Ruiz v. Bally-Class Action Defense Cases: Massachusetts Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action For Lack Of Jurisdiction But Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action For Failure To State A Claim

By Holding Itself Out as Operating in Massachusetts and by Drafting Membership Contract in Dispute Bally Subjected Itself to the Jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Federal Court, but Membership Contract was not Unlawful Thus Warranting Dismissal of Class Action Complaint

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Massachusetts state court against Bally Total Fitness and Holiday Universal (a subsidiary of Bally) alleging common law and various consumer protection law violations arising out of a health club membership contract she signed that required payment of a $1565 membership fee plus dues of $8 per month. The membership fee could be financed at 14.75% interest for 36 months. If a customer canceled her membership within that 36-month period, she need no longer pay the monthly dues but she remained liable for the entire membership fee. The Contract also contained a provision limiting the liability of the health club “for the loss or theft of, or damage to, the personal property of members or guests.” Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 447 F.Supp.2d 23, 25-26 (D. Mass. 2006). After defense attorneys removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, the defense moved to dismiss the class action for failure to state a claim, and argued also that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Bally. Id., at 25. The district court held that it had personal jurisdiction over Bally, but granted the defense motion to dismiss the class action for failure to state a claim.

With respect to the personal jurisdiction claim, the federal court recognized that jurisdiction over a subsidiary does not establish jurisdiction over the parent company. The district court held at page 27, “In consideration of 1) the requirement that [plaintiff’s] evidence of jurisdiction be accepted at face value, 2) the fact that Bally has held itself out as a company operating in Massachusetts and 3) the fact that the dispute in this case concerns a form membership contract that, in all likelihood, was developed by the parent corporation and not Holiday, the Court concludes that plaintiff has adequately demonstrated a basis for this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Bally.”

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Moniz v. Bayer-Class Action Defense Cases: Defense Removal Of Class Action To Federal Court Proper Under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Because Of Post-CAFA Amendment To Class Action Complaint Massachusetts Federal Court Holds

Massachusetts Federal Court Agrees With Defense that Post-CAFA Amendment of Class Action Complaint Rendered Suit Removable But Rejects Defense Claim that CAFA Shifts Burden of Proof to Plaintiff to Prove Remand is Warranted

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Massachusetts state court against Bayer, Crompton Corporation and Uniroyal Chemical on February 10, 2005, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices on certain rubber and urethane products. Plaintiff amended the complaint in May 2005, and defense attorneys consented to the filing of a second amended class action complaint on February 6, 2006. Defense attorneys then removed the action to federal court on February 10, 2006, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Moniz v. Bayer A.G., 447 F.Supp.2d 31, 32-33 (D.Mass. 2006). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court.

CAFA became effective on February 18, 2005. As a preliminarily matter, the federal court rejected the defense claim that CAFA shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff to demonstrate that remand is warranted. Moniz, at 33-34. As the district court explained at page 34, “the clear majority of courts that have addressed the issue have held that, even where CAFA applies, the burden of proof on a motion to remand remains with the removing party because the text of the statute says nothing about changing that long-standing rule.”

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

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-Choimbol v. Fairfield Resorts: Virginia Federal Court Conditionally Certifies Class Action Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Holding Only “Minimal Evidence” Required To Support Class Action Treatment

FLSA Class Action Certification within Court’s Discretion Even if Supported by only “Minimal Evidence” Virginia Federal Court Holds and Conditionally Certifies Class Action Subject to Defense Motion for Decertification Following Discovery

Plaintiffs filed a class action against their employers (see Note) alleging failure to pay overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Choimbol v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 475 F.Supp.2d 557, 558 (E.D. Va. 2006). Plaintiffs moved the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action; defense attorneys objected on the grounds that plaintiffs were not “similarly situated” to the class and had introduced no evidence that defendant Fairfield Resorts was a “joint employer” of plaintiffs or members of the putative class. The district court rejected defense arguments and conditionally certified a class action, holding that it had authority to grant the motion for class action treatment based on “minimal evidence” subject to a subsequent motion by defense attorneys for decertification of the class action.

The facts underlying the class action complaint are rather complicated but the salient facts are these, found at pages 559 through 561 of the district court’s opinion: Fairfield Resorts operates timeshares including Kingsgate, Governor’s Green and Patriot Place timeshare locations in Virginia. Fairfield contracted with Sandulyak and Nunnery to hire immigrants to provide laundry, housekeeping and grounds maintenance services at certain properties in Virginia. Sandulyak (doing business as Carolina Janitorial) provides regional immigrant labor, and is “commonly owned, staffed and operated” by national immigrant providers Ambassador Hospitality and Proline Management. Fairfield’s contract with Ambassador provided that the immigrant laborers would be employees and Carolina Janitorial and that Fairfield had no right to supervise, direct or control the laborers. In practice, however, Sandulyak failed to supervise the laborers, Carolina Janitorial did not have a manager at the properties, and Sandulyak only visited the properties once every 1-3 months. Rather, for more than a year responsibility for supervision and day-to-day control over the laborers fell to Nunnery, who had negotiated the agreement with Ambassador “in the name and on behalf of Fairfield.”

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

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Dep’t of Veteran Affairs: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The District of the District of Columbia

Judicial Panel Rejects Opposition to Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Grants Defense Motion for Centralization of Three Class Action Lawsuits On May 3, 2006, a laptop computer and external hard drive was stolen from the home of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, resulting in the loss of “the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of approximately 26 million veterans and active duty military personnel.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Novartis: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Two Employment Law Class Action Lawsuits In The Southern District Of New York

Judicial Panel Grants Unopposed Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Two Class Action Complaints Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Plaintiffs filed two class action lawsuits in federal court against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (NPC), Novartis Corp., Novartis Finance Corp., and Novartis Services, Inc., alleging violations of state and federal labor laws concerning compensation for overtime; specifically, the complaints alleged that defendants had misclassified NPC sales representatives as exempt from overtime pay. In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., 460 F.Supp.2d 1382 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defense attorneys moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) to centralize the lawsuits for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of New York, where one of the lawsuits was pending. Id. The motion was unopposed. The Panel agreed with defense attorneys that centralization was warranted even though only two class action lawsuits had been filed, and agreed further – in accord with the agreement of the parties – that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court. Id.

NOTE: This transfer order illustrates (1) that Section 1407 does not require a minimum number of lawsuits be on file in order to warrant transfer, and (2) that the Judicial Panel independently determines whether centralization is warranted and, if so, the appropriate transferee court. Despite the agreement of the parties, the Judicial Panel explained that it selected the Southern District of New York based on its independent evaluation:

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Edward D. Jones: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Denies Defense And Plaintiff Motion To Coordinate Class Action Employment Law Lawsuits

Multidistrict Litigation Judicial Panel Concludes Centralization Under Section 1407 not Warranted Three separate class action lawsuits against Edward D. Jones & Co. seeking overtime pay. The lawsuits were filed in the Central and Northern Districts of California, and the Western District of Pennsylvania. Two motions were filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) seeking to coordinate the litigation for pretrial purposes – one by the Pennsylvania plaintiff, and one by the common defendant, Edward Jones.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Klimas v. Comcast Cable-Class Action Defense Cases: District Court Properly Granted Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Under Cable Communications Policy Act Because Act Does Not Apply To Internet Services Sixth Circuit Holds

Sixth Circuit Holds that Putative Class Action Against Cable Company for Alleged Violations of Federal Cable Communications Policy Act Arising Out of Internet Service Provided to Plaintiff Properly Dismissed but not for Reasons Expressed by District Court

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against his internet provider, Comcast, alleging violations of the subscriber privacy protection provisions of the federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (CCPA), 47 U.S.C. §§ 521-561. Klimas v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., 465 F.3d 271, 273 (6th Cir. 2006). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the ground that plaintiff “lacked standing to contest alleged violations of the privacy provisions in § 551(b) by [Comcast] in the operation of its broadband internet services.” Id. The district court granted the motion on grounds rejected by the Sixth Circuit; however, the Circuit Court affirmed the judgment of dismissal based on the plain language of the statute, which “by its terms, applies only to a ‘cable system'” or to acts “in the provision of cable service,” id.

Plaintiff contracted for internet service with Comcast, which launched its internet service around January 1, 2002. Six weeks after its launch, Comcast announced that it had “stored temporarily” IP (internet protocol) addresses and URL (universal resource locators) information, but stated that “[t]his information has never been connected to individual subscribers and has been purged automatically to protect subscriber privacy” and that the practice was being terminated “immediately.” Klimas, at 273-74. Plaintiff promptly filed a putative class action alleging that Comcast violated § 551(b) by “collecting personally identifiable information concerning subscribers” and violated § 551(a) by failing to give written notice of the nature of personally identifiable information Comcast collected with respect to its customers and the nature of it use of that information. Id., at 274.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

NovaStar Class Action Defense Case-Pierce v. NovaStar Mortgage: Washington Federal Court Certifies RESPA/TILA Class Action Over Defense Objection That YSP (Yield Spread Premium) Need Not Be Disclosed In Writing

Lawsuit Alleging Violations of Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Based on Failure to Provide Written Disclosure of YSPs (Yield Spread Premiums) Allowed to Proceed as Class Action

Plaintiffs filed a class action against NovaStar Mortgage alleging violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) based on the lender’s failure to disclose in writing the payment of yield spread premiums (YSPs) in violation of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and Washington’s Consumer Loan Act (CLA). Pierce v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Wash. October 31, 2006) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The district court denied plaintiffs’ first motion to certify a class, agreeing with defense counsel that plaintiffs had not demonstrated numerosity or typicality under Rule 23(a) and had failed to establish the predominance and superiority elements of Rule 23(b). _Id._, at 2. Defense attorneys opposed class certification largely on the ground that YSPs were not required to be disclosed in writing; the federal court agreed, holding that “verbal disclosures and independent knowledge of the YSP were relevant” in evaluating whether NovaStar violated RESPA, TILA or CLA, _id._ However, in connection with a renewed motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action, the court rejected that defense argument and granted plaintiffs’ motion.

In considering the renewed motion for class certification, the district court stated that class certification turned on “whether verbal disclosures are legally relevant” to the CPA claims. Slip Opn., at 3. Plaintiffs argued that verbal disclosures were irrelevant because the lender was required to disclose YSPs in writing under the CLA, and because violations of the CLA are per se violations of the CPA. Id., at 2. Defense attorneys argued that the CLA does not require written disclosure of YSPs. Id., at 4. While the federal court found that plaintiffs had not cited any provision of the CLA requiring lenders to disclose YSPs, it determined that this was irrelevant, explaining at page 5:

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

Class Action Defense Cases-Carnegie v. Household Int’l: Illinois Federal Court Approves Class Action Settlement

Third Attempt to Obtain Court Approval of Class Action Settlement Succeeds and Court Rejects Claim of Collusion Between Class Counsel and Defense Attorneys

Plaintiffs filed a class action against H&R Block (as tax preparer) and against Beneficial National Bank (as lender) arising from loans made based on the anticipated tax refund the borrowers would receive claiming that defendants’ failure to disclose that Beneficial paid H&R Block a $7 license fee for every loan referred by H&R Block. Defense attorneys vigorously contested the class action, and after a decade of litigation a settlement was reached and approved by the district court. Zawikowski v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 2006 WL 1051879 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2000, Case No. 98 C 2178). The Illinois federal court approved a settlement of that class action, but the Seventh Circuit reversed. See Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 288 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2002). The Illinois federal district court rejected a second attempt at settlement because the proposed settlement was not fair and reasonable. The court also concluded that class counsel’s representation of the class was inadequate. See Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 260 F.Supp.2d 680 (N.D. Ill. 2003). Under the guidance of new class counsel and a new class representative, the parties reached yet another proposed settlement, this one winning district court approval. Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 445 F.Supp.2d 1032 (N.D. Ill. 2006).

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Quaak v. Dexia: Massachusetts Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Securities Class Action Against Banker Because Of Alleged Involvement In Scheme To Inflate Stock Price

Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint Denied Because Plaintiff Adequately Alleged Securities Laws Violations by Company’s Chief Commercial Banker

Plaintiff filed a securities fraud class action against Dexia Bank Belgium as successor to Artesia Banking Corp., “the former chief commercial banker for Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V.,” alleging “that L&H could not have committed its wide ranging fraud without the intimate involvement of Defendant . . . as architect of the fraudulent scheme” and that Defendant “made numerous fraudulent loans to L&H in an effort to bolster L&H’s stock price.” Quaak v. Dexia, S.A., 445 F.Supp.2d 130, 134 (D. Mass. 2006). The district court denied a defense motion to dismiss the class action complaint, but certified several questions to the First Circuit because “the legal issues involved, particularly the question of scheme liability under the securities laws, were . . . quite cutting edge,” and the First Circuit accepted the appeal. Id. Before the Circuit Court heard oral argument, plaintiff sought and received leave from the district court to amend the class action complaint; the Circuit Court therefore vacated the appeal, and defense attorneys filed a new motion to dismiss. Id.

The district court explained that the amended complaint added “significant factual allegations” based on newly discovered documents that purportedly evidenced Defendant made millions in profits from the sale of L&H stock and that it “exercised absolute control over the operations of a wholly-owned subsidiary” and caused the issuance of reports that promoted the purchase of L&H stock based on false financial data. Quaak, at 135. According to the complaint, the scheme inflated the value of the stock or artificially caused it to retain its inflated value, but the stock plummeted once the company’s true financial condition was learned. Id. Based on the new allegations, the complaint alleged Defendant was a “controlling person” and therefore liable within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), and liable under Section 10(b) for the issuance of false and misleading reports. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized