Defense of Class Action Cases: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Transfers FCRA Class Action Cases Against Ocean Financial To Northern District Of Illinois

MDL Judicial Panel 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 Ocean Financial Corp. and its subsidiary Ocean Bank, F.S.B. alleging violations under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) in that defendants purportedly used consumer reports “for purposes of mailing prescreened offers of credit for home equity loans to plaintiffs and potential class members.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Schiller v. Tower Semiconductor: Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Alleging Violation of Security Exchange Act’s Proxy Solicitation Requirements Affirmed By Second Circuit

Second Circuit Reaffirms SEC’s Authority SEC Authority to Create Exemptions to Security Exchange Act’s Proxy Statement Requirements and Upholds Exemption For Foreign Private Issuers – Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Affirmed

On June 1, 2006, in Schiller v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., 449 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit addressed a “novel” challenge to exemptions for foreign private issuers to the proxy statement requirements of the Securities Exchange Act (“the Act”). The challenge came in the form of a putative class action premised on the allegation that a proxy statement issued by Tower Semiconductor “was materially misleading and therefore violated §§ 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . . ., 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t, and certain regulations, including Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9 (2004),” id., at 289. The defense moved to dismiss the class action on the grounds that Tower was a foreign private issuer (an Israeli corporation) and therefore exempt from § 14(a) by virtue of Rule 3a12-3 of the Act. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.3a12-3 (2004). Plaintiffs’ lawyer responded that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) “exceeded its authority in promulgating Rule 3a12-3,” id. The District Court agreed with defense counsel and dismissed the class action.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

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

As a resource for federal defense lawyer defending against class actions under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., we provide on this site the text of the FDCPA. Attorneys in FDCPA class action cases often concern communications from debt collectors, which is governed by the following statute: § 1692d. Harassment or abuse A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Senate Closer To Vote On Bill Further Expanding Federal Court Jurisdiction In Defense Of Class Action Cases

The Associated Press reports that the Senate is nearing a vote on legislation that would further expand federal court jurisdiction over class action lawsuits. Last year, Congress enacted CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which in part significantly expanded access to federal courts in defense of class actions. The Senate bill would further expand such access. Because defense attorneys often remove class actions to federal court whenever possible, class action defense attorneys will be very interested in the progress of this pending legislation.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Defense of Class Action Employment Law Issues–District Court Order Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment In Class Action Arising Out Of “English-Only” Policy Affirmed In Part And Reversed In Part By Tenth Circuit

English Only Policy Supports Claims for Disparate Impact, Disparate Treatment, Intentional Discrimination and Violation of Equal Protection

After the City of Altus, Oklahoma, implemented an “English-only” policy for its employees because “other employees could not understand what was being said on the City radio” when Hispanic employees spoke in Spanish to one another, plaintiffs filed a putative class action asserting numerous discrimination-based claims. Maldonado v. City of Altus, 433 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2006). The district court granted the defense motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims advanced by the class action plaintiffs. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the ruling in part, but permitted the class action to proceed on several key grounds because it found a triable issue of fact as to the allegations of “disparate impact and disparate treatment under Title VII; intentional discrimination under [42 U.S.C.] § 1981; and violation of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Maldonado, at 1298. We provide but a cursory review of the opinion here; a link to the detailed opinion may be found at the end of the article.

Cutting to the chase, in analyzing the class action claims the Tenth Circuit explained that “disparate-impact claims[] ‘involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.’” Maldonado, at 1303 (quoting Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335-36 n.15, 97 S.Ct. 1843 (1977) (italics added)). The Court further explained that in considering whether a plaintiff’s lawyer has established a prima facie case of disparate impacts (whether in class actions or otherwise), the Court employs a sliding scale: “The less the apparent justification for mandating English, the more reasonable it is to infer hostility toward employees whose ethnic group or nationality favors another language.” Maldonado, at 1305. Maldonado held that a prima facie case existed: “Here, the very fact that the City would forbid Hispanics from using their preferred language could reasonably be construed as an expression of hostility to Hispanics. At least that could be a reasonable inference if there was no apparent legitimate purpose for the restrictions.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

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

As a resource for defense lawyer defending against class actions under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., we provide on this site the text of the FDCPA. Attorneys in FDCPA class action cases often concern communications from debt collectors, which is governed by the following statute: § 1692c. Communication in connection with debt collection (a) Communication with the consumer generally Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt–

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

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

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer defending against class actions under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., we provide the text of the FDCPA on this site for attorneys. § 1692b. Acquisition of location information Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall– (1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;

FDCPA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases: Federal Claims Court Certifies Class Action By Nurse Care Managers Against VHA For Failure To Pay Overtime: Defense of Class Actions Issues

Despite “Significant Differences” Between Rule 23 and RCFC 23 (Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims), and Despite Rarity of Class Action Certification, Class Actions Are Not Disfavored in Court of Federal Claims On March 31, 2006, a United States Court of Federal Claims certified a class action under Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 23. Filosa v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 609 (2006). Though RCFC 23 “is modeled largely” on class action certification under Rule 23, “‘there are significant differences.

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

ViChip v. Lee: Employment Issues

California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment Under CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) Following Seventh Circuit Opinion In Citrin

On June 9, 2006, the federal district court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment in favor of an employer (ViChip) against its former CEO, CFO, president, secretary, and sole director (Tsu-Chang Lee), for several wrongful acts, including violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. ViChip Corp. v. Lee, 2006 WL 1626706 (N.D. Cal. 2006), Case No. C 04-2914 PJH. The court rejected defense arguments that Lee’s action did not fall within the class of conduct intended to be covered by CFAA because his actions were “authorized.” Slip Opn., at 11-12.

The case arose out of a 2002 joint venture entered into by ViVoDa (through its president Lee) with two other companies; the joint venture created ViChip to “research, develop, and outsource the production of a particular type of integrated circuit.” Slip Opn., at 1. All ViChip employees, including Lee, signed employment agreements that, in pertinent part, assigned to the company anything the employee invented and promised to maintain in confidence any proprietary information. ViChip filed a patent application in June 2003. Id., at 2.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases: Appointment Of Experienced Class Action Lawyer, Instead Of Plaintiffs’ Lawyer, To Represent Absent Members in Class Actions Not Appealable Second Circuit Holds

District Court Exercise of Discretion to Select Class Action Attorneys Best Able to Represent Absent Class Members is Generally Not Subject to Appellate Review Class action defense attorneys may attack the adequate representation requirement of Rule 23 by challenging the qualifications, experience and ability of the plaintiff’s lawyer to represent the interests of absent class members. Because the role of lead plaintiff lawyer in class action cases directly impacts attorneys’ fees, it is not a minor matter.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized