In re Tobacco II Cases-Class Action Defense Cases: California Court Properly Denied Class Action Of CLRA Claims Against Tobacco Companies And Properly Decertified Class As To UCL Claims

Class Action Against Tobacco Companies for Labeling Cigarettes “Light” Allegedly to Mislead Smokers Into Believing They were Less Harmful Than Regular Cigarettes was not Superior Method of Resolution Because Individual Issues Would Predominate California Court Holds

In 1997, smokers filed a putative class action against numerous tobacco companies arising out of “marketing and advertising activities in California” and seeking “to recover economic losses resulting from purchasing cigarettes.” In re Tobacco II Cases, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 917, 919 (Cal.App. September 5, 2006). Eventually, in October 2000, the sole remaining plaintiff sought class certification of his seventh amended complaint, which a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim, an Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim, and a false advertising claim. Defense attorneys previously had persuaded the court to deny a motion to certify a class action on common law and CLRA claims because “individual issues of causation and injury predominate over common issues.” _Id._ The trial court refused to certify a class on the CLRA claim because it was an improper motion for reconsideration “and found that individual issues relating to causation, injury, reliance, materiality, exposure to the alleged misstatements, statutes of limitations, and choice of law predominate.” However, the court **_granted_** class certification as to the UCL and false advertising claims as they “do not require the individualized determinations as to reliance.” _Id._

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Schwab v. Phillip Morris-Class Action Defense Cases: New York Federal Court Certifies Class Action Against Tobacco Companies For Selling “Light” Cigarettes

Smokers Duped Into Believing that “Light” Cigarettes were Less Harmful New York Court Holds

As anticipated, Judge Jack Weinstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued his ruling this morning on the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action against Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Ligget Group, American Tobacco Co., Altria Group, and British American Tobacco, in a case that alleged the tobacco companies duped smokers into believing that “light” cigarettes were less harmful to them. Schwab v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 992 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). The court summarized the theory of the case at page 1018 as follows:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Intel Class Action Defense Case-Barbara’s Sales v. Intel: California Law Applies To Unfair Business Practice Class Action Against Intel And Nationwide Class Should Have Been Certified Illinois Court Holds

After Trial Court Held that Illinois Law Applies to Unfair Business Practice Class Action Against Intel and Certified Only a Statewide Class. Appellate Court Reversed and Held California Law Applies and Nationwide Class Should Have Been Certified

Purchasers of computers run by Intel’s Pentium 4 processors filed a nationwide class action in Illinois state court alleging claims for unfair business practices under California law and Illinois law based on the allegation that, contrary to its billion dollar marketing campaign, the Pentium 4 performed no better than the Pentium III. Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., __ N.E.2d __ (Ill.App. July 25, 2006). Defense attorneys opposed class certification in part on the grounds that Illinois law applied thus barring the two claims based on California law – one under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and one under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The trial court agreed that Illinois law applied and denied class certification on the California-law claims. The trial court also found that Illinois law “could not be applied to a nationwide class action” and so certified only a statewide class under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim. Slip Opn., at 4-5. The appellate court reversed, rejecting defense arguments that California law should not be applied.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Allstate Katrina Class Action Defense Case-Vaz v. Allstate: Mississippi Federal Court Denies Motion For Certification Of Class Action Against Allstate Based On Hurricane Katrina Claims

Becky Yerak of the Chicago Tribune reports that a federal district court has denied a request to certify a class action of Mississippi policyholders against Allstate Insurance Company arising out of the handling of Hurricane Katrina claims, agreeing with defense attorneys that “each contract is a separate transaction” and that “[t]he storm was vastly different in its effect depending on the specific geographic location of each particular home.” Yerak notes that less than a month ago another Mississippi federal court denies a motion for class-action certification in a lawsuit against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company by its policyholders arising out of the Hurricane Katrina claims.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Land Grantors v. United States: Over Defense Objection Federal Claims Court Certifies Only Third Class Action Under Revised RCFC 23

Court of Federal Claims Rejects Federal Government’s Defense Arguments and Certifies Class Action Under RCFC 23

On June 22, 2006, the Court of Federal Claims certified, over defense objections, only the third class action under RCFC 23 since the statute’s substantial revision in May 2002. Land Grantors in Henderson, Union & Webster Counties, Kentucky v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 614 (Ct. Cl. 2006). Briefly, the federal government acquired about 36,000 acres of land in Kentucky to establish what became Camp Breckinridge. Most of the land had been family farms, and it was acquired – either by settlement or jury verdict – after the government initiated condemnation proceedings. From 1942-1944, the government paid approximately $3.1 million for fee simple title to the land. In 1951, the government learned of gas and oil reserves on the property, and from 1957-1964 it realized more than $1.8 million in lease revenues. After Camp Breckinridge became inactive, in 1966 the governmental sold the coal rights for $7.4 million, and the gas, oil and mineral rights for almost $24.6 million. Former landowners claimed “they were paid nothing for their coal, gas, oil, and other mineral rights or a de minimus amount for existing leases when their land was condemned in 1942-1944.” Id., at 617-18. Still later, the government sold the surface rights to the condemned land for almost $6 million. Id., at 618. In 1993, Congress intervened. Id., at 618-19.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—Trevizo v. Adams: Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of § 1983 Class Action Claims Against City And Denial Of Class Certification

District Court did not Abuse Discretion in Denying Class Certification for Lack of Commonality and Numerosity even though Class Contained 84 Members and in Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment Tenth Circuit Holds

Thirty-three individuals filed a putative class action against Salt Lake City and certain law enforcement officers alleging “gross improprieties from the SWAT-style police raid” and setting forth “a litany of horrific facts to support their claims.” Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1158, 1159 (10th Cir. 2006). The district court denied a motion to certify the action as a class action, and subsequently granted a defense motion for summary judgment that dismissed all claims as to the ten plaintiffs who failed to appear for deposition. The court denied class certification based on numerosity and commonality. Id., at 1162. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

As to the defense summary judgment motion, the Circuit Court held that because plaintiffs did not appear for deposition “it was incumbent upon [them] to provide – at the very least – affidavits detailing what happened to them” but they didn’t. Trevizo, at 1160.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Boeing Class Action Defense Case-Carpenter v. Boeing: Federal District Court Orders In Labor Law Class Action Decertifying Subclass And Granting Defense Motion For Summary Judgment Affirmed By Tenth Circuit

Tenth Circuit Holds that Interlocutory Review of Class Certification Orders Must be Sought within 10 days of Initial Order, not Order Denying Reconsideration, and that Plaintiffs’ Statistical Evidence Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case of Disparate Impact Because Males may have Worked more Overtime Hours for Reasons Other than Gender

Female employees filed a putative employment class action in federal district court alleging Title VII Civil Rights Act sex discrimination against Boeing on theories of both disparate impact and disparate treatment. Following substantial litigation, that included class certification of certain subclasses, the district court granted a defense motion for summary judgment as to the “hourly” wages subclass “disparate impact” overtime claim. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling – which the district court certified as a final judgment under FRCP Rule 54(b) – and several other class-certification ruling. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006).

The Circuit Court began with the class certification rulings, noting that interlocutory appeal of class certification orders may be granted only if sought within 10 days of entry of the order. Carpenter, at 1189 (citing FRCP Rule 23(f)). In this appeal, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the district court granted in part and denied in part. Almost a year later, plaintiffs filed a “Renewed Motion for Class Certification”; the motion was denied. A few months later plaintiffs filed a “Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification”; this, too, was denied and plaintiffs filed their Rule 23(f) application within 10 days thereafter. Id., at 1188. Boeing argued that the application was untimely, id., at 1189; the Circuit Court agreed and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, id., at 1190-92.

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

Ford Motor Class Action Defense Cases-Daffin v. Ford Motor: Federal District Court Certification Of Class Action Over Defense Objection Not An Abuse Of Discretion Sixth Circuit Holds

Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court Order Granting Motion to Certify Class Action Against Car Manufacturer

On August 18, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court order certifying a nationwide class action against Ford Motor Company, arising out of an allegedly defective throttle body assembly in Mercury Villager minivans causing the accelerator to stick. Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. August 18, 2006). Plaintiff filed suit in state court on her own behalf because the accelerator in her 1999 Villager would get stuck even after Ford repairs to the throttle body assembly. Ford removed the action to federal court, and plaintiff’s lawyer sought certification of a nationwide class action, apparently under Rule 23(b)(2). The district court instead certified a statewide class under Rule 23(b)(3), because the class action complaint sought monetary rather than injunctive relief. Id., at 551-52. Defense attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order under FRCP Rule 23(f). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and rejecting defense arguments that “this is a case of ‘certify now, worry later.’” Id., at 552.

Defense attorneys argued that because it provided a “repair or replace” warranty to car purchasers, certain class members may never suffer the damage alleged in the complaint. The Sixth Circuit summarized Ford’s argument as follows: “because the class as a whole cannot recover, the district court abused its discretion by certifying a statewide express warranty class.” Id., at 552. Plaintiff countered that Ford was seeking a ruling “on the merits” and that ultimate success is not a proper basis for denying class certification. Id. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “[plaintiff] has the better of the arguments at this stage of the litigation.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Saxton v. Title Max: Certification Of Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class Action Denied For Failure To Demonstrate That Class Members Desired To Opt-In And That Plaintiffs Are Similarly Situated Alabama Court Holds

Defense Attorneys for Employer Successfully Defeat Plaintiff Lawyer’s Motion to Conditionally Certify Class on Grounds that Employees Failed to Meet Eleventh Circuit’s Two-Part Dybach Test

Employees filed a putative class action alleging overtime pay violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Saxton v. Title Max of Alabama, Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 1185 (N.D. Ala. 2006). Over defense objections, the employees sought conditional class certification and permission to send notice of the class action to class members. The lawsuit alleged that the employer’s assistant managers were systematically denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, id., at 1186, despite the fact that the employer “has a policy, which store managers are directed to enforce, that assistant managers are not to work over 40 hours in a week,” id., at 1188. The district court agreed with class action defense attorneys that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the two-part test enunciated in Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 942 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1991), and therefore denied the motion.

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

Class Action Defense Cases-Richards v. Delta Air Lines: Denial Of Class Certification Proper Because Lawsuit Predominantly Sought Monetary Damages And Did Not Involve Common Questions Of Law Or Fact D.C. Circuit Holds

Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action Against Airline that Alleged Warsaw Convention did not Limit Liability for Lost or Damaged Baggage Because Action did not Satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(b)(3)

Following the loss of a single piece of luggage on an international flight, plaintiff filed a putative class action against the airline alleging that she was entitled to the fair market value of the luggage and its contents, not the “maximum reimbursement” amount Delta calculated was due under the Warsaw Convention (now superseded). Richards v. Delta Air Line, Inc., 453 F.3d 525, 526 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In essence, the complaint alleged that because Delta did not “as a matter of practice” record the weight of the luggage on passenger luggage tickets, the defense could not rely upon the Warsaw Convention. Id., at 526-27. Plaintiff’s lawyer moved for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and later alternatively sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Id., at 527-28. But while the district court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) had been met, it refused to certify a class because the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) had not been met. With respect to Rule 23(b)(2), the court held that class certification “is not appropriate where plaintiff’s claims are predominantly monetary relief,” and found further that the class action complaint essentially sought payment of monetary damages despite the fact that it sought a declaratory judgment. Id., at 528. And with respect to Rule 23(b)(3), the district court held that Delta’s “accord and satisfaction” defense would require “the application of varying state laws and a case-by-case factual inquiry,” thereby defeating a claim that common questions of law or fact predominate. Id. Reviewing the judgment “for abuse of discretion or legal error,” id., at 530, the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized