Kraft FLSA Class Action Defense Cases–Spoerle v. Kraft: Wisconsin Federal Court Certifies Class Action Of Class Action Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violations For Failure To Compensate Employees For Doffing/Donning Protective Gear

Class Action Complaint Alleging Failure to Pay Employees for Time Incurred Doffing and Donning Protective Gear Satisfied Rule 23 Requirements for Class Action Certification Wisconsin Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a labor law class action against their employer, Kraft Foods, alleging violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay them for time spent doffing and donning protective gear at a meat processing plant; the class action complaint alleged that employees were required “to put on several items of safety and sanitation equipment and then walk to their work stations” before clocking in for the day, and were required to reverse the process after clocking out at the end of the day. Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Wis. May 5, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. As the court explained at page 4, Kraft “requires that all hourly employees wear certain company-provided items in the performance of their jobs: footwear…, hair nets, beard nets…, protective headgear…, polyester frocks, and ear plugs or ear muffs,” and that some employees are required to wear cotton shirts and/or safety glasses. Employees are required to don this gear before swiping in, and to doff the gear after swiping out, _id._, at 5. The time incurred by employees to comply with this requirement varies, as does the time incurred in walking to/from the employee’s workstations. _Id._, at 1. The gravamen of the class action is that Kraft’s failure to pay for this “off the clock” time violates federal and state labor laws. _Id._ Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the time at issue was not compensable because it fell within the scope of various exceptions under the FLSA; the district court denied the motion. _See Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc._, 527 F.Supp.2d 860 (W.D. Wis. 2007). Plaintiffs moved the court to certify a collective action under the FLSA and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action under Wisconsin state law, _Spoerle_, at 2; the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion, finding this to be “an easy case” for certification of a class action, _id._, at 3.

The federal court first addressed the defense argument that the state and federal class action claims could not be prosecuted in the same action, based on the theory that “a plaintiff should not be allowed to maintain a representative action involving both federal and state law wage claims because of the procedural differences between the two types of claims.” Spoerle, at 8. This argument is premised on the fact that employees must affirmatively “opt in” to the FLSA class action to be members of the class, but the same employees are deemed members of the state law class action unless they affirmatively “opt out.” Id. According to defense attorneys, “potential plaintiffs will be hopelessly confused by the differences between the two claims and will be unable to make an intelligent decision regarding whether to opt in or out of the lawsuit,” id.; this confusion is exacerbated by plaintiffs’ unilateral and premature notice to the class, which “contained inaccurate information,” id., at 9. The district court agreed that “plaintiffs made a foolish blunder,” id., at 9, but concluded that any confusion could be addressed through carefully drafted notices, id., at 8-9.

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

ERISA Class Action Defense Cases–Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy: Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In ERISA Class Action Complaint Holding Class Action Claims

Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense in ERISA Class Action Proper because Class Action Claims that Defendants should not have Invested in Company Stock ran Counter to Terms of Eligible Individual Account Plan (EIAP) and because Negligent Misrepresentations Alleged in Class Action Complaint were not made in Fiduciary Capacity Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against his employer, Reliant Energy, Inc. (REI) and the Benefits Committee of his employer’s savings plan alleging violations of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). The Plan is an Eligible Individual Account Plan (EIAP) under ERISA, and the class action complaint alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to current and former participants in the Plan in that defendants “had a fiduciary duty to liquidate the Common Stock Fund and cease purchasing REI shares, notwithstanding the Plan’s express contrary requirements.” Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 1838324, *1 (5th Cir. April 25, 2008). The district court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._ Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the ground that defendants satisfied their legal duties to the class: The district court granted summary judgment as to all class action claims, and entered judgment in favor of defendants on the class action complaint. _Id._ Plaintiff appealed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Under the Plan participants were permitted to invest up to 16% of their compensation in a number of funds, “ranging from riskier, growth-oriented funds to more stable mutual funds”; one of these options was the REI Common Stock Fund which essentially consisted of REI common stock. Kirschbaum, at *1. Moreover, “REI agreed to match up to the first six percent of an employee’s contribution with shares of REI common stock allocated to the employee’s Common Stock Fund account,” but the matching contributions had to stay in Common Stock Fund until the employee was 55 years old and had 10 years of service with the company. Id. After the disclosure of certain “sham transactions” by REI employees and another energy trader, the stock dropped 40% causing a substantial loss in the value of the Common Stock Fund, id. REI later admitted that the trades in question inflated REI’s revenue by 10% over a three-year period. Id. Plaintiff filed his class action complaint alleging that defendants were “responsible under ERISA to make good the losses the Plan sustained on REI common stock.” Id., at *2. Specifically, the class action alleged that defendants knew REI stock “was not a prudent investment” and that they owed a fiduciary duty to discontinue purchasing REI stock, to sell the Plan’s holdings of REI stock, and to discontinue the Common Stock Fund. Id. The district court certified the litigation as a class action, but agreed with defense attorneys that summary judgment was appropriate as to each of the class action claims because “the Plan afforded [defendants] no discretion to terminate the fund or halt investments in it” and, accordingly, “defendants had no fiduciary duty to do so.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

PAX Class Action Defense Cases—In re Michelin: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District Of Maryland

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407and Transfers Actions to District of Maryland Four (4) class action lawsuits were filed in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and New York against various defendants, including Michelin North America and American Honda Motor relating to the PAX “run-flat” tire system manufactured by Michelin and installed in certain Hondas and Acuras sold in the United States.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

WaMu Class Action Defense Cases—In re Washington Mutual: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Western District Of Washington

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Actions to Western District of Washington Seven (7) class action lawsuits (5 in Washington and 2 in New York) were filed against various defendants, including Washington Mutual, “arising from alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning WaMu’s financial condition with respect to its subprime home loan portfolio.” In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–Brooks v. GAF: South Carolina Federal Court Remand Class Action To State Court For Lack Of Requisite Amount In Controversy But Expressly Prohibits Plaintiffs From Recovering Damages In Excess Of Prayer

As Master of Class Action Complaint Plaintiffs Successfully Limited Amount in Controversy so as to Preclude Removal Jurisdiction on Diversity Grounds or under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Necessitating Remand of Class Action to State Court, but South Carolina Federal Court Expressly Limits Plaintiffs’ Individual and Class Action Recovery to Limits Pleaded in Class Action Complaint

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in South Carolina state court against GAF Materials “alleging claims for negligence, negligent representation, breach of warranty, breach of implied warranties, fraud, a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (‘SCUPTA’), and unjust enrichment.” Brooks v. GAF Materials Corp., 532 F.Supp.2d 779, 780 (D.S.C. 2008). The class action complaint alleges the class “suffered property damage as a result of the Defendant’s defective roofing materials” and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but in order to avoid removal jurisdiction the class action complaint expressly states that the “amount in controversy for the entire proposed Class does not exceed five million dollars” and that “[t]he Plaintiffs’ individual recovery, as well as any putative Class Members individual recovery, exclusive of interest and costs, is not to exceed $74,999.00.” Id. Defense attorneys removed the suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and plaintiffs’ moved to remand the action to state court. Id. Defense attorneys originally removed the class action in May 2006, but the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand “because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Id., at 780. After plaintiffs amended their class action complaint, defense attorneys again removed the action to federal court but the district court remanded the action “for lack of jurisdiction based on the one-year cap on removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b),” id., at 780-81, but the court subsequently rescinded its remand order and requested briefing on whether the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million for purposes of CAFA removal jurisdiction, id., at 781.The district court granted the motion.

In analyzing whether the Class Action Fairness Act authorized removal of this lawsuit, the district court stressed that “Plaintiffs have placed a clear limitation on damages in their complaint.” Brooks, at 782. The Court held at page 782, “the court declines to ‘adopt any approach under which the court will be required to undertake its own independent review of the amount in controversy despite a specific limitation on damages in the plaintiff’s complaint.’” As the master of their complaint, plaintiffs are entitled to limit damages sought therein in order to avoid removal jurisdiction, and they effectively did so here. Id. Accordingly, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand the class action to state court, finding that the amount in controversy requirement had not been met. Id., at 782-83. However, the federal court expressly barred plaintiffs from playing games with removal. The court’s remand order expressly states, “with respect to all claims, the Plaintiffs are barred from recovering a total amount of damages, including actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and statutory attorney’s fees, exceeding five million dollars ($5,000,000), exclusive of interest and costs for the putative class action, and the Plaintiffs are barred from recovering a total amount of damages, including actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and statutory attorney’s fees, exceeding seventy-four thousand nine hundred ninety-nine dollars ($74,999.00), exclusive of interest and costs, for any individual claims.” Id., at 783.

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

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases–Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Possis Medical: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Allegations In Class Action Complaint Failed To Meet PSLRA’s Heightened Pleading Requirements

District Court Properly Dismissed Securities Fraud Class Action Without Leave to Amend because Class Action Complaint Failed to Satisfy Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Pleading Requirements Eighth Circuit Holds Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Possis Medical and two individuals alleging securities fraud violations. The class action alleged that after Possis Medical decided in 2001 to study whether its non-surgical catheter system, designed to remove blood clots, could be used for other medical procedures, it “made several public statements regarding the study’s potentially favorable impact on company revenues”; however, in August 2004, Possis Medical released the results of its study “which did not support expanded…usage.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Negrete v. Allianz Life: Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court Order Enjoining Class Action Defendant From Settling Class Actions Pending In Other State And Federal Courts

All Writs Act did not Permit District Court to Issue Injunction Prohibiting Class Action Defendant from Negotiating Settlements of Class Actions Pending in Other Federal Courts, and Anti-Injunction Act Barred District Court from Issuing Injunction Prohibiting Class Action Defendant from Negotiating Settlements of Class Actions Pending in State Court Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America alleging inter alia violations of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant’s sale of fixed deferred annuities which, the class action alleged, was “‘an unsuitable financial product’ because the maturity date exceeded his life expectancy and restricted his access to principal without surrender charges.” Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 523 F.3d 1091, 2008 WL 1868993, *1 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court certified the litigation as a nationwide class action with respect to the RICO claims, and as a state-wide class action with respect to certain other claims, id. This class action was but one of several class actions filed against Allianz regarding the sales of annuities, including: Iorio v. Asset Marketing Inc., No. 05-CV-00633 (S.D.Cal.), filed in March 2005, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and certified as a state-wide class action (covering a class that “partially overlaps the Negrete class”) in July 2006; Mooney v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North Am., No. 06-CV-00545, filed February 9, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and certified as a nationwide class action (covering a class that, according to defense attorneys, includes annuity transactions that “overlap those in Negrete”); and Castello v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North Am., Civ. No. MC03-20405, filed December 22, 2003, in a Minnesota state court and certified as a nationwide class action. Id. (The nationwide class action certification order in Negrete expressly excludes members of the nationwide class action certified in Castello, id., at *1 n.3.) In addition to these class actions, the Minnesota Attorney General filed State of Minnesota v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North Am., Civ. No. 07-581, on January 7, 2007, in a Minnesota state court (“the AG Action”), seeking “relief under Minnesota law on behalf of Minnesota residents who purchased Allianz’s fixed deferred annuity products” (covering a class that, according to defense attorneys, also may partially overlap the class certified in Negrete). Id., at *2. The district court entered an order “that effectively prevents [Allianz] from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any federal or state court without first obtaining permission from Negrete’s Co-Lead Counsel, and from finalizing a settlement in any other court ‘that resolves, in whole or in part, the claims brought in [the Negrete] action,’ without first obtaining the district court’s approval.” Id., at *1. The Ninth Circuit reversed.

The district court order arose as follows. Allianz entered into settlement discussions with the parties in Mooney, Castello, and the AG Action. Negrete, at *2. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in Negrete learned of these negotiations from a third party and requested that defense attorneys assure them that the settlement negotiations would not cover any of the claims addressed in or class members covered by the Negrete action; defense attorneys refused to provide such assurances so Negrete filed an ex parte application seeking an order that would prohibit Allianz from “settling, attempting to settle, negotiating, compromising, or releasing any claims, causes of action, or damages relating to any Allianz deferred annuity purchased by any Class Member in the Negrete/Healey matter during the relevant Class Period, in any other forum, including but not limited to, the Mooney matter, without the express approval of this Court and participation of Court appointed Co-Lead Counsel in the Negrete/Healey matter.” Id. While the district court order, issued without a hearing, “nominally” denied the application as “not authorized by the All Writs Act,” the court nonetheless ordered, “Any discussions of a settlement that would affect any claims brought in this litigation, other than claims of an individual plaintiff or class member, must be conducted or authorized by plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel. Any proposed settlement that resolves, in whole or in part, the claims brought in this action shall first be subject to review and approval by the Court in this litigation.” Id. Defense attorneys appealed that order, id., at *3.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Punitive Damages Class Action Defense Issues–City of Hope v. Genentech: California Supreme Court Affirms $300 Million Compensatory Award For Breach Of Contract But Reverses $200 Million Punitive Damage Award For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty

Punitive Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duties Improper because Evidence Established Merely Contractual Relationship even though Plaintiff Entrusted Secret Scientific Discoveries to Defendant for Commercial Exploitation California Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiff City of Hope filed suit (not a class action) against Genentech alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties arising out of an agreement whereby “City of Hope, in return for royalties, entrusted a secret scientific discovery to Genentech to develop, to patent, and to commercially exploit.” City of Hope v. Genentech, Inc., ___ Cal.4th ___ (Cal. April 24, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiff prevailed at trial, and the jury awarded $300 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages. _Id._ In a case of critical importance to class action and non-class action cases alike, the California Supreme Court addressed “whether, as the jury found, a fiduciary relationship necessarily arose” between City of Hope and Genentech. _Id._ The High Court held that it did not and, accordingly, reversed the punitive damage award. However, in a portion of the opinion that we do not summarize, the Supreme Court affirmed the $300 million damage award, concluding that “the evidence that City of Hope introduced at trial to prove that Genentech had breached a fiduciary duty [did not] so prejudice[] the jury as to require setting aside the jury’s award of compensatory damages for breach of contract.” _Id._, at 2. We again stress that this lawsuit was not a class action, but it involves a topic of significant importance to class action litigation.

In brief, scientists employed by City of Hope “developed a groundbreaking process for genetically engineering human proteins,” and filed a confidential application with the National Institutes of Health for a grant. City of Hope, at 2-3. Genentech was formed by a doctor who learned of the discovery and a venture capitalist “to commercially exploit biotechnology.” Id., at 3. Genentech contacted the City and offered to fund additional research and to secure the patents required for commercialization of the products developed; these discussions led to a draft agreement that left open the royalty rate because Genentech had not yet decided whether to accept the City’s proposal of a 2% flat rate. Id. Ultimately, the parties entered into a contract, see id., at 4-6 (summarizing salient terms), and “the rest is history,” so to speak. Genentech obtained various patents and granted various licenses, but it did not inform the City of all of those licenses. Id., at 6. Genentech also filed a lawsuit, which it settled for $20 million, alleging infringement of patents held by the City’s scientists, but it refused to share any of that award with the City. Id., at 8. That refusal precipitated the lawsuit by the City against Genentech for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, id. As noted above, while the first trial ended deadlocked at 7-5 in favor of Genentech, the jury at the second trial ruled in favor of the City, id., at 8-9.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Wal-Mart Class Action Defense Cases–Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart: In Unpublished Opinion Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Labor Law Class Action Filed On Behalf Of Assistant Managers

Fifth Circuit’s “Incidental Damages” Approach to Class Action Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) Inapplicable in Ninth Circuit and District Court Erred in Denying Class Action Treatment of Labor Law Class Action based on Conclusion that “Claims for Monetary Relief were Non-Incidental” Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wal-Mart on behalf of assistant managers alleging labor law violations. Plaintiffs filed a motion with the district court for class action certification, arguing that class action treatment was appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). In an order denying class action certification that may be found here, see Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 229 (C.D.Cal. 2006), the district court refused to certify the litigation as a class action on the grounds that (1) the claims for monetary relief in the class action complaint were not incidental, thus rendering certification under Rule 23(b)(2) inappropriate, and (2) the duties of associate managers “are not susceptible to collective proof,” thus rendering class action treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) inappropriate. Id., at 245-46 and 248-49. Plaintiffs appealed. Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 06-56090 (9th Cir. April 25, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed. In a single paragraph, the Circuit Court stated that the district court had “misapplied Ninth Circuit precedent when, relying on its conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief were non-incidental, it denied certification under [Rule] 23(b)(2),” and cited a Ninth Circuit opinion that “refus[ed] to adopt the incidental damages approach set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998).” Id., at 2 (citing Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2003)). Rather, the lower court should have “focus[ed] on the intent of the Plaintiffs in bringing suit.” Id. (citation omitted). By failing to do so, the district court abused its discretion in denying class action treatment under Rule 23(b)(2). Id. The Ninth Circuit instructed the district court to reconsider on remand whether class certification was appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) and, further, to consider “using Rule 23(c)(4) to certify issues under the Rule 23(b)(2) standard.” Id. (citation omitted).

The author notes that the district court opinion contains the following discussion of Rule 23(b)(2):

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

Class Action Defense Cases–Ross v. Bank of America: Second Circuit Reinstates Antitrust Class Action Holding Cardholders Possessed Article III Standing To Pursue Class Action Claims Against Credit Card Issuers

District Court Erred in Dismissing Cardholder Class Action Against Credit Card Issuers, Alleging Conspiracy to Including Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Credit Card Agreements in Violation of Federal Antitrust Laws, because Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Injury in Fact for Article III Standing Second Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various credit card issuing banks for antitrust violations alleging that defendants “illegally colluded to force cardholders to accept mandatory arbitration clauses in their cardholder agreements.” Ross v. Bank of America N.A., ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. April 25, 2008) [Slip Opn at 4]. The class action complaint contained two antitrust claims based on violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (1) that defendants “conspired to impose mandatory arbitration clauses,” and (2) that defendants “participated in a group boycott by refusing to issue cards to individuals who did not agree to arbitration.” _Id._, at 5-6. The class action prayed for an injunction and sought “to invalidate existing mandatory arbitration clauses, and to force the banks to withdraw all pending motions to compel arbitration.” _Id._, at 6. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action under Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the antitrust class action claims, _id._ The district court granted the motions on the sole ground of lack of standing, and dismissed the class action complaint. _See_ _In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig._, No. 05 Civ. 7116 (WHP), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66986 (S.D.N.Y. September 20, 2006). (A copy of the district court order dismissing the class action may be found here

.) Plaintiffs appealed; the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the class action.

The district court dismissed the class action complaint based on its belief that the injuries alleged by plaintiffs were “entirely speculative and, therefore, insufficient to establish Article III standing.” Ross, at 6 (quoting In re Currency Conversion, at *9, *12-13). As the Second Circuit explained at page 6, “Specifically, according to the district court, the cardholders’ injuries are ‘contingent on their speculation that someday (1) Defendants may engage in misconduct; (2) the parties will be unable to resolve their differences; (3) Plaintiffs may commence a lawsuit; (4) the dispute will remain unresolved; and (5) Defendants will seek to invoke arbitration provisions.’” Id., at 6-7 (quoting In re Currency Conversion, at *14-15). The district court also characterized any “alleged anticompetitive effects” as “inchoate.” Id., at 7 (quoting In re Currency Conversion, at *16). The Circuit Court disagreed.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized