Class Action Defense Cases-In re Mercedes-Benz: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District of New Jersey

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Supported by Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees with Defense Attorneys that District of New Jersey is Appropriate Transferee Court Three class action lawsuits (and subsequent tag-along lawsuits) were filed against Mercedes-Benz “relating to (1) the impact of the conversion of the cellular network from an analog/digital network to a digital-only network in early 2008, and (2) the availability of Tele Aid service in certain Mercedes vehicles thereafter.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Transpacific: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of California

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiff or by any Class Action Defendants, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of California Two class actions – one in the Central District of California and one in the Northern District of California – were filed against Air New Zealand and other airlines alleging antitrust violations; specifically, each class action alleged that “[the] airline defendants conspired to fix the price of passenger airfares for flights between the United States and transpacific destinations in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Lead-Tainted Toys Class Action Defense Cases-In re Mattel: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Defense/Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Central District of California

Judicial Panel Grants Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Class Actions to Central District of California Eleven (11) class action lawsuits (5 in California, 2 in New York and Pennsylvania, and 1 in Indiana and South Carolina) against various defendants, including Mattel and Fisher-Price, arising out of the “the production of defendants’ toys in China with surface paints that allegedly contain elevated levels of lead and the sale of those toys in the United States.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Motor Fuel: Kansas Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Challenging Practice Of Selling Gasoline Based On Volume Regardless Of Temperature

Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Alleging Gasoline Retailers Overcharged Consumers by Failing to Account for Differences Based on Temperature of Gasoline Sold Denied because Class Action Allegations Adequately Pleaded Claims for Breach of Contract, Violation of Consumer Protection Statutes, and Various Other Claims Kansas Federal Court Holds

Several putative class action lawsuits were filed against various motor fuel retailers in 26 states, the District of Columbia and Guam (“the Region”); the class actions were consolidated in the District of Kansas for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (a summary of the Judicial Panel’s order may be found here). Though it alleged numerous causes of action, in essence the consolidated class action complaint alleged that defendants’ sale of gasoline “for a specified price per gallon without disclosing or adjusting for temperature expansion” subjects them to liability “under various state law theories including breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud and consumer protection.” In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Prac. Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on ten (10) different grounds, see id., at 13-14, but framed the arguments “in general terms” that did not “identify the elements of each cause of action or discuss whether the laws of each jurisdiction are the same,” id., at 14. The district court denied the motion.

In broad terms, the consolidated class action complaint alleged that gasoline expands when heated and so a given volume has less mass at warmer temperatures than the same fuel would have at cooler temperatures. In re Motor Fuel, at 3. Because of this, the industry has standardized the sale of gasoline based on temperature, defining a “gallon” as 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and this standard – known as D-1250 – is used “at every state of the process except at retail.” Id. Retail gasoline is sold “based solely on volume (i.e. 231 cubic inches) without regard to temperature,” and is advertised without defining for the term “gallon” for the consumer, id. Further, the industry has fought selling gasoline at the D-1250 standard, so “Plaintiffs pay billions of extra dollars every year because retailers deliver fuel which is – on average – at least 10 degrees higher than the industry standard without making any correction in price and/or volume.” Id., at 4. This practice also “generate[s] hidden profits in the form of excess reimbursement for taxes paid on wholesale purchases,” because defendants pay federal and state taxes on the D-1250 standard, but collects reimbursement of those taxes from consumers on the additional gallons sold at higher temperatures, id. Finally, the class action alleges that equipment is available (and in use in Canada) to adjust the retail sale of gasoline to the D-1250 standard, but defendants have opposed putting the equipment into use by falsely claiming the average temperature of gasoline sold in the U.S. is 56◦ F, while the American Petroleum Institute now concedes that it is higher than 60◦ F, and that it would cost more than $6 billion to put the equipment to use, while the industry now estimates that cost to be $2.2 billion. Id., at 4-5. The nine (9) separate claims alleged in the class action complaint are discussed at pages 6 through 13 of the opinion.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Toy Lead Class Action Defense Cases-In re RC2 Corp.: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of Illinois

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in Northern District of Illinois, Rejecting Motion of California Class Action Plaintiff to Centralize Litigation in the Central District of California Fourteen (14) class action lawsuits (9 in Illinois, and 1 in Arkansas, California, Indiana, New Jersey and New York) were filed against various defendants, including RC2 Corp. and Learning Curve Brands, “stem[ming] from certain toys that were manufactured and/or distributed by defendants and recalled due to the presence of elevated levels of lead in surface paints.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Peregrine Systems: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Defense/Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Southern District of California

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of 35 Class Action and Individual Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Joined by Sole Plaintiff Outside California, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of California Thirty-five (35) individual and class action lawsuits (34 in California and 1 in New Jersey) were filed against various defendants, including Arthur Andersen, “arising out of alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to improper accounting practices at Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-In re KFC: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action Litigation In District Of Minnesota

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Over Plaintiffs’ Objections, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees With Defense that District of Minnesota is Appropriate Transferee Court Twenty-eight class action lawsuits were filed in 27 districts against various defendants, including KFC Corp. alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay assistant managers overtime pay. In re KFC Corp. Fair Labor Standards Act Litig.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

GM Class Action Defense Cases-In re General Motors: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Western District of Washington

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Ultimately Joined by Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Class Actions to Western District of Washington Three products liability class action lawsuits were filed in California, Oregon and Washington against various defendants, including General Motors Corp., arising out of the allegation that the speedometers in certain GM pick-ups and sport utility vehicles registered inaccurately and that GM “failed to disclose and/or fraudulently concealed this alleged defect.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re American Home Mortgage: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Eastern District Of New York

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Over Plaintiffs’ Objection, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees With Defense that Eastern District of New York is Appropriate Transferee Court Nineteen (19) class action lawsuits – 18 in New York and one in Florida – were filed against American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. and various other defendants, including Citigroup Capital Markets, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Refco: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Over Plaintiff Objection, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees With Defense Request to Transfer Class Actions to Southern District of New York Ten individual and class action lawsuits, nine (9) in New York and one (1) in Illinois, were filed against various defendants alleging federal securities laws violations arising out of the collapse of Refco, Inc. In re Refco Securities Litig.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized