Class Action Defense Cases-Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Rejects Federal Courts Requested By Plaintiffs And Defense, And Transfers Class Actions Against Volkswagon To District Of Massachusetts Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

MDL Judicial Panel Transfers Class Action Lawsuits to Massachusetts Despite Fact that No Cases were Pending in that State After four statewide class actions were filed against Volkswagon of America arising out of its August 1004 warranty extension/reimbursement program for certain Volkswagon and Audi vehicles, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed a § 1407 motion for centralization of the litigation. In re Volkswagon and Audi Warranty Extension Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 2548199 (Jud.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 – Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information to Consumer Reporting Agencies: Statutory Provisions of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) for Class Action Defense Attorneys

As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against class actions brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. Congress outlined in detail the responsibilities of those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies in Section 1681s-2 as follows:

§ 1681s-2. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information

(1) Prohibition

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors.

A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.

(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors.

A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if

(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and

(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

(C) No address requirement.

A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address.

(D) Definition.

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate” means having specific knowledge, other than solely allegations by the consumer, that would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information.

(2) Duty to correct and update information.

A person who

(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person’s transactions or experiences with any consumer; and

(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute.

If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

(4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts.

A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed.

(5) Duty to Provide Notice of Delinquency of Accounts

(A) In general.

A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date of delinquency on the account, which shall be the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency on the account that immediately preceded the action.

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Labor Law Cases Again Lead Weekly Filings In California

As a service to class action defense attorneys, we recently began providing unofficial summaries of the categories of new class action lawsuits filed in California. It is our hope that this will permit defense attorneys to anticipate claims against which they may have to defend. This weekly, unofficial summary covers 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

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Federal Antitrust Class Action Cases To Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Over Defense Objection

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants § 1407 Motion Over Objection of Some Defense Attorneys to Avoid Inconsistent Rulings on Class Action Certification in Federal Antitrust Cases Six class action lawsuits were filed against Merck, Medco Health, PAID Prescriptions (now part of Medco), ExpressScripts, Caremark, and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS) alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on the “conduct by the pharmacy-benefit manager (PBM) defendants – including the negotiation of rates for the sale of prescription drugs by retail pharmacies.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Transfers Class Action Against JP Morgan Chase To Northern District Of Illinois Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

MDL Judicial Panel Centralizes Class Action Lawsuits in Illinois Because Action in that State is More Procedurally Advanced Three lawsuits were filed against JP Morgan Chase alleging misrepresentations in connection with its merger in 2004 with Bank One; two lawsuits were filed in Delaware, and one lawsuit was filed in Illinois. The plaintiff in the Delaware lawsuits moved for centralization of the class actions in Delaware. The defense supported centralization, but requested that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-1 – Information on Overdue Child Support Obligations: Statutory Provisions of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) for Class Action Defense Attorneys

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against class actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. The FCRA specifically addresses the question of information needed in connection with overdue child support obligations as follows: § 1681s-1. Information on overdue child support obligations Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall include in any consumer report furnished by the agency in accordance with section 1681b of this title, any information on the failure of the consumer to pay overdue support which

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Federal District Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Putative Class Action Alleging 180Solutions Was A Spyware Company

Illinois Federal Court Gives Defense Latest Victory in Spyware Class Action Lawsuits

Eric Benderoff of the Chicago Tribune reports today that a federal district court has granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against 180solutions (now known as Zango), and quotes the company’s Chief Compliance Officer as stating, “[Plaintiffs] claimed we were a spyware company and that we trespass on people’s computers. We don’t do that; we are invited on the customer’s computer.” This is but the latest defense victory against such class actions: Benderoff states, “So far, there has not been a successful class-action suit against software firms that are accused of planting unwanted and irritating spyware programs on computers.” However, the article identifies at least one lawsuit where plaintiff’s lawyer “successfully argued that spyware companies were trespassing on personal property” which Benderoff describes as “a tactic lifted from environmental law.” Recent governmental efforts to attack the spyware problem may prove more successful, and Benderoff notes that the Federal Trade Commission “has brought six cases to date under its unfair and deceptive practices authority while the Justice Department has pursued spyware cases using the Wiretap Act.”

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Watt v. GMAC Mortgage-RESPA Class Action Defense Cases: Defense Motion To Dismiss RESPA Class Action Properly Granted Because RESPA Does Not Prohibit Servicer From Charging A Fee For Payoff Statements And Does Not Cap Fee Charged Eighth Circuit Holds

Federal District Court Properly Granted Defense Motion to Dismiss RESPA Class Action Because Congress did not Expressly Prohibit Servicers from Charging Fees for Payoff Statements

Borrowers filed a putative class action against GMAC Mortgage Corporation alleging that it violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, “by charging a $20 fee each time the plaintiffs requested their payoff amount from GMAC’s website,” and alleging also breach of contract. The defense moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, but declined to exercise jurisdiction over the contract claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Watt v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 457 F.3d 781, 782 (8th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiffs argued that RESPA requires responses to “qualified written requests” be provided free of charge because RESPA does not affirmatively state that loan servicers may charge fees for such responses: “Since RESPA imposes a duty to respond but does not stated that servicers may charge fees for statements sent in response to qualified written requests, the [plaintiffs] argue, servicers are prohibited from charging fees.” Watt, at 783. The Circuit Court disagreed, holding at page 783:

Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

New Study Estimates Shareholder Risk For Options Backdating At $500 Million

Hot on the heels of Julie Creswell’s New York Times article on options backdating comes a report on the costs to shareholders as estimated by a new study expected to be published in the Michigan Law Review next year. That study, according to Eric Dash of the New York Times, was prepared by three University of Michigan researchers and reportedly concludes that while the backdating of stock options increased executive pay by an average of slightly more than 1%, the average decrease in market value was 8%.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

FedEx Class Action Defense Case-Hart v. FedEx: CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Shifts Burden Of Persuasion From Defense To Plaintiff To Establish Exceptions To Federal Court Jurisdiction Seventh Circuit Holds

As a Matter of First Impression in Seventh Circuit, Court Holds that Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) Shifts Burden to Plaintiff to Establish Exceptions to Federal Court Jurisdiction

After plaintiff filed a putative labor law class action against FedEx in Pennsylvania state court, defense attorneys removed the case to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the class action to the Northern District of Indiana, and plaintiff moved to remand the case to Pennsylvania state court under the “local controversy” or “home-state controversy” exceptions to federal court jurisdiction under CAFA. The district court denied the motion on the ground that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of establishing that the exceptions applied. Plaintiff appealed the order, and the Seventh Circuit held that CAFA shifted the burden to plaintiff and affirmed. Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 676-77 (7th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff’s class action alleged the FedEx delivery drivers were misclassified as “independent contractors.” Hart, at 676. The complaint alleged that “greater than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class, if not all of the members of the plaintiff class, are citizens of Pennsylvania.” Id., at 677. FedEx removed the lawsuit to federal court under CAFA alleging in the notice of removal that “[u]pon information and belief, some of the proposed class members are not residents of Pennsylvania,” id. Absent CAFA, diversity jurisdiction would not exist. Id., at 676. Plaintiff sought to remand the action under CAFA’s “local controversy” and “home-state controversy” exceptions, see § 1332(d)(4)(B), and urged that under _Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans_¸ 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005), FedEx bore the burden of establishing jurisdiction under CAFA and “also that none of the mandatory exclusions from CAFA jurisdiction found in § 1332(d)(4) applied,” id., at 677.

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