FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-Rubery v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige: New York Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Alleging Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) As Premature

Motion to Dismiss Class Action Based on Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff Premature Because Court had not yet Ruled on Plaintiff Motion to Certify Class Action New York District Court Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against her employer, Buth-Na-Bodhaige, for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) arising out of its alleged failure to pay managers overtime and misclassification of its managers as “exempt” employees. Rubery v.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Blackwell v. SkyWest: California Federal Court Refuses To Certify Labor Law Class Action Against Airline

Class Action Treatment of Labor Law Violation Claims not Warranted because Individual Issues Predominate over Common Issues thus Failing to Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California state court against her employer, SkyWest Airlines alleging violations of various state labor laws including failure to pay overtime and failure to provide and/or compensate for meal breaks. Blackwell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, Slip Opn., at 2 (S.D. Cal. August 30, 2007). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), _id._ Plaintiff filed a motion with the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._, at 1, seeking to represent five classes, _id._, at 4; the district court agreed with defense attorneys that class action treatment would be inappropriate and denied the motion.

The district court readily concluded that the proposed classes, consisting of an estimated 2600 members, satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), Blackwell, at 5-6, and that plaintiff had established the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) for each proposed class, id., at 6-9. The federal court additionally found that plaintiff would adequately represent the proposed classes within the meaning of Rule 23(a)(4), id., at 13-14. However, the typicality test of Rule 23(a)(3) proved more problematic. The district court agreed with defense attorneys that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the class action claim alleging inaccurate wage statements under Labor Code § 226(a) because she failed to file her class action complaint within one year of her last wage statement. Id., at 10-11. The court further found that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her class action allegation based on voluntary shift trades, id., at 11-12.

Turning to the requirements of Rule 23(b), the district court noted that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has adopted an ‘extremely conservative view’ [with respect to Rule 23(b)(1)], requiring a finding that either ‘(1) rulings in separate actions would subject defendant to incompatible judgments requiting inconsistent conduct to comply with the judgment; or (2) a ruling in the first of a series of separate actions will “inescapably alter the substance of the rights of others having similar claims.”’” Blackwell, at 15 (citation omitted). The court agreed with defense attorneys that plaintiff failed to establish that either test had been met, id., at 15-16. The federal court next held that a Rule 23(b)(2) class action would be inappropriate because the monetary relief sought by the class action complaint was not “merely incidental to the injunctive relief sought.” Id., at 16.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Vioxx Class Action Defense Cases-Int’l Union v. Merck: New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Certification Of Nationwide Vioxx Class Action Holding That Common Questions Of Fact Or Law Do Not Predominate And Class Action Not Superior Means For Redress

Trial Court Erred in Certifying Nationwide Class Action Against Merck Arising out of Sale of Vioxx because Class Action Treatment is not Superior to Other Avenues of Redress and because Defense Correctly Argued that Common Questions of Fact or Law do not Predominate New Jersey Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiff – “a joint union-employer Taft-Hartley trust fund” that “acts as a party to benefit contracts, a policy issuer, and a sponsor of health benefit plans that provide prescription drug coverage for its members and beneficiaries” and “is therefore a third-party payor, meaning that it makes payments to pharmaceutical companies for prescription medications for those for whom its benefit plans afford coverage” – filed a putative class action in New Jersey state court against Merck arising out of its manufacture and sale of Vioxx. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., ___ A.2d __, Slip Opn., at 6 (N.J. Sept. 6, 2007). Specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Merck engaged in a “wide-ranging fraudulent marketing scheme” to sell Vioxx, with the class action alleging that Merck “marketed its product as a safer and more effective alternative to other traditional pain medications, thus driving the price of its product substantially higher than the price charged for similar medications.” _Id._, at 6-7. The class action further alleged that Merck continued to make these marketing representations “through an aggressive marketing campaign” after it knew that Vioxx “was neither more effective nor safer than other available products.” _Id._, at 7. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking certification of a nationwide class action against Merck; the trial court rejected defense attorney arguments against class action treatment and granted plaintiff’s motion. _Id._, at 4-5. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed.

The interest plaintiff had in pursuing a putative nationwide class action is summarized below (see Note). “Central to plaintiff’s class action assertions is its argument that defendant engaged in a fraudulent marketing campaign that induced, or was intended to induce, all third-party payors to accord Vioxx preferred status in their formularies.” Merck, at 12-13. Defense attorneys argued that this “amounts to nothing more than a ‘fraud on the market’ theory that cannot be sustained in accordance with [New Jersey] law.” Id., at 13. The trial court order certifying a nationwide class action was affirmed by the New Jersey Appellate Division, id., at 4-5, but the Supreme Court reversed.

After summarizing New Jersey law on class actions, see Merck, at 14-18, and the findings of the trial court and appellate court on the topics of predominance and superiority, including choice of law, id., at 18-21, the Supreme Court turned to the defense arguments that predominance and superiority were not met, id., at 22. With respect to predominance, the defense conceded that there were “some common questions” in that “[Merck’s] marketing plan and withholding of adverse information did not vary as among potential consumers” and the “facts as they relate to the FDA warning letters or the drug’s eventual withdrawal from the market” were the same. Id., at 22. The Supreme Court explained, however, that in New Jersey the consumer fraud statute does not require a showing of reliance but does require a showing of an “ascertainable loss.” Id., at 23-24. While plaintiff urged the Court to consider generally that Merck’s marketing scheme was the same for all class members, the Supreme Court rejected this limited view of predominance, explaining at pages 26 and 27:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons: Eleventh Circuit Holds That Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) Class Action May Be Certified Independent Of FLSA Class Action Claims

Where Class Action Asserted Claims Under Both Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), District Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Certifying AWPA “Opt-Out” Class Action After Conditionally Certifying FLSA “Opt-In” Class Action Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs, migrant workers hired under the H2-B non-immigrant visa program, filed a class action in Georgia federal court against Eller & Sons Trees alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2456206, *1 (11th Cir. August 31, 2007). Plaintiffs sought class action treatment of their AWPA claims, but the district court denied the motion without prejudice; plaintiffs also sought preliminary certification of a class action under the FLSA, which the district court granted. _Id._ After conducting additional discovery, and after receiving only 5 “opt-in” requests from among the 1800 notices sent under the FLSA class action, plaintiffs again sought certification of a class action for the AWPA claims. _Id._ The district court granted the motion and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) “opt out” class action under the AWPA, _id._ Specifically, the district court certified a class action on behalf of more than 1,500 migrant workers admitted to the United States under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program, and sub-class of migrant workers who pledged collateral with Eller & Sons’ agents in order to obtain employment. _Id._, at *2. Defense attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal but the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment.

Eller & Sons is a small Georgia company that provides reforestation and forestry services; most of its employees plant trees throughout the southern U.S. from December through February. Eller hires people from Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico under the H2-B non-immigrant visa program, and is required to pay hourly wages as determined by the State Workforce Agency (SWA). De Leon-Granados, at *1. The class action complaint alleges that Eller was to pay an average hourly rate of $8.32, well above the federal minimum wage rate, but that it failed to do so. Id. The defense objected to class action treatment, arguing that a collective action under the FLSA would be a superior method of addressing the AWPA claims, but the district court disagreed. Id., at *2. The district court further found that plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for class actions under Rule 23, id. The appellate court reviewed that ruling for abuse of discretion, id.

Defense attorneys first argued that the AWPA claims were premised on violations of the FLSA and “must therefore be adjudicated as an opt-in collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) instead of an opt-out Rule 23(b)(3) class action.” De Leon-Granados, at *2-*3. Under the FLSA, class members must affirmatively elect to “opt in” to the class action, but under Rule 23(b)(3) “all qualifying class members become party-plaintiffs unless they opt out of the action.” Id., at *3 (citations omitted). After rejecting defense claims that “the workers’ AWPA claims are truly FLSA claims in disguise,” the Eleventh Court concluded that the statutory language of the AWPA indicates Congressional intent to allow such claims to be brought as Rule 23 class actions. Id. The Circuit Court concluded at page *3, “If Congress intended § 216(b) to be the exclusive remedy for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions, it would have also said so.” It therefore held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying an AWPA class action, id. (The author notes that there is case law holding that it is improper to certify “opt in” and “opt out” classes as part of the same action, but it does not appear that defense attorneys asserted this objection.)

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-Parker v. Rowland: Minnesota District Court Adopts Eleventh Circuit Holding That Conditional Class Action Certification Of FLSA Class Action Requires Proof That Other Class Members Want To Opt In

As Matter of First Impression in Eighth Circuit, Plaintiff in FLSA Class Action must Establish that Other “Similarly Situated” Putative Class Members Desire to “Opt In” to the Lawsuit as a Prerequisite to Conditional Class Certification Minnesota District Court Holds

Two former truck drivers filed suit against regional package delivery company Rowland Express for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and Minnesota and Iowa state law, alleging that Rowland improperly classified its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. Parker v. Rowland Express, Inc., 492 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1162-63 and n.1 (D.Minn. 2007). Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court conditionally certify a class action under FLSA (technically a “collective action”) so that other Rowland employees may be provided an opportunity to “opt in” to the putative class action. Id., at 1162. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, arguing Eleventh Circuit precedent that conditional class certification requires a showing that other class members desire to “opt in” to the lawsuit. The district court denied the motion, holding as a matter of first impression in the Eighth Circuit that conditional class action certification and notice to putative class members is not warranted absent evidence that other similarly situated class members wish to join the action.

The class action complaint alleged that Rowland previously classified its drivers as “employees” and paid them overtime, but that after it became affiliated with DHL it changed the classification of its drivers to “independent contractors” and ceased paying overtime. Parker, at 1162-63. After conducting limited discovery, plaintiffs moved for an order conditionally certifying a FLSA class action on the grounds that plaintiffs “are ‘informed and believe’ that other drivers worked in excess of 40 hours per week and did not receive overtime compensation.” Id., at 1163. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, arguing in part that plaintiffs “failed to show that other ‘similarly situated’ individuals desire to opt in to this litigation,” id.

After discussing FLSA class actions and the FLSA’s requirement that the other employees be “similarly situated” to the plaintiffs but failure to define that term, see Parker, at 1163-64, the district court described the two-stage process generally followed in determining whether the plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to other putative class members: the first stage, known as the “notice stage,” involves a preliminarily determination “usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted” as to whether notice of the class action should be provided in order to give putative class members an opportunity to “opt in”; the second stage involves a more in-depth analysis by the court into whether the plaintiffs are in fact similarly situated to the putative class, id., at 1164. At the first stage, the plaintiffs’ burden “is not onerous” but neither is it “invisible,” id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Arias v. Superior Court: California Court Holds State Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Representative Claims Must Be Brought As Class Action Because UCL Suits Must Comply With Class Action Statute

Because California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Requires Compliance With State’s Class Action Statutes, UCL Representative Claims Must be Brought as Class Action Lawsuits California Court Holds, but PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) Representative Actions under Labor Code need not Satisfy Class Action Pleading Requirements Plaintiff filed suit in California state court against his employer, Angelo Dairy, and others alleging, inter alia, that he was not paid overtime and did not receive meal and rest breaks required by law; the action purported to be a representative action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) contained in the state’s labor code.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Gonzales v. Arrow Financial: California Federal Court Holds Debt Collection Letter Violated FDCPA And California Rosenthal Act And Denies Defense Motion To Decertify Class Action

Federal Court Holds Least Sophisticated Debtor would be Misled by Language in Debt Collection Letter thus Entitling Plaintiff in FDCPA Class Action to Summary Judgment and Finds Fact Plaintiff was not Misled Irrelevant to its Decision or to Defense Motion to Decertify Class Action

Plaintiff filed a class action in California federal court against Arrow Financial Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its state-law equivalent, California’s Rosenthal Act, in that debt collection letters sent by defendant failed to comply with the applicable laws. Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC, 489 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1143 (S.D. Cal. 2007). The class action complaint was premised on the following language in defendant’s “form collection letters”: “Upon receipt of the settlement amount and clearance of funds, and if we are reporting the account, the appropriate credit bureaus will be notified that this account has been settled.” Id. Plaintiff alleged this violated the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act because the debt underlying defendant’s collection effort had been charged off more than 7 years ago and “a credit bureau cannot report a debt charged off more than 7 years previously,” id. An unsophisticated consumer thus may be misled by the form letter into believing that “payment or nonpayment of the claimed debt may impact the consumer’s credit reporting, when that is not true.” Id., at 1143-44. After the district court certified the lawsuit as a class action, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and defense attorneys moved to decertify the class, id., at 1144. The district court denied both defense motions, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

After summarizing the FDCPA and the “least sophisticated debtor” standard applied in the Ninth Circuit, Arrow, at 1146, a determination made by the court, not a jury, measured by an “objective standard,” id., and after setting forth the relevant section of the Rosenthal Act, id. (quoting Cal. Civil Code, § 1788.13(f)), the district court turned to the defense motion for summary judgment. Defense attorneys argued that the debt collection letters did not violate the FDCPA or the Rosenthal Act because the letters are not false or misleading – the letters did not “illegally threaten[] any action” or mislead or deceive anyone, and “Arrow does not have a policy to report debts such as plaintiff’s debts to the credit bureaus and in no way seeks to use credit reporting as a means to illegally collect debts.” Id., at 1147. The defense also relied on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that (1) he knew he did not have to pay the debt and that Arrow would not report such a failure to credit bureaus, and (2) he was not confused by the letter he received from Arrow, id. The federal court noted that it had already found the letters to be misleading or deceptive because “without any explanation detailing what debts are likely to be reported or even if the subject debt is one that is reportable, ‘the least sophisticated debtor could likely believe his [or her] debt is reportable just because the letters indicate the credit bureaus will be notified’” and that even though the letters did not expressly threaten to contact credit bureaus they implied that “the status of the debt may have already been or may, at some later date, be submitted to the credit bureaus” and that such conduct “is actionable under the Act.” Id., at 1148 n.1.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

UCL Class Action Defense Cases- Akkerman v. Mecta Corp.: California Court Upholds Denial Of Class Action Treatment For Class Action Complaint Premised On False Advertising/Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Violations

Putative Class Action Alleging False Advertising Against Manufacturer did not Warrant Class Action Treatment Because Proposed Class was Overly Broad, not Readily Ascertainable, Plaintiff was not an Adequate Class Representative, Commonality was not Shown as Individual Issues would Predominate over Common Questions, and Class Action Device was not Superior Method of Resolving Dispute California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California state court against Mecta Corporation, the manufacturer of an electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) machine, alleging violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on false advertising. Akkerman v. Mecta Corp., Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 1094, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 39, 42 (Cal.App. 2007). Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued that class action treatment was inappropriate for a litany of reasons. The trial court agreed with defense attorneys and refused to certify a class action finding that plaintiff “did not establish the elements for class certification; did not adequately define an ascertainable class; did not show that he could represent it; and did not demonstrate a sufficient community of interest among the class members.” Id. Further, class action treatment was inappropriate because “[t]he factual issues pertaining to each class member’s tort restitution claim predominate over common questions of law and fact for the class.” Id. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

In 1999, plaintiff began receiving ECT treatments to address severe depression; plaintiff filed a putative class action against Mecta in federal court claiming that the electric shocks resulted in memory loss and impaired cognitive functioning. Akkerman, at 42. The class action claims alleged violations of California’s UCL, and the federal court remanded the class action causes of action to state court, id., at 43. Ultimately, the federal court ruled in favor of the defense on the remaining causes of action, id. Plaintiff also filed a state-court lawsuit against his doctor, id., at 42-43, but that, too, ultimately resulted in judgment for the defense, id., at 43. What remained, then, was plaintiff’s state-court UCL class action complaint against Mecta, which was premised on the allegations that his doctor “falsely represented” that the ECT treatments were “not harmful” based on “false information provided to him by Mecta.” Id., at 43-44.

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification defined the class as “all members of the public who have received shock treatment in California from MECTA devices after September of 1997.” Akkerman, at 44. The trial court agreed with the defense that class action treatment was not warranted, and “denied the motion ‘based on the inability to determine the class, and for failure to show other elements necessary for class certification.’” Id. Plaintiff then filed a motion asking the trial court to order hospitals that were not parties to the lawsuit to notify their patients that had received ECT treatments of the putative class action: the trial court initially granted the motion, but reversed that decision after an appellate court issued an alternative writ of mandate, id. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to certify a class action and in refusing to order hospitals to give the pre-certification notice he requested. Each of these claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion, id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re WorldCom: Second Circuit Reverses Judgment In Favor Of Defense Holding That Class Action Lawsuits Tolled Statutes Of Limitation For Claims By Putative Class Members Who Filed Individual Actions

District Court Erred in Denying American Pipe Tolling to Individual Plaintiffs who had Filed Lawsuits Prior to Court Ruling on Class Certification Motion in Securities Class Action, because as Matter of First Impression Class Action Complaint Tolled Statute of Limitations even as to Claims by all Putative Class Members Regardless of Whether They had Filed Individual Lawsuits Second Circuit Holds

Hundreds of individual and class action lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against WorldCom and various bond underwriters, each of which ultimately found their way to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In re WorldCom Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 245, 2007 WL 2127874, *1 (2d Cir. 2007). After the district court certified a class action, defense attorneys for certain bond underwriters moved to dismiss the individual actions on the ground that they were time-barred because they had been added as named defendants after the limitations period had expired, id. Plaintiffs argued that the limitations period was tolled as to later-named defendants even though they had filed individual actions prior to a court ruling on whether to certify a class action, id. The district court agreed with defense attorneys, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were not tolled. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that even though plaintiffs had filed their individual lawsuits prior to the district court’s ruling on class certification, their claims were tolled under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), during the pendency of the class action litigation.

The district court summarized the facts underlying this litigation as follows: “For many years, WorldCom grew by acquisitions. By 1998, it had acquired more than sixty companies in transactions valued at over $70 billion…. In early 2000, however, its attempt to acquire Sprint collapsed. During this period of acquisition-driven expansion, WorldCom had used accounting devices to inflate its reported earnings. Senior WorldCom management instructed personnel in the company’s controller’s office on a quarterly basis to falsify WorldCom’s books to reduce WorldCom’s reported costs and thereby to increase its reported earnings. When the pace of acquisitions slowed, it added new strategies to disguise a decline in its revenues. In 2002, however, the scheme collapsed.” In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 392, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). In April 2002, the first class action lawsuit was filed against WorldCom, and a few months later, on June 25, “WorldCom admitted publicly that it had previously issued false and misleading financial statements” and that “it had overstated earnings and had falsely reported ordinary costs as capital expenditures.” In re WorldCom, 2007 WL 2127874 at *2. Soon after making these admissions WorldCom filed bankruptcy. Id. These admissions spawned dozens of securities class action lawsuits – transferred in August 2002 to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation – and hundreds of individual lawsuits. Id. Between July 2002 and October 2003, more than 100 pension funds filed individual lawsuits against WorldCom in state courts; the actions were ultimately removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) by virtue of WorldCom’s bankruptcy filing; in May 2003, these individual actions were consolidated with the class actions id.

A state-court class action was filed on April 21, 2003, in Alaska state court against several underwriters of WorldCom bonds; the class action was removed to the Southern District of New York in August 2003, and the following month, on September 24, 2003, the class action complaint was amended to name additional bond underwriters as defendants, among these the “Caboto defendants,” for violations of § 11 of the Securities Act but these allegations were “not based on fraud, but rather on negligence and strict liability for registration statements containing untrue statements of material fact.” In re WorldCom, 2007 WL at *3.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Schulz v. Neovi Data: California Court Affirms Defense Judgment In Class Action As To Certain Defendants But Grants Plaintiff Leave To Amend Class Action Claims Against Other Defendants

Following Defense Judgment in Class Action Complaint for Aiding and Abetting Intentional Tort, California Court Affirms as to PayPal and Neovi Defendants but Holds Plaintiff is Entitled to Opportunity to Amend as to PaySystems and Ginix Defendants

Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in California state court against Neovi Data Corporation, Ginix, PaySystems and PayPal, alleging that they aided and abetted the operation of an illegal lottery. Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp., 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 810, 812-13 (Cal.App. 2007). The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended class action complaint without leave to amend, id., at 812. The appellate court affirmed the judgment as to Neovi and PayPal, but reversed as to Ginix and PaySystems, concluding that plaintiff should be given an additional opportunity to amend the class action complaint in an effort to state a claim against those defendants, id., at 812-13.

The second amended class action complaint alleged that defendant EZ Expo operated an Internet site that purportedly provided consumers the chance to “receive expensive electronic products for a fraction of the price” but requires that participants “pay[] a fee to enter a ‘matrix’” and that other consumers “join the ‘matrix’ after him.” Schulz, at 813. The class action alleged that to get a $5500, 50-inch plasma television at EZ’s website, a consumer “enters the plasma television matrix by purchasing the required three ‘E-books’ for $150” and their name is then “placed on the list of those eligible to receive the television.” Id. According to the class action complaint, “[W]hen 50 persons have each paid $150, the first person to enter will receive the plasma television ‘for free’ and his name is removed from the list.” Id. The appellate court explained at page 813 that once a participant gets the TV then “the second name on the list moves to the top and 50 more people need to enter for that person to receive the television.” Plaintiff alleged further that EZ “encourage[d] participants to recruit others to enter the matrix.” Id. The complaint alleged that the E-books themselves have “minimal” value and that EZ sold millions of dollars in E-books. Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized