (in addition to the four elements set forth in Rule 23(a) of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation) that plaintiffs demonstrate “(1) common issues of law and fact predominate, and (2) a class action is superior to other forms of adjudication,” id., at 4 (citation omitted). But preliminarily, the district court observed that the proposed class is overly broad, as the definition includes people who never saw or heard anything from McDonald’s concerning whether the potato products were allergen free. Id., at 5. This was important given that none of the named plaintiffs suffered any physical reaction from eating McDonald’s potato products despite allergens, id., at 6. As the federal court concluded at pages 6 and 7, “It is fairly assumable…that many persons in the class as defined by plaintiffs have gone on eating defendant’s Potato Products since defendant corrected its disclosure. By any definition, these people have suffered no injury, not even the economic one claimed in this lawsuit.”

Continue reading "McDonald’s Class Action Defense Cases–In re McDonald’s French Fries: Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment Of Consumer Fraud Class Action Complaint Because Individual Issues Predominate Over Common Issues" »

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

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Separate Requests for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by Defendants, and Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of New York

Eight class actions – four in New Jersey, two in Illinois and one each in California and New York – were filed against various Bayer defendants “arising from Bayer’s marketing and sale of Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage or Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin Plus Calcium, or both.” In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the class action complaints, “Bayer marketed these products without approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration and deceived the plaintiffs and putative class members with respect to the safety and efficacy of the products.” Id., at 2. Class action plaintiffs filed three separate motions with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Id., at 1. Plaintiffs in the New York class action sought centralization in the Eastern District of New York; plaintiffs in the four New Jersey class actions and the two Illinois class actions originally sought centralization in their respective jurisdictions, but at oral argument they, too, supported centralization in the Eastern District of New York. Id. Plaintiffs in the California class action requested that the Panel defer ruling on the motions until the district court ruled on their motion to remand their class action to state court; alternatively, they requested centralization in the Southern District of California. Id. Defendants Bayer and Bayer Healthcare supported centralization of the class actions (including the California class action), and recommended transfer either to the Southern District of Illinois or Eastern District of New York. Id.

The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, agreeing that centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification issues; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” In re Bayer, at 1-2. The Panel agreed further that the Eastern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court, particularly given its wide support. Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel ordered the various class actions transferred to the Eastern District of New York, id.

Posted In: Class Actions In The News, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Motions by Plaintiffs in Class Actions Asserting Labor Law Violations Denied because Class Action Device not “Superior” means of Resolving Employees’ Claims given Bankruptcy Proceeding and because Lifting Stay to Allow Class Action Litigation to Proceed would Waste Defendants’ Resources and Distract from Reorganization Efforts New York Bankruptcy Court Holds

Certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Bally Total Fitness, which subsequently filed a petition for bankruptcy protection. In re Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc., 402 B.R. 616, 2009 WL 931537, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Plaintiffs in one of the class action lawsuits, the “Carrera” plaintiffs, “brought…a class action on behalf of thousands of employees” and alleged that Bally made employees work off-the-clock, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide timely itemized wage statements or final paychecks, and failed to reimburse business expenses. Id. Plaintiffs in another class action lawsuit, the “Flores” plaintiffs, “brought…a class action on behalf of Bally employees…for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods mandated by California law and failure to reimburse business expenses.” Id., at *2. The Flores class action was originally filed in California state court, but defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005), id. Bally’s employees had entered into a written agreement with the company, the “Bally Total Fitness Corporation Employment Dispute Resolution Procedure” (EDRP), which required that employment-related claims be submitted to arbitration and which contained a class action waiver provision such that employment claims were required to be arbitrated individually. Id. In Carrera, Bally lost a motion to compel arbitration of the individual claims, and appellate proceedings were stayed due to the bankruptcy filing; in Flores, Bally’s motion to compel arbitration of individual claims was pending when the company filed bankruptcy, so a decision on that motion was stayed. Id. Plaintiffs in the Carrera class action moved the bankruptcy court to (1) permit them to file a “class proof of claim,” and (2) lifting the automatic stay so the class action could proceed in state court in order to “liquidate” the claims or, alternatively, certifying the litigation as a class action. Id., at *1. Plaintiffs in the Flores class action moved the bankruptcy court to certify the litigation as a class action. Id. The bankruptcy court denied each motion.

With respect to the Carrera plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a class proof of claim, the bankruptcy court noted that there is “no absolute right to file a class proof of claim under the Bankruptcy Code.” In re Bally, at *2 (citations omitted). Rather, in deciding whether to permit the filing of a class proof of claim, bankruptcy courts consider “a) whether the class claimant moved to extend the application of Rule 23 to its proof of claim; b) whether ‘the benefits derived from the use of the class claim device are consistent with the goals of bankruptcy’; and c) whether the claims which the proponent seeks to certify fulfill the requirements of Rule 23.” Id. (citation omitted). The bankruptcy court denied the motion because plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate that the requested relief would both be consistent with the goals of bankruptcy and satisfy the Rule 23 requirements.” Id. In this regard, the Court explained that class proofs of claim are consistent with the goals of bankruptcy “in two principal situations: (i) where a class has been certified pre-petition by a non-bankruptcy court; and (ii) where there has been no actual or constructive notice to the class members of the bankruptcy case and Bar Date.” Id., at *3. As neither situation applied to either the Carrera or Flores class action complaints, the Court denied the motion to permit the filing of a class proof of claim. Id.

Continue reading "Bankruptcy Class Action Defense Cases–in re Bally Total Fitness: New York Bankruptcy Court Denies Motions By Class Action Plaintiffs To Permit Class Proof Of Claim, To Certify Class Actions Or To Lift Stay" »

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

District Court Erred in Dismissing FACTA Class Actions based on Conclusion that FCRA’s Statutory-Damages Provision was Unconstitutional Facially and As-Applied, Requiring Reversal of Court Order and Reinstatement of Class Actions Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed two separate class action complaints against Mexican Specialty Foods and Rave Motion Pictures alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which is part of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); the class action complaints asserted that the defendants willfully violated FACTA by providing customers with “electronically-generated receipt[s] [that] included more than the last five digits of the customer's card number and/or its expiration date.” Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 2009 WL 944201, *1-*2 (11th Cir. 2009). FACTA provides, in pertinent part, that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.” Id., at *1 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1)). Each class action sought statutory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a). Id., at *2. Defense attorneys in each class action moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the FCRA’s statutory-damages provision was unconstitutional, id.; the motion was directed toward that provision of the FCRA which authorizes the recovery of statutory damages “of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.” Id., at *1 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A)). The federal government intervened as a party-plaintiff to argue in favor of the statute’s constitutionality. Id., at *2. The district court issued a single order covering both class actions: the court order “declar[ed] the FCRA's statutory-damages provision unconstitutionally vague on its face and unconstitutionally excessive on its face and as applied to the defendants, in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.” Id. The district court therefore dismissed both class actions with prejudice, id. The plaintiffs in each class action appealed; the Eleventh Circuit consolidated the cases for purposes of appeal and reversed.

Reviewing the district court’s order de novo, the Eleventh Circuit first addressed whether the case “is ripe for adjudication,” that is, whether there is an actual case and controversy. Harris, at *3. This analysis required a determination of whether the district court found the statutory-damage provision unconstitutional on its face or as-applied, id. The Circuit Court held that the matter was ripe as to a facial challenge to the statute’s constitutionality, because the district court held that “the statute provides no guidance for juries in determining whether to award damages at the upper or lower end of the $100 to $1,000 statutory-damages range” thus leaving the amount of damages to be awarded “to the whim of the jury” creating the potential of inconsistent “willy nilly” verdicts. Id. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that the matter was not ripe for adjudication as to an as-applied challenge “[b]ecause such a challenge asserts that a statute cannot be constitutionally applied in particular circumstances, it necessarily requires the development of a factual record for the court to consider.” Id. (citation omitted). The district court’s ruling in this regard had been premised on a number of assumptions that the Circuit Court found to be unwarranted “because many of the court's assumptions required the resolution of issues which are directly disputed.” Id., at *4. The Court therefore concluded that an as-applied challenge was not ripe for adjudication, id., at *5.

Continue reading "FACTA Class Action Defense Cases–Harris v. Mexican Specialty: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of FACTA Class Actions Holding FCRA's Statutory-Damages Provision Not Unconstitutional" »

Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Complaint Alleging Breach of Contract Against MetLife Properly Dismissed because Four-Year Statute of Limitations Expired Long Before Plaintiffs Filed Class Action Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against their life insurer, Metropolitan Life, for breach of contract. Beavers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 436, 2009 WL 1067035, *1 (5th Cir. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, the insurance policies issued to plaintiffs, and managed by MetLife’s “Personal Insurance line of business” were investment vehicles as well as insurance policies, and called for MetLife’s policyholders “to receive dividends paid by Personal Insurance from the surplus accruing on their policies.” Id. The class action complaint alleged that MetLife “impermissibly allocate[ed] surplus profits from Personal Insurance to other lines of business.” Id. The class action thus alleged that MetLife “breached their investment contracts and deprived them of dividend income to which they were entitled.” Id. Plaintiffs filed the class action in 1998, and the district court certified the litigation as a class action in 2004. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the grounds that the claims were time-barred as they allegedly arose in the 1980s; the district court held that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations and dismissed the class action complaint. Id. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Apply de novo review and the substantive law of Texas, see Beavers, at *2, the Fifth Circuit began by noting that a four-year limitations period applies to breach of contract claims in Texas, id. As the statute of limitations plainly ran long before plaintiffs filed the class action complaint, the question was whether the discovery rule or American Pipe doctrine tolled the limitations period. Id. With respect to the discovery rule, the Circuit Court noted that Texas permits only a “very limited exception to statutes of limitations.” Id. (citation omitted). A preliminary inquiry is whether the injury is “inherently undiscoverable.” Id. The Fifth Circuit further noted that “no Texas court has found a breach of contract to qualify as inherently undiscoverable, yet the Texas Supreme Court has not foreclosed the possibility.” Id., at *3 (citation omitted). In rejecting plaintiffs’ effort to bring their case within the scope of the discovery rule, the Circuit Court held that it was insufficient for plaintiffs – who conceded that MetLife did not have a fiduciary relationship with them – to claim to be in a “special relationship of confidence and trust” with MetLife. Id. Under Texas law, in the absence of a fiduciary relationship “contracting parties must verify each other's performance.” Id. As a factual matter, the Court also held that plaintiffs could have discovered their alleged injury within the four-year limitations period, see id.<