Class Action ADA Claims Tie Employment Law Class Action Cases In California Weekly Filings

California class action defense attorneys will face a substantial number of new class action claims based on last weeks latest court filings. To allow the class action defense lawyer to anticipate claims against which she or he may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for class actions filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Federal Appeals Court Upholds IBM Defense To Class Action Judgment Against IBM Pension Plan

In a prior article, we summarized the Seventh Circuit opinion in Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. August 7, 2006). In _Cooper_, a district court entered judgment in favor of class action plaintiffs, concluding that IBM’s pension plan violated ERISA’s prohibition against age discrimination, but the Circuit Court agreed with defense attorneys that the plan was not age discriminatory and reversed. Mary Williams Walsh of the New York Times has written an excellent summary of _Cooper_ without the minutia of the statutory language at issue.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Federal Court Sua Sponte Removes Milberg Weiss From Steering Committee Of Class Action Transferred To Minnesota District Court By Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Panel—Class Action Defense Issues

Federal Court Holds Lawyer’s Failure to Disclose Investigation and Duty Court Owes Transferee Plaintiffs Requires Removal from Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and Notice to, and Consent of, Lawyer’s Individual Clients

Product liability actions – filed against Medtronic, Inc., concerning its implantable defibrillator – were transferred to a Minnesota federal court by the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Panel. Mitchell Breit, a partner in the New York office of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, was selected to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. Following the indictment of Milberg Weiss, the district court judge sua sponte initiated a telephone conference to discuss Breit’s continued involvement on the committee. In re Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillator Prod. Liab. Litig., 434 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Minn. 2006). Lead counsel and Breit requested that he be allowed to continue to serve; the court rejected their pleas “finding that it is in the best interest of the transferee plaintiffs that Mr. Breit and the Milberg Weiss firm be severed from the service” on the committee. Id., at 730.

The federal court reasoned a transferee judge “bears a particularly heavy burden to protect the transferee plaintiffs,” in addition to and separate from the duty attorneys owe their clients. Further, in selecting attorneys to serve on the steering committee, the Court directly investigated the ethics of every lawyer who offered to serve on it: “It asked each attorney seeking appointment to the [steering committee] to submit a letter touching his/her own ethics, and the ethical competence of his/her firm or professional association.” Id., at 730. The court noted with dissatisfaction that Briet’s December 2005 submittal failed to disclose the criminal investigation of the Milberg Weiss firm or its partners, and said nothing of the potential criminal charges until the federal criminal indictment issued. Id. Breit’s May 30, 2005 letter to the Court – sent in response to the Court’s sua sponte inquiry – failed to explain why the criminal investigation “was never disclosed to this Court until the indictment was handed up.” Id., at 731. The district court found this unacceptable, explaining at page 731:

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Employment Law Class Action Cases Again Lead California Weekly Filings

Employment Law Class Action Cases Again Lead California Weekly Filings To aid California class action defense attorneys in anticipating claims against which they may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for class actions filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. Employment law cases once again head up the list.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Merck Defense Wins Another Individual Vioxx Case, Further Strengthening Its Defense Position Against Class Action Lawsuits

Merck’s defense team has prevailed in another Vioxx case, this one in California, adding further support to Merck’s claims that class action treatment of these cases would be inappropriate. Merck also must present a defense against a class action lawsuit brought by insurers that alleges Merck defrauded them. Alex Berenson of the New York Times reports today that Merck’s aggressive stance and early successes have resulted in the voluntary dismissal of more than 300 federal lawsuits against the company, as plaintiffs’ attorneys reevaluate the upside of pursuing weak claims, though that still leaves pending roughly 14,000 such lawsuits.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Weekly Filings of Class Action Cases No Surprise – Defense Attorneys To Face More Employment Law Class Actions Than Any Other Category

As a service to California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for class actions filed in California state and federal courts in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. Our hope is that the class action defense lawyer may better anticipate claims against which they must defend. This report covers the time period from July 21 – July 27, 2006.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Court Approves Google $90 Million Class Action Settlement In Click-Fraud Case

The Los Angeles Times reports that yesterday an Arkansas judge approved the $90 million settlement of the click-fraud class action lawsuit against Google. While more than 70 objections to the proposed settlement had been filed, Google’s class action defense attorneys noted that all but one of Google’s 20 largest advertisers approved of the settlement. The court reportedly downplayed the concerns of small advertisers, and concluded that the terms of the settlement were “fair, reasonable and adequate.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Chicago Federal Judge Dismisses Warrantless Surveillance Class Action Against AT&T Agreeing With Defense That State Secrets Privilege Applies: Class Action Defense News

On July 21st, we posted an article concerning Hepting v. AT&T Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2006), where a San Francisco federal district court refused to dismiss a putative class action against AT&T for its participation in the government’s warrantless surveillance program. In part, the California federal court rejected a defense argument by AT&T and the federal government (which had intervened in the putative class action) that the claims were barred by the state secrets privilege.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Issues–Federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)

Class Action Defense Attorneys Urged to Advise Clients about FACTA Requirements Congress has amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act to include the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. That statute requires that credit card receipts provided to customers be modified so that the credit card number shown on the receipt is truncated and so that the expiration date is omitted. Defense attorneys are encouraged to be proactive in warning their clients about the statute, which takes effect in December 2006.

Class Actions In The News FCRA Class Actions Uncategorized

Mervyn’s Class Action Defense Case-Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s: California Supreme Court Holds Proposition 64 Applies “Retroactively” To Section 17200 Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Claims

California Supreme Court’s Decision Adds “Standing” to Class Action Defense Arsenal Against UCL Claims Pending at Time of Proposition 64’s Passage

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq., was enacted “to protect consumers and competitors” alike from unfair competition in commercial markets for goods and services “by promoting fair competition,” Kasky v. Nike, 27 Cal.4th 939, 949 (Cal. 2002). While government entities may enforce the provisions of the UCL, California law also permits private parties to enforce its terms. Generally, however, the UCL was not intended to provide a means of redressing a personal injury; rather, California’s statutory scheme permits a party on behalf of the public (other consumers or competitors) to enjoin an unlawful or unfair business practice. These so-called “representative actions” are often filed as class actions. The California Supreme Court today resolved the issue of whether Proposition 64, approved in November 2004, applies to cases pending at the time of its passage. Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, ___ Cal.4th ___ (Cal. July 24, 2006).

The scope of the UCL is extremely broad. It defines “unfair competition” to “include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” The Supreme Court has referred to this as “sweeping language” and declared that it is intended to cover “‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.'” Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266 (Cal. 1992) (citation omitted). As the court explained, “[i]n essence, an action based on Business and Professions Code section 17200 to redress an unlawful business practice ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats these violations, when committed pursuant to business activity, as unlawful practices independently actionable under section 17200 et seq. and subject to the distinct remedies provided thereunder.” Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 377, 383 (Cal. 1992) (citation omitted).

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized