Employment Law Class Action Filings Again Lead Cases Confronted By California Federal And State Defense Attorneys

For the California federal and state defense lawyer, we again provide an unofficial summary of recent class action filings in California, in the hope that it will assist California class action defense attorneys anticipate claims against which they may have to defend. The following is a summary of legal categories for class actions filed in California state and federal courts from June 30 – July 6, 2006, 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

Furnishing Deceptive Forms (15 U.S.C. § 1692j): Statutory Language for the Defense Lawyer of Class Action Lawsuits Under Federal FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., has spawned numerous class action lawsuits, presenting defense attorneys with a wide array of claims. As a resource to the class action defense lawyer, we quote below the statutory provision of the FDCPA concerning deceptive forms: § 1692j. Furnishing certain deceptive forms (a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Engle v. Liggett Group: Defense Persuades Florida Supreme Court To Decertify Class Action Against Tobacco Company And Set Aside $145 Billion Punitive Damage Award As Excessive

Successful Appellate Defense of Class Action Case Still Permits Individual Lawsuits to be Filed, and Florida Supreme Court Holds that Several Jury Findings Against the Tobacco Companies Still Stand

In a tremendous victory for the tobacco industry defense, the Florida Supreme Court decertified a class action and set aside a $145 billion punitive damage award as excessive. Engle v. Liggett Group, ___ So.2d ___, Case No. SC03-1856 (July 6, 2006). A nationwide class action had been certified almost a dozen years ago – on October 31, 1994 – on behalf of smokers and their survivors seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly caused by smoking. survivors, who have suffered, presently suffer or who have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine.” Slip Opn., at 7. Following an interlocutory appeal filed by the defense, the Florida Court of Appeal affirmed class certification but reduced the scope of the class action to “Florida citizens and residents.” _See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle_, 672 So.2d 39, 42 (Fla.App. 1996). The ensuing trial resulted in a jury verdict awarding the named plaintiffs a total of $12.7 million dollars in compensatory damages, and the entire class $145 billion in punitive damages. Slip Opn., at 9.

With respect to the punitive damage award, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s procedure was fatally flawed. The trial proceeded as follows: Phase I – consisting of the trial on the class action claims for liability and entitlement to punitive damages; Phase II-A – consisting of the trial on the individual class representative’s claims for compensatory damages; and Phase II-B – consisting of a jury trial on the total award of punitive damages payable to the class as a whole. Slip Opn., at 8-9. Phase III (not yet held) would involve the selection a new juries “to decide the individual liability and compensatory damages claims for each class member,” following which “the trial court would divide the punitive damages previously determined equally among any successful class members.” Id., at 10. The Supreme Court rejected this procedure, as well as the size of the award, explaining at page 19:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Legal Actions By Debt Collectors (15 U.S.C. § 1692i): Statutory Language for the Defense Lawyer of Federal Class Action Lawsuits Under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

Class action defense attorneys know that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., is used frequently by a plaintiff’s lawyer to bring a class action against a debt collector for violating the FDCPA’s terms. The FDCPA, however, also includes provisions for lawsuits brought by debt collectors. Specifically, § 1692i addresses the venue for such lawsuits. It provides: § 1692i. Legal actions by debt collectors

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Hapin v. Arrow Financial: Defense Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Granted Because Debt Collector Letter Not Misleading California Court Holds

California Federal Court Finds Letter Referring to Debtor as “Customer” and to Debt Collector as “Account Representative,” and Offering to “Help” Resolve Debt, Not Misleading Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, But Allegation That Debt Collector Sought to Recover Excess Interest Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss

In January 2006, a putative class action was filed in California federal court against Arrow Financial Services alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), and its California equivalent, California Civil Code, §§1788 et seq. Hapin v. Arrow Fin. Serv., 428 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Plaintiff’s lawyer asserted that the debt collector letter from Arrow was “false, deceptive, and misleading” in that it (1) described plaintiff as a “customer,” (2) characterized the debt collector as an “account representative,” and (3) offered to “‘help Plaintiff regain his financial future . . . [and] by the false . . . characterization of debt as helping “regain his financial future.”’” Id. The complaint also alleged that Arrow sought to collect excessive interest, id. Defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint, which the California federal court granted in part and denied in part.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Multiple Debts (15 U.S.C. § 1692h): Federal Statutory Language for the Defense Lawyer of Class Action Lawsuits Under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

Class action defense attorneys know that many provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., form the basis of class actions, other provisions do not appear to be controversial. For example, even if a plaintiff’s lawyer has argued a violation of § 1692h, concerning multiple debts, it appears that it has not yet generated any appellate decisions. The statutory language of the FDCPA concerning multiple debts is as follows:

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Validation of Debts (15 U.S.C. § 1692g): Statutory Language for the Defense Lawyer of Class Action Lawsuits Under the Federal FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

Federal class action defense attorneys know that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., provides debtors with a means for challenging payoff demands and determining the validity and accuracy of asserted debts. The specific statutory language of the FDCPA concerning the validation of debts is quoted below: § 1692g. Validation of debts (a) Notice of debt; contents Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing–

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Filings: California Defense Attorneys Confront More Employment Class Actions

In an effort to assist California class action defense attorneys anticipate claims against which they may have to defend, we provide an unofficial summary of legal categories for class actions filed in California state and federal courts from June 22 – June 29, 2006, 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 boast 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Unfair Practices (15 U.S.C. § 1692f): Statutory Language for the Class Action Defense Lawyer of Lawsuits Under the Federal FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

A defense lawyer in a federal class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., often confronts allegations of “unfair practices” by debt collectors. As a resource to attorneys in class actions, we here provide the statutory language of the FDCPA relevant to such claims: § 1692f. Unfair practices A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

False or Misleading Representations (15 U.S.C. § 1692e): Statutory Language for the Defense Lawyer of Class Action Lawsuits Under Federal FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

Defense attorneys often deal with class actions under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., alleging false or misleading representations made by debt collectors. As a resource for the class action defense lawyer, we set forth the language of the application statute under the FDCPA: § 1692e. False or misleading representations A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized