15 U.S.C. § 1681 – Congressional Findings and Statement of Purpose for the Fair Credit Reporting Act: Statutory Language for the Defense Lawyer of Class Action Lawsuits Under the FCRA

As a service to class action defense attorneys, we provide here the text of the relevant statutory provisions of the FCRA. We have endeavored to make this accurate as of January 1, 2006. It includes those amendments to the FCRA contained in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT), Public Law 108-159, as well as those in Section 506 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Public Law 106-102. In 1970, Congress enacted the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Federal Court Order Compelling Arbitration And Granting Class Action Defense Motion To Dismiss TILA Case Is Appealable Under FAA And Plaintiff Did Not Meet Burden Of Establishing Prohibitive Cost of Arbitration-Class Action Defense Cases

Green Tree v. Randolph: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Order Compelling Arbitration Pursuant to Lender’s Arbitration Provision under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) Because Plaintiff Did Not Establish that Arbitral Forum would be Prohibitively Expensive: Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Class Action Claims Properly Dismissed

In Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000), the United States Supreme Court addressed two issues: (1) whether a court order granting a defense motion to compel arbitration and dismissing (rather than staying) the plaintiff’s claims is immediately appealable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) as a “final decision with respect to an arbitration”; and (2) whether an arbitration provision that is silent on the question of allocation and amount of arbitration fees and costs is unenforceable for failure to “affirmatively protect a party from potentially steep arbitration costs.” Id., at 82. The putative class action against Green Tree alleged violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and arose from a loan to the putative class action representative for the purchase of a mobile home evidenced by a Manufactured Home Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement that expressly provided for all disputes to be resolved by finding arbitration under the provisions of the FAA. Id., at 82-83 and n.1. Plaintiff asserted that Green Tree violated TILA by failing to disclose a specific insurance requirement as a finance charge; she later added a claim under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 et seq. based on the requirement that she arbitrate her statutory claims for relief. The district court granted the class action defense team’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to certify the case as a class action. Id., at 83.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Plaintiff Firm Indicted In California Becomes Target Of Lawsuits

Indiana Court Requires Class Action Firm Milberg Weiss and Its Class Representatives to Produce Financial Records Dating Back to 1998 David Cay Johnston of the New York Times reports today that an Indiana court has granted a motion by American United Life Insurance Class to compel class action plaintiff firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and four of the firm’s clients to produce financial records dating back to 1998. Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges in California against Milberg Weiss and two of its partners in mid-May 2006 alleging that the firm paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to clients to serve as plaintiffs; charges the firm and its partners deny.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Correy Stephenson’s Article Proves True For California – Class Action Defense Attorneys Again Face More Employment Law Class Action Cases Than Any Other Category

In an article published on July 17, 2006, Correy Stephenson – a staff writer for Lawyers USA – reports on the increase in employment law class actions, particularly under the federal FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). Her article and findings are certainly consistent with the court filings seen in California state and federal courts. To aid California class action defense attorneys in anticipating claims against which they may have to defend, we recently began to provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for 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–Hepting v. AT&T Corp.: California Federal Court Rejects Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Challenging Warrantless Surveillance Program

San Francisco Federal Court Denies Motion by Class Action Defense and Federal Government to Dismiss Lawsuit on Grounds of “State Secrets” Privilege and Immunity, But Certifies Order for Interlocutory Appeal

After the federal government’s warrantless surveillance program was revealed in the press, and after AT&T and President Bush admitted the existence of the program, a putative class action was filed in San Francisco federal court against AT&T alleging that its participation in the program violated numerous constitutional and federal laws, as well as California’s unfair competition law (UCL), California Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq. AT&T moved to dismiss the class action complaint on grounds of standing, failure to plead that AT&T did not have a government certification, and immunity; the federal government intervened and moved for dismissal or summary judgment based on the state secrets privilege. Yesterday, the California district court denied the defense motions, but certified its order for immediate appeal. Hepting v. AT&T Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2006). The court’s order is exceptionally detailed; we provide but a brief summary of it below. The entire opinion may be downloaded from the link at the end of this article.

The district court first addressed the federal government’s “state secrets” defense. “‘The state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary rule that protects information from discovery when disclosure would be inimical to the national security.'” Slip Opn., at 5 (citation omitted). Importantly, an inquiry into the state secrets privilege does not turn on “a balancing of ultimate interests at stake in the litigation,” Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Rather, the question is whether the harm that may result from the disclosure at issue requires that the information be withheld as a matter of “absolute right,” id. The district court in Hepting applied the standard set forth in the Ninth Circuit’s “definitive opinion on the state secrets privilege,” Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1998). Slip Opn., at 12. The federal government asserted that Kasza required dismissal because “(1) the very subject matter of this case is a state secret, (2) plaintiffs cannot make a prima facie case for their claims without classified evidence and (3) the privilege effectively deprives AT&T of information necessary to raise valid defenses.” Slip Opn., at 15 . The court rejected each of these arguments.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Newell v. State Farm: California Court Denies Class Certification In Homeowners’ Putative UCL (Unfair Competition Law) Class Action Against Insurer

Class Action Defense Attorneys Prevail on Demurrer Challenging Class Action Allegations – California Court Holds Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Could not Establish “Community of Interest” (Commonality) California homeowners filed a putative class action against their homeowners’ insurance carriers, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Exchange (collectively “Farmers”) and State Farm General Insurance, asserting claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair competition (UCL) based on the allegation that they “were wrongfully denied policy benefits for damage caused to their homes by the Northridge earthquake.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Overton v. Walt Disney Company: Disney’s Class Action Defense Prevails – Disney Not Required To Compensate Employees For Time Spent Riding Shuttle From Parking Lot To Theme Park California Court Holds

California Court Holds that Disney did not Require Employees to Drive to Work and to Take Shuttle from Parking Lot to Work, So Disney was not Required to Compensate Them for Travel Time Spent Riding Shuttle

A Disney employee filed a putative class action against the company seeking compensation under California state law for travel time based on the theory that certain employees were assigned to a parking lot located one mile from the Disneyland theme park, and Disney provided shuttles to transport them between the parking lot and the park. Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal.App.4thh 263 (Cal.App. 2006). The class action defense attorneys argued that the California Supreme Court opinion in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) – which held that if an employer requires employees to travel in a company vehicle to work then it must compensate the employees for their travel time – did not apply. The defense moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the undisputed evidence established that Disney did not require employees to drive to work (and, in fact, encouraged and offered financial incentives to employees who used alternative means of transportation), and that Disney did not require employees to use the shuttle to travel from the parking lot to the theme park (some employees, for example, would walk or ride a bike). Overton, at 267-68. The trial court granted the defense motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s lawyer appealed.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers FCRA Class Action Cases Against H & R Block To Northern District Of Indiana: Class Action Defense Cases

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Eliminate Duplicative Discovery, Prevent Inconsistent Rulings, and Conserve Resources of Parties and Court in Pretrial Proceedings of Class Action Cases Three class action lawsuits were filed against H & R Block Mortgage Corp. alleging violations of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.) in that defendants purportedly “us[ed] consumer reports for purposes of mailing prescreened offers of credit for home loans to plaintiffs and potential class members.

Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense and Employment Law Issues–Thorne v. All Restoration: FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) Overtime Claim Rejected By Eleventh Circuit

Federal Court Cites Lack of Evidence Employee was Engaged in Interstate Commerce or in Production of Goods for Commerce to Establish Coverage Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to Support Overtime Claim

Plaintiff Joseph Thorne appealed a district court order granting All Restoration Service’s defense motion for dismissal under Rule 50 as to Thorne’s overtime pay claims based on alleged violations of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). Thorne v. All Restoration Serv., Inc., 448 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court had granted the defense motion on the grounds that “Thorne had not presented evidence at trial that he qualified for either enterprise coverage or individual coverage under the FLSA” because “‘[his] activities were local in nature and really did not affect interstate commerce in general,’” id., at 1265. On appeal Thorne challenged only the finding that he failed to establish individual coverage under FLSA. Individual coverage exists only if an employee “is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (2005). The Circuit Court affirmed.

First, the Court rejected Thorne’s claim that regular use of his employer’s credit cards in the course and scope of employment means that he “engaged in interstate commerce.” First, the Circuit Court explained that the statute requires an activity that constitutes interstate commerce, not an activity that “merely affect[s]” interstate commerce. Thorne, at 1266 (citing McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 497, 63 S.Ct. 1248 (1968)). All Thorne alleged was that he made purchases with the credit cards; he could not even establish whether the credit card bills came from out of state. Id., at 1266-67.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Indicted Class Action Firm And Lawyers Enter Not Guilty Pleas In California Federal Court

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 – entered pleas of not guilty in a California federal court yesterday. As explained by Molly Selvin of the Los Angeles Times, “Prosecutors said the ‘paid plaintiffs’ were recruited to buy stocks in anticipation that they would fall in value, positioning themselves and Milberg Weiss to take the lead in securities-fraud cases and collect extra fees.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized