Qwest Class Action Defense Case-In re Qwest Communications: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Securities Cases In District Of Colorado Where Class Action Is Pending

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion Under § 1407 Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Purposes Before Class Action Judge even though Court-Approved Partial Settlement of Class Action is Pending

More than two dozen lawsuits – including at least one class action – were filed against Qwest Communications arising out of “alleged financial irregularities in connection with Qwest securities.” Defense attorneys sought to centralize pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407; plaintiffs’ lawyers in several actions objected. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the defense motion. In re Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc., Securities & “ERISA” Litig. (No. II), 444 F.Supp.2d 1343 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Objecting plaintiffs argued “transfer should be denied because 1) a partial settlement has been approved in class action proceedings in the District of Colorado that have been pending since 2001; 2) alternatives to 1407 transfer were available to address any common discovery matters and to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and/or 3) transfer would be unduly burdensome or otherwise prejudicial.” Id., at 1345. The Panel rejected these claim, explaining at page 1345:

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Jones v. People’s Heritage Bank-Class Action Defense Cases: Lender’s Retention of Portion Of Loan Proceeds As “Administrative Charge” Does Not Violate Federal Truth In Lending Act Georgia Court Holds

Georgia Federal District Court Holds that TILA (Truth in Lending Act) and Regulation Z do not Require Disclosure of “Administrative Charges”

A putative class action was filed in state court alleging inter alia that a dental fee payment plan violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z because the lender kept a portion of the loan proceeds to cover an “administrative charge” rather than forwarding all sums borrowed to the dentist. Jones v. People’s Heritage Bank, 433 F.Supp.2d 1328 (S.D. Ga. 2006). The district court agreed with defense attorneys that the terms of the loan were fairly disclosed, and so dismissed the federal TILA claim in the class action complaint and remanded the balance of the action to state court.

Plaintiff required $10,000 in dental work, half of which was covered by insurance. To pay the remaining $5,000, plaintiff elected to finance the dental work through a dental fee plan offered by her dentist through a lender, AmeriFee. The loan contract stated that the $5,000 would be paid to the dentist; AmeriFee, however, kept 7.5% of the loan amount ($375) as an “administrative charge.” Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that the failure to disclose the “administrative charge” for loan transactions violated TILA. Jones, at 1329. Specifically, the class action complaint alleged that this conduct violated state law and constituted a breach of contract, and that it also violated TILA and Reg Z “by failing to disclose and by making a misrepresentation of the amount financed and to whom the amount of the loan was paid.” Id., at 1331. In essence, plaintiff argued that her loan amount should have been only $4,625 – the amount the dentist received – and that the $375 administrative fee qualified as a “finance charge,” id., at 1333.

Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

In re Bausch & Lomb-Class Action Defense Cases: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Nationwide Class Action Cases To District Of South Carolina

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Litigation for Pretrial Purposes and Selects District Where Manufacturing Facility is Located as Transferee Court A multitude of lawsuits, including several putative nationwide class action lawsuits, were filed against Bausch & Lomb arising out of its ReNu contact lens solution, which Bausch & Lomb (“B & L”) withdrew from the market after it was associated fungal keratitis (a type of eye infection).

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Bickley v. Caremark: ERISA Class Action Plaintiff Properly Required To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Eleventh Circuit Holds

Circuit Court Affirms District Court Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Complaint Because Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

An employee filed a putative ERISA class action on behalf of his employer’s health insurance plan against the Pharmacy Benefits Manager alleging breach of fiduciary duties for profiting from “undisclosed discounts, rebates, coupons and other forms of compensation from drug companies and pharmacies.” The district court granted the defense motion to dismiss the class action with prejudice because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., 461 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006).

The Circuit Court summarized the allegations in plaintiff’s class action complaint at page 1328 as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

In re Intel-Class Action Defense Cases: Defense Keeps Class Action Removed Under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) In Federal Court Because Amount In Controversy Exceeds $5 Million

Federal District Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Remand Class Action to State Court Because Defense Established Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Plaintiff filed a putative antitrust class action against Intel Corporation in state court, which the defense removed to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act). The district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the class action to state court, and plaintiff moved for reconsideration. In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 436 F.Supp.2d 687 (D. Del. 2006). The district court explained that it refused to remand the lawsuit to state court because the defense “had carried its burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists” because the defense “carr[ied] its burden of setting out the amount in controversy” and plaintiff did not “establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was less than the statutorily required $5,000,000.” Id., at 688. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argued that the district court erred by (1) failing to consider his evidence concerning the amount in controversy, and (2) accepting Intel’s estimate which was based on the cost of the computer as a whole rather than the cost of the microprocessor itself. Id., at 689. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion.

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

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Digital Music: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Class Action Antitrust Cases At Request Of Plaintiffs And Defense To Southern District Of New York

**Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motions by Defense and Plaintiffs to Centralize Class Action Antitrust Cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Pretrial Purposes Several class action lawsuits were filed against Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America, Bertelsmann Music Group, Bertelsmann, Inc., Universal Music Group, Time Warner, Warner Music Group and EMI Music North America alleging “that the various defendants illegally conspired to artificially fix or maintain the prices of digitally formatted music offered for sale on the internet in violation of 1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Cintas: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Holds That Statutory Objective of Pretrial Centralization Under § 1407 Includes Actions Brought To Compel Arbitration

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Litigation in Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Overtime Case for Pretrial Purposes Over Defense Objection Current and former employees filed a “collective” action against Cintas Corp. in the Northern District of California alleging failure to pay overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (the Veliz action) involving 2,000 plaintiffs. Cintas (as plaintiff) filed 70 actions against approximately 1800 of the Veliz plaintiffs to compel arbitration.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re McDonald’s: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Nationwide Class Action Cases To Northern District Of Illinois

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants § 1407 Motion to Centralize Pretrial Proceedings for Putative Nationwide Class Actions in District Where Defense Corporate Headquarters is Located Six lawsuits, including five putative nationwide class action cases, were filed against McDonald’s which – though alleging various theories of liability – were all based on the central allegation that McDonald’s “misled the public regarding the presence of gluten, wheat or dairy derivatives in its french fries.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Schacter v. Circuit City-Class Action Defense Cases: Massachusetts Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Arising From Allegedly Premature Termination Of Product Warranty Plan

Massachusetts Federal Court Denies Defense Motion to Dismiss “Marginal” Claims at Pleading Stage

Circuit City customers brought a putative class action asserting various state law claims arising out of the allegedly premature termination of product warranties, and the defense filed a motion to dismiss. Schacter v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 433 F.Supp.2d 140 (D. Mass. 2006). Specifically, plaintiffs purchased a telephone from Circuit City, together with an additional two-year warranty from Circuit City; the telephone failed and the store gave them a gift card for the full amount of the purchase price, including taxes. The store did not give them any credit for the “unused” portion of their two-year warranty because reimbursement or replacement terminated the warranty. Id., at 142. Plaintiffs’ class action complaint alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Id., at 141. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court summarized the positions of the defense and plaintiffs at page 143 as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

In re H & R Block-Class Action Defense Cases: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Nationwide Class Action Cases To Western District Of Missouri Over Defense Objection

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants § 1407 Motion Over Defense Objection Finding Centralization Particularly Helpful With Respect to Class Certification Issues Presented by Numerous Putative Nationwide Class Actions Numerous lawsuits – almost all of them putative nationwide class action cases – were filed against H & R Block, Inc., H & R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. and H & R Block Tax Services, Inc. alleging that the manner in which they marketed and sold defendants’ Express Individual Retirement Account product breached fiduciary duties owed their clients.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized