Class Action Defense Cases—In re Municipal Mortgage: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District of Maryland

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to District of Maryland Thirteen (13) class actions – 8 in Maryland and 5 in New York – were filed against Municipal Mortgage & Equity and others alleging that defendants “made materially false and misleading statements in press releases, investor conference calls and regulatory filings which ultimately had a negative impact in 2008 on [the company’s] common stock.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Countrywide Financial: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Transfers Class Actions To Western District of Kentucky

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Over Objection of Responding Class Action Defendants, but Rejects All Recommended Transferee Courts and Transfers Class Actions to Western District of Kentucky Three class actions – one each in California, Illinois and Massachusetts – were filed against various defendants, including Countrywide Financial Corp., Countrywide Home Loans and Countrywide Bank, FSB (collectively “Countrywide”); the class action complaints, each purportedly seeking to represent a nationwide class, alleged that Countrywide “engaged in discriminatory residential lending practices, including the imposition of discretionary fees/charges, which increased the cost of financing and resulted in higher loans for minority borrowers than similarly situated non-minority borrowers.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–In re Genetically Modified Rice: Missouri Federal Court Denies Class Action Certification of Class Action Complaint Seeking Damages By Producers For Contamination Of Rice

Class Action Claims by Rice Growers Seeking Damages Arising from Contamination of U.S. Rice Supply by Non-Approved Genetically Modified Strains of Rice not Appropriate for Class Action Treatment because Substantial Differences in Individual Damages and Proof of Damages Defeat Rule 23(b)(3) Requirement for Predominance and Superiority Missouri Federal Court Holds

Various class action lawsuits were filed against Bayer CropScience and others seeking to recover for damages allegedly when “the defendants contaminated the U.S. rice supply with non-approved genetically modified strains of rice, thereby affecting the market price for plaintiffs’ crops.” The class action complaints were filed after the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced, in August 2006, that trace amounts of a rice seed developed by Bayer CropScience and “designed to be resistant to a Bayer herbicide, Liberty Link,” had been found in the U.S. rice supply. In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 251F.R.D 392 (E.D. Mo. 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. (The rice strain at issue in the class actions “is now deregulated by USDA, [but] at the time of the contamination it was not approved for human consumption.” Id., at 2.) The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the class actions for pretrial purposes in the Eastern District of Missouri, and plaintiffs’ filed a master consolidated class action complaint. Id., at 1. “The plaintiffs in the master consolidated class action complaint are rice producers from five U.S. states where rice is grown and harvested: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas.” Id., at 3.Plaintiffs’ lawyers moved for class action certification; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment on the grounds that individual issues predominate over common issues. Id., at 1. The district court agreed that class action treatment was not warranted, concluding that class action certification was “inappropriate…because plaintiffs’ varying claims for damages are not amenable to class-wide adjudication.” Id.

According to the master class action complaint, world-wide reaction to the announcement directly affected the market for U.S. long grain rice: Japan barred further imports of such rice, the European Union required that all U.S. rice be “tested and certified as free of genetically-modified traits,” and several other countries – including Russia, Canada, the Philippines, Taiwan and Iraq – “imposed restrictions on U.S. rice imports.” In re Genetically Modified Rice, at 2-3. The class action alleged that “the U.S. market price for rice dropped dramatically as a result of Bayer’s contamination of the rice supply.” Id., at 3. The U.S. produces 13% of the world’s rice and exports nearly half of its rice, id. The class action relies on the market price for rice as listed on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) for the period of August 18-23, 2006 to support its claim that the “dramatic price drop” is attributable to the announcement concerning the discovery of the contaminated rice. Id., at 4. The class action alleged further that economic harm continued beyond August 2006, id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Vytorin/Zetia: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Class Action Plaintiffs’ Motions To Centralize Class Action Litigation And Transfers Lawsuits To District of New Jersey

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Responding Defendants, and Agrees with Defendants that District of New Jersey is Appropriate Transferee Court Thirty-three (33) class actions lawsuits were filed in 17 federal district courts against numerous defendants, including various Merck and Schering-Plough entities, arising out of the use and/or marketing of the drugs Vytorin and/or Zetia. In re Vytorin/Zetia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Trasylol: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Transfers Class Actions To Southern District of Florida

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Certain Class Action Plaintiffs but Opposed by Others, but Concludes Class Actions should be Transferred to Southern District of Florida Eighteen class actions were filed in 14 different federal district courts against various defendants, including Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Bayer AG, and Bayer Healthcare AG (collectively “Bayer”), alleging product liability claims based on the safety of the Bayer drug Trasylol.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

MDL Class Action Defense Cases—In re Levaquin: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion To Centralize Individual And Class Action Lawsuits In District of Minnesota

Over Objection of Defendants in Products Liability Individual and Class Action Lawsuits, Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Individual and Class Action Cases Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Actions to District of Minnesota Fifteen (15) individual and class action lawsuits were filed in seven (7) different federal district courts against Johnson & Johnson, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, among others, alleging “that the antibiotic Levaquin causes tendon rupture, and the warnings provided by defendants informing Levaquin users of this risk were inadequate”; an additional six (6) individual and class action lawsuits subsequently were filed and were treated as tag-along actions by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Packaged Ice: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiffs’ Motions To Centralize Class Action Litigation And Selects Eastern District of Michigan As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Requests for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by other Class Action Plaintiffs and Unopposed by any Class Action Defendants, but Among Various Options Selects Eastern District of Michigan as Transferee Court Thirty-seven (37) class actions – twelve actions in the Eastern District of Michigan, ten actions in the District of Minnesota, seven actions in the Northern District of Texas, four actions in the Northern District of Ohio, and one action each in the Northern District of California, the Southern District of California, the District of Kansas and the Southern District of Ohio – were filed against various defendants, including Reddy Ice Holdings, Reddy Ice, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier, Inc.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases—In re Make-Up Art Cosmetics: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Central District of California

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Rejects Transferee Court Proposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Central District of California Three class actions – two in California and one in Illinois – were filed against Make-Up-Art Cosmetics (MAC) alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA); specifically, the class action complaints alleged that MAC printed “certain credit and debit card information on customer receipts” in violation of FACTA.

Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Hannaford Bros.: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiffs Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District of Maine

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Actions to District of Maine Seventeen (17) class actions were filed against Hannaford Bros. and others “aris[ing] from of an intrusion into defendant Hannaford Brothers Co.’s computer network” and “alleg[ing] that as a result of that intrusion, the credit or debit card numbers and related financial information of a large number of consumers were compromised.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Virgin Mobile IPO: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Transfers Class Actions To New Jersey

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Over Objection of Plaintiff’s Lawyers in New Jersey Class Action, but Transfers Class Actions to the District of New Jersey Four class actions – one in New Jersey and three in New York – were filed against various defendants arising out of the allegation that “Virgin Mobile distributed a materially false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with Virgin Mobile’s initial public offering.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized