Everett v. Verizon-Class Action Defense Cases: Defense Failed To Establish Amount In Controversy For Removal Of Class Action To Federal Court Because Neither Disgorgement Nor Punitive Damage Claims May Be Aggregated Sixth Circuit Holds

Court of Appeals Reverses District Court Denial of Motion to Remand Because Defense Failed to Satisfy $75,000 Amount-In-Controversy Requirement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and Holds as Matter of First Impression in Sixth Circuit that Punitive Damages may not be Aggregated to Meet Threshold

After plaintiffs filed a putative class action in state court against several cellular telephone companies arising out of the allegedly false representation that customers “would not be charged for unanswered phone calls or those that generated a busy signal,” and praying for “an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, [and] disgorgement,” defense attorneys removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs moved to remand the action to state court on the ground that the defense had not satisfied its burden of establishing that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement, but the district court denied the motion holding that “the size of the disgorgement claim met this threshold.” Id., at 821. Eventually, the federal action involved but a single class representative and a single defendant, and the district court granted a defense motion for summary judgment as to the claims remaining against it. Plaintiff appealed only the district court’s remand order, not the ruling on the merits. Id. The Circuit Court agreed with plaintiff’s argument and reversed.

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Barnett v. Experian-Class Action Defense Cases: Texas Court Decertifies Class Action Under Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Decertified Because Defendant In Bankruptcy

Federal Court Holds Decertification of Class Action Appropriate Where Defense Lacks Financial Ability to Satisfy Claims

Plaintiffs filed a class action against defendants, including The Credit Store, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); a Texas federal district court certified the class action, but the defense delayed implementation of the certification order by filing a bankruptcy petition. The district court decertified the class action against The Credit Store sua sponte because it lacked the financial ability to satisfy any judgment against it. Barnett v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 307 (E.D. Tex. 2006). The district court summarized the allegations against The Credit Store as follows: “The plaintiffs contend that the defendant purchased old debts and changed the date of last activity on the accounts such that they could be reported to credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This gave the debt collectors leverage to collect the obsolete debts.” Id., at 308.

Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital: Federal District Court Erred In Exercising Supplemental Jurisdiction And Dismissing Class Action State-Law Claims Second Circuit Holds

Second Circuit Holds that Once District Court Granted Defense Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims that Provided Federal Jurisdiction it Should have Remanded State-Law Class Action Claims to State Court Rather than Dismissing Them with Prejudice

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against asserting various federal and state-law claims based on allegedly inflated heath care treatment rates. The defense moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety. The district court granted the defense motion, and plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of three of their state-law class action claims arguing that (1) the court should have remanded the claims to state court once it disposed of the federal class action claims, and (2) even if the court should have retained jurisdiction, it erred in dismissing the state-law claims. Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2006). Because the Second Circuit agreed with the first argument advanced by plaintiffs, if did not reach the latter argument. Id., at 119.

Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Qwest Class Action Defense Case-In re Qwest Communications: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Securities Cases In District Of Colorado Where Class Action Is Pending

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion Under § 1407 Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Purposes Before Class Action Judge even though Court-Approved Partial Settlement of Class Action is Pending

More than two dozen lawsuits – including at least one class action – were filed against Qwest Communications arising out of “alleged financial irregularities in connection with Qwest securities.” Defense attorneys sought to centralize pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407; plaintiffs’ lawyers in several actions objected. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the defense motion. In re Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc., Securities & “ERISA” Litig. (No. II), 444 F.Supp.2d 1343 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Objecting plaintiffs argued “transfer should be denied because 1) a partial settlement has been approved in class action proceedings in the District of Colorado that have been pending since 2001; 2) alternatives to 1407 transfer were available to address any common discovery matters and to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and/or 3) transfer would be unduly burdensome or otherwise prejudicial.” Id., at 1345. The Panel rejected these claim, explaining at page 1345:

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Jones v. People’s Heritage Bank-Class Action Defense Cases: Lender’s Retention of Portion Of Loan Proceeds As “Administrative Charge” Does Not Violate Federal Truth In Lending Act Georgia Court Holds

Georgia Federal District Court Holds that TILA (Truth in Lending Act) and Regulation Z do not Require Disclosure of “Administrative Charges”

A putative class action was filed in state court alleging inter alia that a dental fee payment plan violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z because the lender kept a portion of the loan proceeds to cover an “administrative charge” rather than forwarding all sums borrowed to the dentist. Jones v. People’s Heritage Bank, 433 F.Supp.2d 1328 (S.D. Ga. 2006). The district court agreed with defense attorneys that the terms of the loan were fairly disclosed, and so dismissed the federal TILA claim in the class action complaint and remanded the balance of the action to state court.

Plaintiff required $10,000 in dental work, half of which was covered by insurance. To pay the remaining $5,000, plaintiff elected to finance the dental work through a dental fee plan offered by her dentist through a lender, AmeriFee. The loan contract stated that the $5,000 would be paid to the dentist; AmeriFee, however, kept 7.5% of the loan amount ($375) as an “administrative charge.” Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that the failure to disclose the “administrative charge” for loan transactions violated TILA. Jones, at 1329. Specifically, the class action complaint alleged that this conduct violated state law and constituted a breach of contract, and that it also violated TILA and Reg Z “by failing to disclose and by making a misrepresentation of the amount financed and to whom the amount of the loan was paid.” Id., at 1331. In essence, plaintiff argued that her loan amount should have been only $4,625 – the amount the dentist received – and that the $375 administrative fee qualified as a “finance charge,” id., at 1333.

Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

In re Bausch & Lomb-Class Action Defense Cases: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Nationwide Class Action Cases To District Of South Carolina

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Litigation for Pretrial Purposes and Selects District Where Manufacturing Facility is Located as Transferee Court A multitude of lawsuits, including several putative nationwide class action lawsuits, were filed against Bausch & Lomb arising out of its ReNu contact lens solution, which Bausch & Lomb (“B & L”) withdrew from the market after it was associated fungal keratitis (a type of eye infection).

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 1681m – Requirements on Users of Consumer Reports: Statutory Language of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) for the Class Action Defense Lawyer

As a resource for defense attorneys who defend against class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. The article sets forth the statutory provisions concerning requirements placed on users of consumer reports:

§ 1681m. Requirements on users of consumer reports

(a) Duties of users taking adverse actions on the basis of information contained in consumer reports.

If any person takes any adverse action with respect to any consumer that is based in whole or in part on any information contained in a consumer report, the person shall

(1) provide oral, written, or electronic notice of the adverse action to the consumer;

(2) provide to the consumer orally, in writing, or electronically

(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the consumer reporting agency (including a toll-free telephone number established by the agency if the agency compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis) that furnished the report to the person; and

(B) a statement that the consumer reporting agency did not make the decision to take the adverse action and is unable to provide the consumer the specific reasons why the adverse action was taken; and

(3) provide to the consumer an oral, written, or electronic notice of the consumer’ s right

(A) to obtain, under section 1681j of this title, a free copy of a consumer report on the consumer from the consumer reporting agency referred to in paragraph (2), which notice shall include an indication of the 60-day period under that section for obtaining such a copy; and

(B) to dispute, under section 1681i of this title, with a consumer reporting agency the accuracy or completeness of any information in a consumer report furnished by the agency.

(b) Adverse Action Based on Information Obtained from Third Parties Other than Consumer Reporting Agencies

(1) In general.

Whenever credit for personal, family, or household purposes involving a consumer is denied or the charge for such credit is increased either wholly or partly because of information obtained from a person other than a consumer reporting agency bearing upon the consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, the user of such information shall, within a reasonable period of time, upon the consumer’ s written request for the reasons for such adverse action received within sixty days after learning of such adverse action, disclose the nature of the information to the consumer. The user of such information shall clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer his right to make such written request at the time such adverse action is communicated to the consumer.

(2) Duties of Person Taking Certain Actions Based on Information Provided by Affiliate

(A) Duties, generally.

If a person takes an action described in subparagraph (B) with respect to a consumer, based in whole or in part on information described in subparagraph (C), the person shall

(i) notify the consumer of the action, including a statement that the consumer may obtain the information in accordance with clause (ii); and

(ii) upon a written request from the consumer received within 60 days after transmittal of the notice required by clause (i), disclose to the consumer the nature of the information upon which the action is based by not later than 30 days after receipt of the request.

(B) Action described.

An action referred to in subparagraph (A) is an adverse action described in section 1681a(k)(1)(A) of this title, taken in connection with a transaction initiated by the consumer, or any adverse action described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 1681a(k)(1)(B) of this title.

(C) Information described. Information referred to in subparagraph (A)

(i) except as provided in clause (ii), is information that

(I) is furnished to the person taking the action by a person related by common ownership or affiliated by common corporate control to the person taking the action; and

(II) bears on the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living of the consumer; and

(ii) does not include

(I) information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person furnishing the information; or

(II) information in a consumer report.

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Bickley v. Caremark: ERISA Class Action Plaintiff Properly Required To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Eleventh Circuit Holds

Circuit Court Affirms District Court Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Complaint Because Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

An employee filed a putative ERISA class action on behalf of his employer’s health insurance plan against the Pharmacy Benefits Manager alleging breach of fiduciary duties for profiting from “undisclosed discounts, rebates, coupons and other forms of compensation from drug companies and pharmacies.” The district court granted the defense motion to dismiss the class action with prejudice because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., 461 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006).

The Circuit Court summarized the allegations in plaintiff’s class action complaint at page 1328 as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

In re Intel-Class Action Defense Cases: Defense Keeps Class Action Removed Under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) In Federal Court Because Amount In Controversy Exceeds $5 Million

Federal District Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Remand Class Action to State Court Because Defense Established Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Plaintiff filed a putative antitrust class action against Intel Corporation in state court, which the defense removed to federal court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act). The district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the class action to state court, and plaintiff moved for reconsideration. In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 436 F.Supp.2d 687 (D. Del. 2006). The district court explained that it refused to remand the lawsuit to state court because the defense “had carried its burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists” because the defense “carr[ied] its burden of setting out the amount in controversy” and plaintiff did not “establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was less than the statutorily required $5,000,000.” Id., at 688. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argued that the district court erred by (1) failing to consider his evidence concerning the amount in controversy, and (2) accepting Intel’s estimate which was based on the cost of the computer as a whole rather than the cost of the microprocessor itself. Id., at 689. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion.

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

15 U.S.C. §§ 1681k and 1681l – Public Record Information for Employment Purposes/ Restrictions on Investigative Consumer Reports: Statutory Language of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) for the Class Action Defense Lawyer

As a resource for defense attorneys who defend against class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. The article sets forth the statutory provisions concerning public record information and restrictions on investigative consumer reports, contained in Sections 1681k and 1681_l_, respectively: § 1681k. Public record information for employment purposes (a) In general. A consumer reporting agency which furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes and which for that purpose compiles and reports items of information on consumers which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer’ s ability to obtain employment shall

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized