UPS Class Action Defense Cases–Hohider v. United Parcel Service Express: Third Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification Of ADA Class Action Holding District Court Abused Discretion In Granting Certification

District Court Order Granting Certification Of ADA Class Action under Rule 23(b)(2) Warranted Reversal because District Court Abused Discretion in Overlooking Individualized Inquiries Inherent in Class Action Claims and because Monetary Relief was not Merely Incidental to Class Action Complaint Third Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against United Parcel Service “alleging UPS has adopted and implemented companywide employment policies that are unlawfully discriminatory under the [Americans with Disabilities Act] ADA.” Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. July 23, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 6]. A separate class action was filed against UPS that was ultimately consolidated for all purposes with the initial action. _Id._, at 7. In broad terms, “Plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful discrimination focus on UPS’s alleged treatment of employees who attempt to return to work at UPS after having to take leave for medical reasons.” _Id._ According to the allegations underlying the class action, “UPS, as a matter of companywide policy, refuses to offer any accommodation to employees seeking to return to work with medical restrictions, effectively precluding them from resuming employment at UPS in any capacity because of their impaired condition.” _Id._, at 8. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a nationwide class action, _id._, at 6-7, 10. In analyzing plaintiffs’ motion, the district court concluded that the proper “framework for analyzing a Title VII pattern-or-practice claim” in “a private-party class action brought under the ADA” was that set forth in _Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co._, 424 U.S. 747 (1976), _Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States_, 431 U.S. 324 (1977), and _Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond_, 467 U.S. 867 (1984). _Id._, at 29. The district court concluded that plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for class action certification under Rule 23(b)(2), _id._, at 11-12. UPS appealed, and in an 86-page opinion the Third Circuit reversed, _id._

The Circuit Court noted that the district court recognized the difficulties in allowing the litigation to proceed as a class action. For example, the district court “recognized that, in the present case, some of these ‘individual elements of a reasonable accommodation claim’ are not suitable for class treatment, as their resolution would require inquiries too individualized and divergent with respect to this class to meet the requirements of Rule 23.” Hohider, at 34. The court found, however, that “these individualized inquiries could be delayed until the second, ‘remedial’ stage” and so did not preclude class certification for the “‘liability’ stage,” which required “only proof of the existence of the alleged policies as UPS’s ‘standard operating procedure.’” Id. In the district court’s words, “It is sufficient in order to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for the court to find that either UPS has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by engaging in the alleged de facto 100% healed policy or by not engaging in the alleged de facto 100% healed policy; by implementing its formal ADA compliance procedures in violation of the ADA, or by implementing them in compliance with it; or by creating job classifications that are designed without regard to essential job functions to preclude anyone from returning to work who could not lift seventy pounds, or by creating job classifications that are designed with regard to essential job functions.” Id., at 34-35. The Third Circuit found that the district court misconstrued the Teamsters framework, and that “[t]o the extent the District Court relied upon the Teamsters method of proof to reach a certification decision incompatible with the substantive requirements of the ADA, it abused its discretion.” Id., at 42. The Third Circuit held at page 42, “Having reviewed plaintiffs’ claims in light of the substantive requirements of the ADA, we find those claims cannot be adjudicated within the parameters of Rule 23 such that a determination of classwide liability and relief can be reached. Rather, establishing the unlawful discrimination alleged by plaintiffs would require determining whether class members are ‘qualified’ under the ADA, an assessment that encompasses inquiries acknowledged by the District Court to be too individualized and divergent with respect to this class to warrant certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).” Put simply, “the Teamsters framework cannot, by its own force, cure this flaw in the class.” Hohider, at 43. “Accordingly, the court’s grant of class certification was an abuse of discretion.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Relative Percentage Of Labor Law Class Actions Filed In California State And Federal Courts Soars

As a resource to California class action defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in the state and federal courts located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the preceding week. This report covers the period from July 31 – August 6, 2009, during which time 37 new class actions were filed — a comparatively low number.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Comcast: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Eastern District Of Pennsylvania

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Rejects Request of Overwhelming Majority of Responding Parties for Transfer to Northern District of Illinois, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of Pennsylvania as Requested by Moving Party Nine class actions –three each in Illinois and Pennsylvania, and one each in the Eastern and Northern Districts of California, and the Southern District of West Virginia – were filed against Comcast and others alleging antitrust violations; specifically, the class action complaints allege that “Comcast improperly tied and bundled the lease of cable boxes to the ability to obtain premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Insurance Class Action Defense Cases–Spagnola v. Chubb: Second Circuit Generally Affirms Dismissal Of Class Action Claims For Violations Of New York’s Insurance Law And Deceptive Business Practices Act But Reverses As To Breach Of Contract Claim

Class Action Claims Challenging Increases in Homeowner’s Insurance Premiums Properly Dismissed Except for One Aspect of Breach of Contract Claim Second Circuit Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action against his homeowner’s insurer, Chubb, alleging inter alia violations of New York’s Insurance Law and deceptive business practices act; the class action complaint alleged that Chubb violated the terms of the policy “by improperly increasing coverage and premiums without his consent and in excess of the [Consumer Price Index].

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Desai v. Deutsche Bank: Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Securities Fraud Class Action Case Holding Issue Of Reliance Defeated Predominance Prong Of Rule 23(b)(3)

District Court did not Abuse Discretion in Denying Class Action Certification in Securities Fraud Class Action because Reliance Required to Establish Securities Exchange Act § 10(b) Violation could not be Proven on a Class-Wide Basis Ninth Circuit Holds Numerous putative class action complaints were filed against Deutsche Bank alleging securities fraud in the alleged manipulation of the stock price of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (“GENI”); the class action lawsuit “followed the collapse of an elaborate stock manipulation scheme.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Target Class Action Defense Cases–Loeffler v. Target: California State Court Affirms Dismissal Of Class Action Holding Plaintiffs Lacked Standing To Challenge Sales Taxes Collected By Target

Class Action Alleging Target Improperly Collected Sales Tax on Sale of Hot Coffee “To Go” Properly Dismissed because Plaintiffs do not have Standing under California Statutory Scheme to Seek Reimbursement from Retailer of Sales Taxes Paid to State and Lack Standing to Directly or Indirectly Enjoin the Collection of Sales Taxes California State Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against Target alleging that it unlawfully collected sales taxes on purchases of coffee; the class action complaint sought reimbursement of the sales taxes paid by class members, and an injunction against the collection of such sales taxes in the future.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

FedEx Class Action Defense Cases–Babineau v. Federal Express: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Certification Of Labor Law Class Action Holding District Court Acted Within Its Discretion

District Court did not Err in Denying Class Action Treatment of Labor Law Class Action because Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Concluding that Individualized Factual Issues Concerning Gap and Break Periods Predominate over Common Issues Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Federal Express alleging labor law violations in that FedEx allegedly “fail[ed] to pay hourly employees for all time worked”; the lawsuit has been characterized as “Round Two” because “the district court denied certification of a nationwide class of FedEx employees asserting substantially similar claims in Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp/, 248 F.R.D. 647 (S.D. Fla. 2008)” and then this class action was filed in an “attempt[] to address the defects identified in Clausnitzer by limiting the scope of the class….” Babineau v. Federal Express Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. July 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-3]. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, but the court denied the motion concluding that “individualized factual inquiries into whether and how long each employee worked without compensation would swamp any issues that were common to the class.” _Id._, at 2. Plaintiff’s appealed the denial of class certification, _id._ The Eleventh Circuit explained that the issue on appeal was “whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to certify the class.” _Id._ The Circuit Court held the district court acted within its discretion and affirmed.

We do not here summarize the lengthy summary of facts in the Circuit Court opinion, see Babineau, at 2-14. Nor do we address Rule 23(a)’s requirements for class action treatment, as the district court assumed that they had been satisfied. See id., at 14-15. The Eleventh Circuit immediately began its analysis with Rule 23(b)(3)’s class certification requirements. See id., at 15. The Court noted that “common issues will not predominate over individual questions if, ‘as a practical matter, the resolution of [an] overarching common issue breaks down into an unmanageable variety of individual legal and factual issues.’” Id., at 15-16 (citation omitted). In other words, “[c]ertification is inappropriate if the ‘plaintiffs must still introduce a great deal of individualized proof or argue a number of individualized legal points to establish most or all of the elements of their individual claims.’” Id., at 16 (citation omitted). Using these rules, the district court refused class action treatment because it concluded “adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims on a class basis would be swamped by individual factual inquiries into the activities of each employee during the gap periods or during breaks.” Id. The Circuit Court addressed each in turn.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Actions Alleging Employment-Related Claims Hold Top Spot Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed In California State And Federal Courts

To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of cases against which they will have to defend in California, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in the state and federal courts located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the preceding week.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re LandAmerica: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District of South Carolina

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees to Transfers Class Actions to District of South Carolina Two class actions – one in California and one in South Carolina – were filed against various defendants, including LandAmerica and SunTrust Banks, “on behalf of individuals and entities that sought to enter into a Section 1031 tax-deferred exchange and entrusted money to facilitate the exchange with the qualified intermediary LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, Inc.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

BofA Class Action Defense Cases–In re Consumer Privacy: California Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court Approval Of Class Action Settlement And Award Of Attorney Fees Under Clear Sailing Agreement

Trial Court did not Err in Approving Class Action Settlement in Class Action Against Bank of America for Invasion of Privacy Arising from Sale of Customer Information to Third Party Marketers and “Clear Sailing Agreement” as to Attorney Fee Award to Class Counsel did not Invalidate Award California Appellate Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Bank of America and related entities alleging inter alia invasion of privacy arising from the Bank’s alleged disclosure of “personal and confidential information to third party telemarketers and direct mail marketers for a fee, to enable them to market services to plaintiffs”; the class action was coordinated with two similar class actions against the Bank, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed in 2003.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized