Class Action Defense Cases—In re Digital Music: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Class Action Antitrust Cases At Request Of Plaintiffs And Defense To Southern District Of New York

**Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motions by Defense and Plaintiffs to Centralize Class Action Antitrust Cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Pretrial Purposes Several class action lawsuits were filed against Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America, Bertelsmann Music Group, Bertelsmann, Inc., Universal Music Group, Time Warner, Warner Music Group and EMI Music North America alleging “that the various defendants illegally conspired to artificially fix or maintain the prices of digitally formatted music offered for sale on the internet in violation of 1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Cintas: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Holds That Statutory Objective of Pretrial Centralization Under § 1407 Includes Actions Brought To Compel Arbitration

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Litigation in Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Overtime Case for Pretrial Purposes Over Defense Objection Current and former employees filed a “collective” action against Cintas Corp. in the Northern District of California alleging failure to pay overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (the Veliz action) involving 2,000 plaintiffs. Cintas (as plaintiff) filed 70 actions against approximately 1800 of the Veliz plaintiffs to compel arbitration.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re McDonald’s: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Nationwide Class Action Cases To Northern District Of Illinois

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants § 1407 Motion to Centralize Pretrial Proceedings for Putative Nationwide Class Actions in District Where Defense Corporate Headquarters is Located Six lawsuits, including five putative nationwide class action cases, were filed against McDonald’s which – though alleging various theories of liability – were all based on the central allegation that McDonald’s “misled the public regarding the presence of gluten, wheat or dairy derivatives in its french fries.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Indicted Class Action Firm Continues To Lose Attorneys And Close Offices–Latest Lawyer Switches To Defense

Class action plaintiff firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and two of the firm’s top partners, David Bershad and Steven Schulman – indicted in mid-May 2006 for paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to clients to serve as plaintiffs – continues to top-notch trial lawyers. The latest to leave, according to Julie Creswell of the New York Times, is Patricia Hynes, who joined Milberg Weiss in 1982. Ms. Hynes’ decision is particularly intriguing because she moves from representing class action plaintiffs to defense work at Allen & Overy.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Schacter v. Circuit City-Class Action Defense Cases: Massachusetts Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Arising From Allegedly Premature Termination Of Product Warranty Plan

Massachusetts Federal Court Denies Defense Motion to Dismiss “Marginal” Claims at Pleading Stage

Circuit City customers brought a putative class action asserting various state law claims arising out of the allegedly premature termination of product warranties, and the defense filed a motion to dismiss. Schacter v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 433 F.Supp.2d 140 (D. Mass. 2006). Specifically, plaintiffs purchased a telephone from Circuit City, together with an additional two-year warranty from Circuit City; the telephone failed and the store gave them a gift card for the full amount of the purchase price, including taxes. The store did not give them any credit for the “unused” portion of their two-year warranty because reimbursement or replacement terminated the warranty. Id., at 142. Plaintiffs’ class action complaint alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Id., at 141. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court summarized the positions of the defense and plaintiffs at page 143 as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

In re H & R Block-Class Action Defense Cases: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Nationwide Class Action Cases To Western District Of Missouri Over Defense Objection

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants § 1407 Motion Over Defense Objection Finding Centralization Particularly Helpful With Respect to Class Certification Issues Presented by Numerous Putative Nationwide Class Actions Numerous lawsuits – almost all of them putative nationwide class action cases – were filed against H & R Block, Inc., H & R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. and H & R Block Tax Services, Inc. alleging that the manner in which they marketed and sold defendants’ Express Individual Retirement Account product breached fiduciary duties owed their clients.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Defense Gears Up For Lawsuit Challenging The Hiring Of Illegal Immigrants Under California’s Unfair Competition Statute

California Lawsuit Follows Settlement of Class Action in Washington State Court Brought by Employees on Theory that Hiring Illegal Immigrants Reduced Wages Molly Selvin of The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday on the California lawsuit filed by Global Horizons against Munger Bros. and two of Global’s competitors, Ayala Agricultural Services and J & A Contractors, claiming that Munger Bros. breached an agreement to hire 600 blueberry pickers through Global so that it could instead hire illegal immigrants from the competition.

Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial: New York Federal Court Throws Out Class Action Under FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) And Awards Defense Attorney Fees

New York Federal Court Converts Defense Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action to Motion for Summary Judgment, Grants Motion, and Awards Defense Attorney Fees and Costs Because Lawsuit was Filed for Purpose of Harassment

After debt collector sent plaintiff a letter demanding payment of a $492 debt, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it (1) demanded payment within 30 days and (2) that the letter’s request for “payment or notice of dispute” within 30 days “might” be interpreted as giving the debtor 30 days from the date of the letter rather than from its receipt. Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs, Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 133, 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). The defense was not amused; and judging from the ruling, neither was the federal court.

The federal court discussed the fact that FDCPA claims are subject to abuse:

Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

California Action Targets Hiring Of Illegal Immigrants Under California’s Unfair Competition Statute

Peter Prengaman of The Associated Press last night reported that a lawsuit has been filed in California by a company, Global Horizons, claiming that another company, Munger Bros., breached an agreement to hire 600 blueberry pickers so that it could instead hire illegal immigrants from two competing temporary placement agencies, Ayala Agricultural Services and J & A Contractors. Prengaman reports that the complaint is premised on California’s unfair competition laws, and quotes the President of Global Horizon as stating that “[the] hiring of illegal immigrants is hurting our business badly.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Ford Motor Class Action Defense Cases-Daffin v. Ford Motor: Federal District Court Certification Of Class Action Over Defense Objection Not An Abuse Of Discretion Sixth Circuit Holds

Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court Order Granting Motion to Certify Class Action Against Car Manufacturer

On August 18, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court order certifying a nationwide class action against Ford Motor Company, arising out of an allegedly defective throttle body assembly in Mercury Villager minivans causing the accelerator to stick. Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. August 18, 2006). Plaintiff filed suit in state court on her own behalf because the accelerator in her 1999 Villager would get stuck even after Ford repairs to the throttle body assembly. Ford removed the action to federal court, and plaintiff’s lawyer sought certification of a nationwide class action, apparently under Rule 23(b)(2). The district court instead certified a statewide class under Rule 23(b)(3), because the class action complaint sought monetary rather than injunctive relief. Id., at 551-52. Defense attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order under FRCP Rule 23(f). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and rejecting defense arguments that “this is a case of ‘certify now, worry later.’” Id., at 552.

Defense attorneys argued that because it provided a “repair or replace” warranty to car purchasers, certain class members may never suffer the damage alleged in the complaint. The Sixth Circuit summarized Ford’s argument as follows: “because the class as a whole cannot recover, the district court abused its discretion by certifying a statewide express warranty class.” Id., at 552. Plaintiff countered that Ford was seeking a ruling “on the merits” and that ultimate success is not a proper basis for denying class certification. Id. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “[plaintiff] has the better of the arguments at this stage of the litigation.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized