Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

As a resource to California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from September 24 – 30, 2010, during which time 54 new class actions were filed in these California state and federal courts. Labor law class actions often account for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts, but recently this has not proven to be true. For the last reporting period, only 12 new labor law class actions were filed, representing a relatively low 33% of the total number of new class actions filed; during this reporting period, only 22 new labor law class actions were filed, representing only 41% of the total number of new labor law class actions that were filed. And again, the only other categories to break the 10% threshold involved claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which includes false advertising claims, with 14 new filings (representing 26% of the total number of new class actions filed), and alleged violations of federal securities laws, with 6 new filings (representing 11% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of cases against which they will have to defend in California, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from September 17 – 23, 2010, during which time an unusually low number of new class actions — only 36 — were filed in these California state and federal courts. Labor law class actions generally top this list, often account for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts. This past week, however, only 12 new labor law class actions were filed, representing a relatively low 33% of the total number of new class actions filed. The only other categories to break the 10% threshold involved claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which includes false advertising claims, with 7 new filings (representing 19% of the total number of new class actions filed), and alleged violations of federal securities laws, with 6 new filings (representing 17% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

As a resource to California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from September 10 – 16, 2010, during which time an unusually high number of new class actions — 64 — were filed in these California state and federal courts. While labor law class actions often account for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts, this has not been true of late. This past week, however, labor law class action filings returned with a vengeance. During this reporting period, 42 new labor law class actions were filed, representing a remarkable 66% of the total number of new class actions filed. No other category managed to break the 10% threshold this past week.

Published on:

To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of cases against which they will have to defend in California, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from September 3 – 9, 2010, during which time 42 new class actions were filed in these California state and federal courts. Labor law class actions often account for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts, but during this past week only 16 new labor law class actions were filed, representing a remarkably low 38% of the total number of new class actions filed. The only other categories to break the 10% threshold involved claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which includes false advertising claims, with 8 new filings (representing 19% of the total number of new class actions filed), and alleged violations of federal securities laws, with 5 new filings (representing 12% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

As a resource for California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from August 27 – September 2, 2010, during which time 53 new class actions were filed in these California state and federal courts. Labor law class actions generally take the top spot as they often account for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts. But during this past week, only 21 new labor law class actions were filed, representing a comparatively low 40% of the total number of new class actions filed. The only other categories to break the 10% threshold involved claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which includes false advertising claims, with 14 new filings (representing 26% of the total number of new class actions filed), and alleged violations of federal securities laws, with 8 new filings (representing 15% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of claims against which they will have to defend in California, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from August 20 – 26, 2010, during which time 56 new class actions were filed in these California state and federal courts. While labor law class actions often account for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts, this past week only 26 new labor law class actions were filed, representing 46% of the total number of new class actions filed. The only other categories to break the 10% threshold involved claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which includes false advertising claims, with 13 new filings (representing 23% of the total number of new class actions filed), and alleged violations of federal securities laws, with 8 new filings (representing 14% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

As a resource to California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from August 13 – 19, 2010, during which time 56 new class actions were filed in these California state and federal courts. Labor law class actions generally top the list often accounting for more than half of all new class actions filed in these courts, but a surge in ADA class action filings coupled with balanced filings among several other categories caused employment-related class action cases to fall below 50%. During this reporting period, 22 new labor law class actions were filed, representing only 39% of the total number of new class actions filed. The only other category to break the 10% threshold involved claims under the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA), with 16 new filings (representing 29% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of cases against which they will have to defend in California, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from August 6 – 12, 2010, during which time 48 new class actions were filed in these California state and federal courts. Labor law class actions often account for more than half of all class actions filed in any particular week, and during this reporting period 27 new class actions (representing 56% of the total number of new class actions filed). The only other category to break the 10% threshold involved California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which includes false advertising with 11 new filings (representing 23% of the total number of new class actions filed).

Published on:

Distribution of Unclaimed Class Action Settlement Funds to Non-Profit Organization Unconnected to Harm Suffered by Class Members Inappropriate Massachusetts Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against American Tower Corp. alleging violations of federal securities laws and purported to be brought on behalf of “members of the public who were harmed by the securities fraud.” In re American Tower Corp. Securities Litig., 648 F.Supp.2d 223, 224-25 (D.Mass. 2010). Eventually, the parties negotiated a settlement of the class action which provided for the distribution of unclaimed funds through a cy pres fund. Id., at 224. Lead Plaintiff moved the district court for authorization to distribute the cy pres funds “to The Peggy Browning Fund, a private, nonsectarian, not-for-profit organization with 501(c)(3) tax-deductible status.” Id. The federal court denied the motion because plaintiff sought “to disburse settlement funds to a non-profit organization with little connection to the harms class members suffered,” id. Because the author has received numerous inquiries from defense and plaintiff counsel concerning the proper scope of a cy pres fund, we include this article on the district court’s ruling.

The district court noted that the proper inquiry was to “determine whether the Peggy Browning Fund is an appropriate recipient of any residual settlement funds” of the class action settlement. In re American Tower Corp., at 224. The court explained that the purpose of the use of a cy pres fund is effect a distribution of class action settlement funds “to a ‘next-best’ recipient” when it is impractical to distribute the settlement funds to the class members. Id., at 224-25 (citing In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litig., 268 F.3d 619, 626 (8th Cir.2001)). “‘In such cases, the court, guided by the parties’ original purpose, directs that the unclaimed funds be distributed for the prospective benefit of the class.’” Id. (citation omitted). The federal court easily concluded, then, that the Peggy Browning Fund was “an inappropriate recipient of any unclaimed class funds.” Id. “Disbursement of unclaimed funds must have some relationship to the harm suffered by class members…. However, the Peggy Browning Fund focuses on labor issues…. Therefore, it does not appear that funds donated to the Peggy Browning Fund would benefit the class or address the harms suffered by class members.Id. (italics added). The district court therefore denied the motion, without prejudice to Lead Plaintiff renewing the request and noting that Lead Plaintiff “should, if possible, propose a national organization whose work relates to the harm suffered by class members in this case.” Id.

NOTE: The author notes that trial courts are far too willing to authorize the distribution of cy pres funds to practically any organization. In such cases, the courts appear to be more interested in punishing the defendant than in effecting a distribution of funds to the “next-best” recipient.

Download PDF file of In re American Tower Corp. Securities Litigation

Published on:

Following Removal of Class Action to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act), Plaintiffs Decision to Amend Complaint to Eliminate Class Action Allegations did not Destroy Federal Court Jurisdiction because Jurisdiction is Determined at Time of Removal and is not Affected by Subsequent Events Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Wisconsin state court against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation alleging that defendants’ “failure to inspect and maintain a railroad trestle caused the town to flood in July 2007, damaging their property.” In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 606 F.3d 379, 379-80 (7th Cir. 2010). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act); plaintiffs then amended the complaint to remove the class action allegations and the district court remanded the matter to state court on the ground that without the class action allegations federal court jurisdiction was lacking under CAFA. Id., at 379. Id. Defense attorneys sought leave to appeal the remand order; the Seventh Circuit granted the petition and reversed.

The Seventh Circuit noted that “the parties battled extensively over jurisdiction” in the district court. In re Burlington, at 380. Defense attorneys argued diversity jurisdiction existed because the joinder of the non-diverse individual employee defendants was fraudulent, but the district court found it to be tactical rather than fraudulent. Id. The district court agreed, however, that jurisdiction existed under CAFA, and denied plaintiffs’ first motion to remand. Id. Plaintiffs thereafter sought and obtained leave of court to amend the complaint to remove the class action allegations. Id. The federal court also considered the motion to amend to be “an implied motion to remand the case, which it granted.” Id. In the district court’s view, because the amended complaint did not contain any class action allegations, jurisdiction under CAFA no longer existed. Id.

Continue reading