Airborne Express Class Action Defense Case-Hicks v. Airborne Express: Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In Breach Of Contract Class Action

Carrier’s Contract Limited Liability for Late Package Deliveries to Another Free Delivery Justify Trial Court Order Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment in Putative Class Action

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Airborne Express for failing to deliver packages on time, and sought as damages the difference between the value of the service he requested and the value of the service he received. Hicks v. Airborne Express, Inc., ___ N.E.2d ___, 2006 WL 2105657 (Ill.App. July 25, 2006). The defense moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the contract limited the customers’ damages for the carrier’s breach of its promise to deliver a package on time to another delivery free of charge, and that Airborne had provided plaintiff with that remedy. Slip Opn., at 2-3. The trial court agreed with the defense, “finding that the parties had agreed to an exclusive remedy, _i.e._, another Flight-Ready envelope, for Airborne’s breach of the contract to deliver [plaintiff’s] package by noon the next day.” _Id._, at 3. The appellate court affirmed.

Class Action Court Decisions 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

Freeman v. DirecTV-Class Action Defense Cases: Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) Does Not Provide Private Right Of Action For Secondary Liability Claims Ninth Circuit Holds

Resolving Issue of First Impression, Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss ECPA Class Action Alleging “Secondary Liability” Claims Under Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act

DirecTV filed suit against an individual in Canada to enjoin the pirating of its satellite digital television signal and, in the course of that litigation, obtained a court order permitting it to seize evidence related to piracy activities that was accessed, recorded and processed by a third party, ICG. The order provided for the information “to be held in the ‘custody of [DirecTV’s] solicitors pending the trial” and for the appointment of an “independent solicitor”; DirecTV instructed, however, that all information was to be held by the independent solicitor rather than its own lawyers. After the Canadian action was completed, DirecTV filed suit in the United States against Lawrence Freeman, alleging that he engaged in “the distribution of illegal signal theft devices.” After the parties entered into a settlement and release of that lawsuit, Freeman filed a putative class action against DirecTV and ICG for allegedly violating the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702 and 2707. Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1002-03 (9th Cir. 2006). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the action on three grounds; the federal district court granted the motion on the ground that “that 18 U.S.C. § 2702 does not provide a basis for asserting conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims.” Id., at 1004. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, summarizing at page 1009:

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re “A Million Little Pieces”: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District Of New York

Unopposed Defense Motion to Centralization of Individual and Class Action Lawsuits Based on Book “A Million Little Pieces” Granted Following the disclosure of false information in James Frey’s book _A Million Little Pieces_¸ and the filing of at least a dozen individual and class action lawsuits alleging “various state statutory and common law claims, such as negligence, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment,” defense attorneys for Random House and Doubleday moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Mutual Funds: Federal District Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Because “Plaintiffs’ Artful Attempt At Avoiding SLUSA Preemption Ultimately Fails”

Maryland Federal Court Grants Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Despite Plaintiffs’ Attempt to Plead Around Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)

Plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in Illinois state court alleging state law causes of action carefully pleaded “to avoid the preemptive scope of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act” and focusing on the theory “that the defendants negligently breached state common law duties” by using “stale” mutual fund prices – that is, mutual fund prices not based on “the most recent market information.” In re Mutual Funds Investment Litig., 437 F.Supp.2d 439, 440 (D. Md. 2006). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to Judge Motz of the Maryland district court. After the defense moved to dismiss the case as preempted by SLUSA, “plaintiffs filed amended complaints . . . that eliminate any explicit mention of misrepresentation and deception, and that plead only one cause of action: common law negligence.” Id., at 442.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions 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-Blackman v. District of Columbia: Federal Court Failed To Properly Certify Orders For Appeal And Defense Correct That Attorney Fees In Section 1983 Class Actions To Enforce IDEA Are Capped DC Circuit Holds

DC Circuit Agrees With Defense that Attorney Fee Awards in Section 1983 Class Action to Enforce IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) are Capped by IDEA, but Holds that Federal District Court Failed to Properly Certify Two Attorney Fee Orders for Appeal

Following substantial litigation in multiple consolidated class action lawsuits against the District of Columbia, the federal district court rejected defense arguments and entered three separate attorney fees awards against the District. Defense attorneys sought interlocutory review of the attorney fee orders; the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held (1) it did not have jurisdiction over two of the orders because the district court failed to properly certify them for appeal, and (2) the district court erred in concluding that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not limit the amount of fees that could be awarded in section 1983 actions to enforce the IDEA. Blackman v. District of Columbia, 456 F.3d 167 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Congress enacted legislation limiting the amount of attorney fees that could be awarded to prevailing parties in IDEA cases against the District of Columbia to stem “‘the growth in legal expenses and litigation associated with special education in the District of Columbia and the usurping of resources from education to pay attorney fees.’” Blackman, at 170 (quoting H.R.Rep No. 195-670, at 50 (1998)). Four separate class action lawsuits were filed against the District under section 1983 seeking to enforce the IDEA, two of which were consolidated as a single lawsuit leaving three distinct albeit consolidated class actions pending. Id., at 171-72. The district court ordered injunctive relief in two of the cases, but not the third. Eventually the plaintiffs in all three actions sought attorney fees. The District argued that IDEA capped any attorney fee award against it, and that attorney fees were not warranted in the action in which the district court failed to order injunctive relief because the plaintiffs therein were not “prevailing parties.” The district court rejected both arguments and awarded attorney fees in all three actions. Id., at 173-74.

Class Action Court Decisions 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

Class Action Defense Cases-Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Rejects Federal Courts Requested By Plaintiffs And Defense, And Transfers Class Actions Against Volkswagon To District Of Massachusetts Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

MDL Judicial Panel Transfers Class Action Lawsuits to Massachusetts Despite Fact that No Cases were Pending in that State After four statewide class actions were filed against Volkswagon of America arising out of its August 1004 warranty extension/reimbursement program for certain Volkswagon and Audi vehicles, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed a § 1407 motion for centralization of the litigation. In re Volkswagon and Audi Warranty Extension Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 2548199 (Jud.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized