Class Action Defense Cases–County of Nassau v. Hotels.Com: Second Circuit Remands Class Action For Consideration In First Instance Of Propriety Of Class Action Treatment Is Appropriate

Class Action Alleging Failure to Online Hotel Room Reseller to Pay Proper Occupancy Taxes, Dismissed by District Court for Failure of County to Comply with Administrative Process for Assessing and Collecting Taxes, Remanded for District Court Consideration of Whether Class Action Certification is Appropriate Second Circuit Holds Plaintiff County of Nassau filed a putative class action against Hotels.Com alleging failure to pay the proper hotel occupancy taxes. County of Nassau v.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Rynearson v. Motricity: Washington Federal Court Again Remands Class Action To State Court Holding CAFA Jurisdiction Not Met And “Other Paper” Does Not Include Pleadings In Unrelated Action

Class Action Improperly Removed to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) because Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel in Unrelated Lawsuit Against Different Defendant was Insufficient to Establish $5 Million Amount in Controversy and, in Any Event, did not Constitute an “Other Paper” within Meaning of Removal Statute, Warranting Remand of Class Action and Award of Attorney Fees and Costs for Frivolous Removal Washington Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Washington state court against Motricity alleging violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendant “facilitated placing unauthorized charges for mobile content on customers’ bills.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Hicks v. Client Services: Florida Federal Court Denies Motion To Decertify Class Action Holding De Minimis Recovery Does Not Defeat Rule 23(b)’s Superiority Requirement

Class Action Alleging Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Properly Certified as Class Action despite De Minimis Recovery for Class Members Florida Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Client Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); plaintiff moved to certify the litigation as a class action, and the district court agreed that class action treatment was warranted under Rule 23. Hicks v. Client Services, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 699, 700 (S.D.Fla. 2009). Defense attorneys moved to decertify the litigation as a class action, arguing that in light of the statutory cap on damages awardable under FDCPA class actions, the de minimis recovery awaiting class members defeated the “superiority” prong of class certification. Id. Specifically, the FDCPA caps damages in class actions to “the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B). Defendant asserted that its net worth was only $15 million, and that the putative class contained more than 122,000 members: “Thus, should Plaintiff class prevail, the maximum recovery per class member would be $1.24.” Id. (footnote omitted). Plaintiff countered that “courts have not allowed the prospect of de minimis individual recovery to defeat certification of FDCPA classes.” Id. The district court denied the motion, determining that class action treatment was warranted.

The district court explained that, in analyzing the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), courts have recognized that [c]lass actions are particularly superior for cases where individual recovery would be small, because class actions ‘overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.’” Hicks, at 700 (quoting Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997)). “A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.” Amchem, at 617. The court considered the cases cited by defendants for the proposition that a de minimis recovery may defeat class certification, see id., at 700-01. The court discussed also the cases cited by plaintiffs hold that de minims recovery does not defeat class certification of FDCPA claims. Id., at 701. The federal court observed, then, that “[t]here is authority supporting both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s positions.” Id. It concluded, however, that the cases supporting plaintiff’s view were the more persuasive, id. The district court explained at page 701,

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

Target Class Action Defense Cases–Muro v. Target: Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of TILA Class Action Holding Plaintiff Lack Standing To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification As She Settled Individual Claim

As Matter of First Impression, because Plaintiff Settled her Individual Claims Following Denial of Class Action Certification Motion of Class Action Alleging Violations of Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Plaintiff Lacked Standing to Appeal Propriety of District Court Order Denying Class Certification Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various Target entities alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA); the class action complaint alleged that Target sent plaintiff an unsolicited Target Visa card in the mail in violation of TILA’s prohibition against sending credit cards in the absence of a request or application by the consumer. Muro v. Target Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. August 31, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, Target sent unsolicited Visa Cards, which may be used anywhere that accepts Visa cards, to holders of Target Guest Card, which may be used only at Target stores. _Id._, at 2 and n.2. Guest Card holders were given the option of activating the Visa cards, and if they elected to do so, then the corresponding Guest Card would be deactivated and any balance on the Guest Card would be transferred to the Visa card. _Id._, at 2-3. Plaintiff had a Guest Card account that she closed in 1999; plaintiff “received no further correspondence from Target for nearly five years” at which time she received the unsolicited Visa card. _Id._, at 2. Plaintiff did not activate the Visa card and did not incur any charges or fees in connection with the solicitation. _Id._ Nonetheless, plaintiff filed her class action complaint alleging TILA violations, _id._ Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action and defense attorneys moved for summary judgment; the district court “granted summary judgment as to Target and denied class certification.” _Id._ The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by noting that while TILA states “[n]o credit card shall be issued expect in response to a request or application therefor,” this provision “does not apply to the issuance of a credit card in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card.” Muro, at 3-4 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1642). According to the district court, any class members that had Guest Card accounts fell within the exception of credit cards issued in “renewal or substitution” thereof, id., at 4. The district court also had denied class action treatment because plaintiff’s claims were not typical of those of the class – “unlike most of the proposed class members, [plaintiff] had alleged that she had closed her Guest Card account.” Id., at 4-5. And while plaintiff could adequately represent a class defined as recipients of the unsolicited Visa cards that previously had closed their Guest Card accounts, the district court found that plaintiff had not demonstrated that such a class would be sufficiently numerous to warrant class action treatment. Id., at 5. Plaintiff then settled her individual claim but claimed to reserve the right to appeal the denial of her class action certification motion, id. The Circuit Court held that plaintiff had “no cognizable interest” in the class action certification issue because she accepted the offer of judgment, so the Court focused on the issue of whether she could nevertheless appeal the district court’s decision not to certify the proposed class. Id., at 5-6.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

Madoff-Related Class Action Defense Cases—In re Optimal Strategic: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Southern District Of Florida

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by New York Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Southern District of Florida Three class actions – two in Florida and one in New York – were filed against various defendants, including various Banco Santander entities and HSBC entities, alleging securities laws violations; specifically, the class action complaints allege that “defendants failed to perform adequate due diligence before investing money from their fund, Optimal Multiadvisors, Ltd.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Brown v. JEVIC: Third Circuit Reverses Order Remanding Class Action To State Court Holding Class Action Properly Removed Under Class Action Fairness Act Despite Fact Co-Defendant Was In Bankruptcy

Class Action Filed in State Court Against Defendant and Co-Defendant Debtor in Bankruptcy Removable to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) because Co-Defendant Sued in Violation of Automatic Stay and because Co-Defendant’s Bankruptcy does not Preclude Defendant from Removing Class Action to Federal Court Third Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against JEVIC Transportation and its parent company, Sun Capital Partners, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants violated New Jersey’s WARN Act which, “[l]ike its federal counterpart, …requires advance notice of a plant closing under certain circumstances.” Brown v. JEVIC, 575 F.3d 322, 325 (3d Cir. 2009). JEVIC had filed for bankruptcy protection, and the class action was filed as an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, id. One week later, and despite the automatic stay afforded by the bankruptcy proceeding, plaintiffs filed a class action in New Jersey state court against JEVIC and Sun Capital Partners. Id. Defense attorneys for JEVIC removed the state court class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); the district court remanded the class action sua sponte on the grounds that the automatic stay precluded the debtor’s petition for removal. Id. Defense attorneys for Sun Capital then removed the state court class action to federal court under CAFA; the district court again remanded the class action, ruling that “[w]hen an action is initiated after the filing of a Chapter 11 petition, in violation of the accompanying stay, removal is not available.” Id., at 325-26. The Third Circuit granted Sun Capital’s petition for leave to appeal the remand order, id., at 326. The Circuit Court explained at page 325, “In this appeal implicating the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, we consider whether a defendant is precluded from removing a class action to federal court because a co-defendant is in bankruptcy. We hold that it is not.”

The Third Circuit began its analysis by noting that Sun Capital bore the “heavy burden” of establishing federal court jurisdiction. Brown, at 326 (citation omitted). Central to the Circuit Court’s analysis was the fact that Sun Capital was not in bankruptcy, so the district court’s reliance “on cases dealing with debtor defendants who attempted to remove actions” were inapplicable. Id. Also central to its analysis was the fact that the state court class action against JEVIC was improper because it was filed in knowing violation of the automatic stay, so plaintiffs had “improperly joined JEVIC in the [state court class action], [and] that joinder cannot prevent Sun from removing the action.” Id. In essence, plaintiffs fraudulently joined JEVIC in the state court class action. Id., at 326-27. The Third Circuit summarized its holding at page 327: “In sum, because [plaintiffs] had no reasonable basis to believe that JEVIC was amenable to suit, we hold that JEVIC was a fraudulently joined party and its status as a Defendant could not be used to defeat otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.” (The Third Circuit also held that the district court erred in remanding the class action to state court because JEVIC had never been served with legal process and therefore was not properly before the district court. See id., at 327. We do not here analyze that aspect of the Circuit Court’s opinion.) Accordingly, the Circuit Court reversed the district court order remanding the class action to state court, id., at 329.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Employment Law Class Actions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Blough v. Holland Realty: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Of Antitrust Class Action Claims Because There Was No Adverse Effect On Competition In The Tied Product Market

District Court did not Err in Granting Summary Judgment on Class Actions’ Claims Alleging Antitrust Violations in the Form of Unlawful Tying Arrangements in the Sale of Undeveloped Properties because Challenged Conduct did not Adversely Affect Competition in the Market Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed four separate putative class actions against several defendants alleging “that various realtors representing developers tied the sale of undeveloped lots to services and commissions for developed property in violation of the federal and state anti-trust laws.” Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). According to the class action complaints, “Buyers entered into agreements with homebuilders to purchase developed lots (an undeveloped lot with a newly-constructed home) in different subdivisions in the Boise, Idaho area. Realtors represented the developers of the subdivisions in allocating lots to the homebuilders. The price of the developed lot that Buyers paid to the homebuilders included a commission (or referral fee) for Realtors, typically calculated as a percentage of the total price of the developed lot. It is apparently the custom in Idaho for the seller, rather than the buyer, to pay the commission owed to the listing agent and to the selling agent (the agent assisting the buyer’s search for a property) when a transaction closes. Buyers claim the Realtors engaged in a per se unlawful tying arrangement when they tied the sale of undeveloped lots (the tying product) to their services and commissions on the sale of developed lots (the tied product).” Id., at 1088. Plaintiffs’ lawyer moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action: the district court granted class action treatment for purposes of class-wide adjudication of the tying claim. Id. The district court “identified the tying product as sales of undeveloped lots and the tied product as Realtors’ services, i.e., commissions, with regard to sale of developed lots.” Id. As the Circuit Court explained, “The class consists of those who: (1) bought undeveloped lots in subdivisions where Realtors had the exclusive right to market lots on behalf of the developer; (2) were required to build a house on the lot in order to buy the lot; and (3) were required to pay Realtors a commission based on the cost of the lot plus the actual or estimated cost of the house in order to buy the lot.” Id. Defense attorneys for the realtors moved for summary judgment, and plaintiffs sought additional discovery “into other members of the class to determine whether any of them wanted to buy the services of a listing agent from someone other than Realtors.” Id. The district court denied plaintiff’s request for further discovery “on the ground that they had shown no plausible reason to believe that other members of the class (unlike themselves) would want to purchase the tied product from anyone else,” and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment “concluding that Buyers failed to show that the alleged tying practice ‘affects a not insubstantial volume of commerce in the tied product market.’” Id. (citation omitted). The Circuit Court explained at pages 1086-87, “Applying the doctrine of ‘zero foreclosure,’ the district court granted summary judgment to the realtors because there is no market for listing and referral services among potential buyers of newly-constructed houses, thus no competition in the tied market to be harmed.” Plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

FedEx Class Action Defense Cases–Babineau v. Federal Express: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of Putative Labor Law Class Action Claims Holding Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance Requirement Not Met

Labor Law Class Action Complaint did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Individualized Inquiries would Predominate and because Rule 23(b)(1)(A)’s Requirements for Class Action were not Met given Monetary Relief Sought by Plaintiffs Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against their employer, Federal Express, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that FedEx “failed to pay employees for ‘all hours worked.’” Babineau v. Federal Express Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. July 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, “FedEx has engaged in a pervasive and long-standing policy of failing to pay hourly employees for all time worked.” _Id._ The class action claimed “FedEx breached their contracts by failing to pay for three categories of time worked: (1) the interval between an employee’s manual punch in time and his scheduled start time; (2) the interval between an employee’s scheduled end time and his manual punch out time; and (3) the time worked during unpaid breaks.” _Id._, at 3. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._, at 2. Originally a class action was filed on behalf of a nationwide class asserting “substantially similar claims,” but the district court denied class action treatment in that case. _See Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp._, 248 F.R.D. 647 (S.D. Fla. 2008). This class action complaint was filed in “[an] attempt[] to address the defects identified in _Clausnitzer_ by limiting the scope of the class to Florida employees, adding a claim for quantum meruit, and altering the theory of their breach of contract claim.” _Babineau_, at 2-3. As defined, the class action seeks to represent a class that “includes couriers, courier/handlers, service agents, and any other nonexempt employees who are, or were, required during the class period to punch in and out on a manual time clock, but were paid only from their scheduled start time to their scheduled end time.” _Id._, at 3. The district court again denied class action treatment, holding class certification “was improper primarily because individualized factual inquiries into whether and how long each employee worked without compensation would swamp any issues that were common to the class.” _Id._ Plaintiffs appealed. The Eleventh Circuit explained at page 2, “The sole question before this Court is whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to certify the class. We hold that the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion and affirm its decision.”

The resolution of this case is very fact-specific, so the Eleventh Circuit spent considerable time on claims and facts supporting and contradicting those claims. See Babineau, at 3-11. We give only a brief summary. The Circuit Court noted that FedEx provides two manuals to its employees – a “People Manual” and an “Employee Handbook.” Id., at 4. Each manual states, “It is the policy of FedEx [] to compensate for all time worked in accordance with applicable state and federal law,” and the People Manual also provides that “[e]xcept for certain approved preliminary and post-liminary activities, no employee should perform work ‘off the clock’ for any reason, whether on their own initiative or at the request of management.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit also explained that FedEx tracks employee time three ways: “First, employees track their time by entering various codes corresponding to different work activities into a hand-held computerized tracking device (a ‘tracker’). Employees manually enter into the trackers their scheduled start times and end times as well as the times at which they start and finish a break…. Additionally, as a backup for the tracker data, employees manually write on a time card the time codes for each task, as well as the start and end time for that task. [¶] FedEx also requires employees to punch in and out on a manual punch clock before and after their shifts. Until 2007 the trackers did not automatically time stamp the employees’ entries, so an employee who was supposed to commence work at 8:00 a.m. but arrived for work at 8:05 a.m. could hide his tardiness by entering an 8:00 a.m. start time into the tracker. Thus, FedEx claims that the manual punch records were simply used to verify the integrity of time entries that employees entered into the trackers. FedEx paid its employees only for the time between the scheduled start and end times as entered into the trackers, which did not necessarily coincide with employees’ manual punch in and punch out times. The periods of time between the start/end times entered into the tracker and the punch in/out times are referred to as ‘gap periods.’” Id., at 5-6.

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

FCRA Class Action Defense Cases–Beaudry v. Telecheck: Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of FCRA Class Action Holding Private Right Of Action Under FCRA Does Not Require Proof Of Actual Damages

District Court Erred in Dismissing Class Action Complaint Alleging Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) on Ground that Plaintiff had not Suffered any Actual Injury because FCRA Allows for Recovery of Statutory Damages for Willful Violations Without Showing of Actual Injury Sixth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Telecheck Services and others alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants – “a group of foreign corporations who provide check-verification services” – “failed to account for a 2002 change in the numbering used by the Tennessee driver’s license system, leading their systems to reflect incorrectly that many Tennessee consumers…were first-time check-writers.” Beaudry v. Telecheck, ___ F.3d ___ (6th Cir. August 28, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1, 2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, defendants’ actions constituted a “willful failure to provide accurate information [and] entitled the class members to ‘declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.’” _Id._, at 2. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint on the grounds that (1) plaintiff “failed to allege that she had been injured by a FCRA violation,” and (2) “that the statute of limitations had run.” _Id._ The district court dismissed the class action , holding that plaintiff “had not alleged any injury and that the statute does not authorize courts to grant injunctive relief.” _Id._ Plaintiff appealed_._ The Sixth Circuit stated at page 1, “Because FCRA’s private right of action does not require proof of actual damages as a prerequisite to the recovery of statutory damages for a willful violation of the Act, we reverse.”

The Circuit Court began by summarizing the FCRA, and the differences between negligent violations of the FCRA and willful violations of the FCRA. See Beaudry, at 2-3. Of particular relevance is the fact that willful violations allow a party to recovery statutory damages without showing actual injury. Id., at 4-5. Defense attorneys nonetheless argued that the FCRA requires a showing of some form of “consequential damages” – in this case, however, plaintiff “‘has not…had a check rejected or any other transaction terminated as a result of a TeleCheck recommendation’; nor has she ‘suffered any harm with respect to the availability of credit.’” Id., at 4. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, noting that the FCRA “imposes no such hurdle on willfulness claimants.” Id. Rather, the FCRA allows for the recovery of either actual damages (in the event the violation was negligent) or statutory damages as fixed by Congress (in the event the violation was willful). Id., at 5-6. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the class action complaint on the ground that plaintiff had not suffered any actual injury, id., at 9. The Circuit Court therefore reversed the district court order and remanded the class action for further proceedings. Id., at 10.

Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Citigroup Securities Litigation: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Southern District Of New York

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by California Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Southern District of New York Ten class actions – nine in New York and one in California – were filed against various Citigroup entities alleging securities laws violations “by misleading investors about the nature of Citigroup’s investments and the company’s financial condition.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized