FACTA Class Action Defense Cases–Pezl v. Amore Mio: Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Action Certification/Grants Defense Summary Judgment In FACTA Class Action Because FCRA Does Not Cover Corporations

FACTA Class Action Alleging Defendant Printed more than Last Five Numbers of Credit Card on Customer Receipt not Entitled to Class Action Treatment because Plaintiff Utilized Business Card for Business Purposes and Corporations do not have Private Rights of Action under FCRA Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against Amore Mio alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which is part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that plaintiff used his business credit card at an Amore Mio Restaurant and received a credit card receipt that contained more than the last five digits of his credit card number in violation of FACTA. Pezl v. Amore Mio, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 344, 345 (N.D.Ill. 2009). The original class action complaint was filed by plaintiff’s business, CE Design, but an amended class action complaint substituted in plaintiff as an individual in place of his business. Id., at 345-46. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, id., at 345. Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment and moved for summary judgment. Id., at 346. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In ruling on the motions, the district court noted that class action certification generally should be determined prior to addressing the merits, see id., at 346 n.4, so the court began by analyzing plaintiff’s request for class action treatment.

The federal court readily concluded that the numerosity test of Rule 23(a)(1) had been met because the putative class contained thousands of members. See Pezl, at 346. The district court also easily found that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) had been satisfied because the “common nucleus of operative fact” involved defendant’s “standardized conduct” of allegedly “printing of receipts in violation of FACTA.” See id., at 346-47. But the court found that plaintiff failed to satisfy the typicality test of Rule 23(a)(3) because of the existence of “defenses particular to the named plaintiff” – specifically, that plaintiff’s claim was “based on a credit card number belonging to a corporation,” id., at 347. As previously noted, plaintiff used a business credit card to pay for a transaction that “was for business purposes,” id. The FCRA, however, excludes business transactions; the FCRA provides for liability to a “consumer,” which is defined as “an individual.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s business therefore did not have a private right of action under the FCRA, id. The district court rejected plaintiff’s argument that FACTA claims may be treated differently, holding that “only consumer cardholders have a private right of action under FACTA.” Id., at 347-48 (citation omitted). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims were not “typical” of the putative class and so the complaint did not warrant class action certification. Id., at 348. (For the same reasons, the federal court additionally found that plaintiff failed to satisfy the adequate representation test of Rule 23(a)(4). See id., at 348 n.8.)

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Uncategorized

AT&T Class Action Defense Cases–Laster v. AT&T Mobility: Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court Order Denying Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Class Action Claims On Individual Basis Holding Class Action Waiver Unconscionable

Class Action Challenging Advertisement of “Free” Phones may Proceed as Putative Class Action Despite Arbitration Clause Containing Class Action Waiver because under California Law Class Action Waiver Rendered Arbitration Clause Unconscionable Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against AT&T Mobility challenging its “offer of a ‘free’ phone to anyone who signs up for its service” because AT&T “charges the new subscriber sales tax on the retail value of each ‘free’ phone.” Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 14387, 14390.] Defense attorneys moved to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims individually, rather than as part of a class action, pursuant to an arbitration clause that requires arbitration of disputes and prohibits class actions. Id., at 14390. Plaintiffs argued that because federal jurisdiction was predicated on diversity, California law governed the district court’s interpretation of the arbitration clause and, under California law, “both the arbitration clause and the class action waiver [were] unconscionable, hence, unenforceable.” Id. The district court denied AT&T’s motion based on the Ninth Circuit opinion in Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007). Id., at 14390-91. On appeal, defense attorneys argued that the arbitration clause was distinguishable from the one at issue in Shroyer because “this arbitration clause provides for a ‘premium’ payment of $7,500…if the arbitrator awards the customer an amount greater than [AT&T’s] last written settlement offer,” id., at 14391. Defense attorneys also argued that “the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s unconscionability law.” Id. The Ninth Circuit found the provision for a premium payment did not sufficiently distinguish the case from Shroyer and that the FAA does not preempt California law; accordingly, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court order.

Plaintiffs executed a Wireless Service Agreement with AT&T and received free cell phones by agreeing to a 2-year contract. Laster, at 14391. However, AT&T charged plaintiffs $30 in sales tax for the phones, calculated by using the full retail value of the phones. Id., at 14391-92. As noted above, the Agreement contained an arbitration clause that required arbitration of disputes and barred class actions. Id., at 14392. Plaintiffs filed suit in California federal court alleging that AT&T’s advertisement for a free phone was fraudulent; AT&T thereafter amended the Agreement to include the “premium payment clause” and, later still, moved to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis, not as a class action, based on the revised arbitration clause. Id. The district court denied the motion, holding that the class action waiver in the arbitration clause rendered it unconscionable under California law and that the FAA did not preempt California law regarding unconscionability. Id.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Menagerie Productions v. Citysearch: California Federal Court Grants Class Action Certification Of Nationwide Class Action Challenging Charges For Pay-Per-Click Advertising

Class Action Alleging Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Breach of Contract for “Pay-Per-Click” Charges based on Click Fraud/Doubleclicks Warranted Nationwide Class Action Treatment California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California state court against IAC/Interactive Corp., Ticketmaster dba Citysearch.com, and Citysearch.com alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as breach of contract and negligence; defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court. Menagerie Productions v. Citysearch, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (C.D.Cal. November 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1.] According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, class members “entered into a contract with Citysearch to place ‘pay-per-click’ advertisements on the Citysearch website, and that Citysearch failed to detect and prevent ‘click fraud.’” _Id._, at 2. Following extensive law and motion practice and amendments to the class action complaint that added new party plaintiffs, _see id._, plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._, at 3. The class action sought certification of a nationwide class defined as, “All persons or entities in the United States who paid money for pay-per-click advertising through Citysearch.com.” _Id._, at 7. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment. The district court concluded that the complaint warranted class action treatment as to certain claims but denied class action certification as to other claims.

The federal court explained that the class action complaint was premised on two theories. First, that class members’ contracts with defendants for pay-per-click advertising “contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” which Citysearch violated “by collecting fees from plaintiffs and the Class for click fraud even though Citysearch knew, or should have reasonably known, that the clicks were not ‘actual clicks’ but rather purposeful clicks made for an improper purpose” and “by failing to implement effective oversight, investigating oversight and prevention of click fraud.” Menagerie Productions, at 6-7. Second, that Citysearch engaged in “unfair business practices” within the meaning of California’s UCL “because Citysearch ‘(a) fails to employ any method to track fraudulent clicks, including clicks originating from its own employees and/or agent and clicks originating from Citysearch’s “partner sites”; (b) fails to inform its customers that it does not employ a method to track fraudulent clicks, including clicks originating from its own; and (c) charges customers for invalid clicks.’” Id., at 7. The class action alleged that this conduct violated the UCL because Citysearch led customers to believe “that they will not be charged for ‘invalid’ clicks, when in fact, Citysearch routinely charges its customers for clicks that it knows, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should know are not clicks that originate from potential customers who actively and legitimately chose the advertiser’s link.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Barbaroza v. West Coast Digital: California Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court Order Requiring Class Counsel in Certified Class Counsel To Represent Class Through Collection Of Judgment

Trial Court did not Err in Holding that Class Counsel owed Duty to Absent Class Members to Represent them in Collection of Judgment, not merely through Obtaining Judgment, Particularly in Light of Defendant-Employer’s Lack of Assets and Possible Bankruptcy Filing California Appellate Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against their employer, West Coast Digital GSM, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that West Coast violated California’s Labor Code by “unlawful deductions from wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

CLASS ACTION DEFENSE BLOG OFF FOR THANKSGIVING

The author of the Class Action Defense Blog is taking the day off for the Thanksgiving holiday. A new class action article will be published on Monday, November 30. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Tasaranta v. Homecomings Financial: California Federal Court Dismisses Class Action Complaint Holding Allegations Insufficient To Support TILA, RESPA, HOEPA Or FDCPA Claims

Class Action Arising out of Home Loan Transaction and Alleging Violations of Various State and Federal Laws Dismissed, without Opposition from Plaintiffs, because Class Action Complaint Failed to Satisfy Pleading Requirements California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against Homecomings Financial and American Mortgage Network (which apparently was never served) arising out of a home loan they obtained that was secured by real property in Chula Vista, California. Tasaranta v. Homecomings Financial LLC, ___ F.Supp.2d___ (S.D. Cal. September 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2.] Specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as well various California-state laws. _Id._, at 2. The class action prayed for compensatory and punitive damages, and sought “rescission of the contract and loan.” _Id._ Defense attorneys for Homecomings Financial removed the class action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, _id._, at 1., and then filed a motion to dismiss the class action which plaintiffs did not oppose, _id._, at 1-2. _Id._ The district court granted the motion and dismissed the class action complaint without prejudice.

Even though the motion to dismiss the class action was unopposed, the district court reviewed each claim for relief on the merits. With respect to the class action’s TILA claim, the federal court found that the statute of limitations had run on the claim, Tasaranta, at 4-5, and that, separately, the complaint failed to adequately plead a “plausibly suggestive” claim “entitling the plaintiff to relief,” Tasaranta, at 4 (citation omitted). With respect to RESPA, the district court ruled that the class action failed to adequately plead the alleged transfer of the servicing contract in order to support a claim against “Servicers” under RESPA, id., at 5, and that the “yield spread premium” (YSP) claim under RESPA failed because YSPs are not per se illegal under RESPA, id., at 5-6. With respect to HOEPA, the class action complaint failed to allege sufficient details about the loan to support a claim that the interest rate fell within the scope of the statute. See id., at 6-7. And with respect to the FDCPA claim, the federal court observed that the class action did not “include sufficient factual allegations to support the conclusion that Defendants violated the FDCPA, such as how, when and to whom Plaintiffs ‘requested validation,’ and how and when each Defendant responded.” Id., at 7. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the class action complaint against Homecomings Financial without prejudice. Id., at 9.

Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Evans v. Lasco Bathware: California Appellate Court Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of Products Liability/Negligence Class Action Because Individual Issues Predominate And Plaintiffs Inadequate Class Representatives

Class Action Alleging Defective Shower Pans did not Warrant Class Action Certification because Individual Issues Predominate Over Sole Common Issue (Defective Design) and Plaintiffs Willingness to Sacrifice Substantial Damages Possibly Suffered by Putative Class Members Rendered them Inadequate Representatives of the Class California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against Lasco Bathware alleging that the Lasco shower pans installed in the homes owned by members of the putative class were defective; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that the shower pans “suffered from design defects that resulted in water leakage, and the leakage caused damage to adjacent building components.” Evans v. Lasco Bathware, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Cal.App. November 6, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1.] The class action complaint alleged strict products liability and negligence, _id._, at 2. The class action “sought to recover only the costs of removing and replacing the shower pans and expressly excluded any consequential damages to adjacent shower components caused by the water leakage.” _Id._, at 5. Plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._, at 2. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment on the grounds that the putative class was not readily ascertainable because “(1) the absence of a ready method for determining which consumers presently had Lasco shower pans installed in their bathrooms; (2) the absence of a ready method for determining whether the shower had been used the requisite number of times; and (3) the absence of a ready method for determining whether a specific consumer would be excluded from the class.” _Id._, at 7. Defense counsel also argued that “common issues did not predominate over individual issues because the only common issue (whether the design was defective) was outweighed by the non-common issues.” _Id._ Specifically, whether any particular member of the putative class actually suffered water damage would require destructive testing of each individual’s residence. _Id._, at 7-8. In sum, class action certification was not warranted because a class action trial would devolve into “mini-trials” with respect to each individual class member. _Id._, at 9. The trial court agreed with defense counsel that class action treatment was not warranted because individual issues predominate over common issues. _Id._, at 11. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The California appellate court summarized its holding as follows: “There is substantial evidence from which the court could have concluded the sole common issue (whether the shower pan was defectively or negligently designed) did not predominate over individualized questions of damages, and there is substantial evidence from which the court could have concluded the proposed plaintiffs did not adequately represent the interests of the class.” Evans, at 11. Specifically, the actual costs of replacing defective shower pans “were not amenable to estimation because the costs associated with removing and replacing each individual shower pan could vary widely from one class member to the next.” Id., at 13. Plaintiffs argued that class action treatment should not be denied simply because of differences in the actual damages suffered by putative class members. Id., at 14. The appellate court concluded, however, that “although a trial court has discretion to permit a class action where the damages recoverable by the class must necessarily be based on estimations, the trial court equally has discretion to deny certification when it concludes the fact and extent of each member’s injury requires individualized inquiries that defeat predominance.” Id., at 17-18.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Surge In Securities Class Action Lawsuits But Labor Law Class Actions Hold Top Spot Among Categories Of New Class Action Lawsuits Filed In California State And Federal Courts

As a resource to California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits 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. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from November 13 – 19, 2009, during which time 48 new class action cases were filed in these California state and federal courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Anthony v. AIG: Eleventh Circuit Certifies Questions To Georgia Supreme Court Following Dismissal Of Class Action Complaint Challenging Excessive Notary Fees Charged In Connection With Refinance

Propriety of Dismissal of Class Action Challenging Notary Fees Charged by Lender in Connection with Refinance of Home Loan that were in Excess of Maximum Allowed by Georgia State Law Turned on Issues not yet Clearly Resolved by Georgia Courts Eleventh Circuit Holds, thereby Warranting Certification of Questions to Georgia Supreme Court

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against American General Financial Services, with whom they had refinanced their home loan, alleging violations of various Georgia-state laws; each of the claims in the class action complaint were premised on a charge for notarial fees allegedly “in excess of the statutory maximum established by OCGA § 45-17-11(b).” Anthony v. American General Financial Services, Inc., 583 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, plaintiffs “executed a standard loan agreement specifying certain fees that they must pay as part of the transaction, including a $350.00 ‘notary fee,’” which the loan documents stated were “reasonable and necessary.” Id. American General did not disclose that under OCGA § 45-17-11, the maximum permissible notarial fee is $4.00. Id. Plaintiffs paid the $350 notary fee, and their class action complaint followed. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint, id. The district court granted the motion finding (1) a private right of action does not exist under OCGA § 45-17-11, (2) Georgia’s “voluntary payment statute,” see OCGA § 13-1-13 (2002), barred the contract claims, and (3) the four-year statute of limitations barred other claims. Id. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit expressed “doubt [as to] the correct application of state law in this case,” id.; accordingly, the Circuit Court certified those questions to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that “[t]he Supreme Court of Georgia may review a question of law certified by this Court when it is ‘determinative of the case’ and there are ‘no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Supreme Court.’” Anthony, at 1305 (citing OCGA § 15-2-9(a)). Because the Circuit Court found “no clear controlling precedent” as to several issues dispositive of the appeal, the Court certified the following questions to the Georgia Supreme Court:

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Schachter v. Citigroup: California Supreme Court Affirms Defense Judgment In Labor Law Class Action Holding Forfeiture Of Restricted Stock Shares Upon Termination Did Not Violate California Labor Code

Trial Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Favor of Employer in Class Action Alleging Failure to Pay Wages under Labor Code because Prospective, Bilateral Agreement between Employer and Employee to Pay a Portion of Compensation in Restricted Stock Shares that were Forfeited upon Resignation or Termination for Cause Prior to Expiration of Two-Year Vesting Period did not Violate Labor Code California Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiff, a former stockbroker at Smith Barney (a subsidiary of Citigroup), filed a putative class action in California state court against Citigroup and others alleging violations of California’s labor laws; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Citigroup’s voluntary employee incentive compensation plan, which permitted employees to obtain “shares of restricted company stock at a reduced price in lieu of a portion of that employee’s annual cash compensation,” violated California law because the plan provided that if the employee resigns or is fired then he forfeits any shares of stock that had not yet vested. Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, plaintiff, “along with officers and other key individuals in the company’s employ,” participated in the plan – receiving restricted stock in lieu of a portion of their salary. Id., at 3. The stock would not vest for two years, and if an employee was fired without cause prior to that time then “the employee forfeited his or her restricted stock, but received in return, without interest ‘a cash payment equal to the portion of his or her annual compensation that had been paid in the form of such forfeited [r]estricted [s]tock.’” Id. However, if the employee voluntarily resigned or was terminated for cause prior to that time, then “the employee forfeited his or her restricted stock as well as the percentage of annual income designated by the employee to be paid as shares of restricted stock.” Id. Plaintiff resigned before all of his stock vested, and therefore fell within this latter group, forfeiting his stock and that portion of his income that he directed to be paid as stock. Id., at 4. His class action complaint followed, id. Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment but the motion was denied, id. After several years of litigation, and after the trial court certified the litigation as a class action, the trial court reconsidered its summary judgment ruling sua sponte and concluded that the plan’s forfeiture provision did not violate California law; accordingly, it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id., at 5. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, see id., at 5-6, and the California Supreme Court granted review, id., at 7. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that “the forfeiture provision does not run afoul of the Labor Code because no earned, unpaid wages remain outstanding upon termination according to the terms of the incentive plan.” Id., at 1.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether employees “would be owed – and therefore would be required to forfeit – any ‘earned and unpaid’ wages upon resigning or being terminated for cause.” Schachter, at 8. Plaintiff argued “the percentage of his annual compensation he directed be paid to him in the form of shares of restricted stock constitutes a wage that remained earned but unpaid following his resignation.” Id., at 9. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the shares of restricted stock constituted wages. Id. The controlling factor was that the employer and employees had entered into a bilateral agreement after the employees had been hired: “It cannot be questioned that employers and employees are free to prospectively and bilaterally alter the terms of employment.” Id., at 11. Here, plaintiff specifically requested that he be paid in part in restricted stock shares, and contractually agreed that “his resignation or termination for cause before the end of the two-year vesting period would result in forfeiture of the restricted stock and the percentage of his compensation that he ‘authorized to be paid in the form of such restricted stock.’” Id. The Supreme Court summarized its holding at page 13:

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized