Class Action Defense Cases—In re Chrysler: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District Of New Jersey

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Common Class Action Defendant, and Transfers Class Actions to District of New Jersey Five class actions – one each in California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York – were filed against Chrysler arising out of an alleged defect in the 2.7 liter engine used in several Chrysler cars; specifically, the class actions alleged that design defects made the 2.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–Katz v. Gerardi: Seventh Circuit Reverses Order Remanding Class Action To State Court Holding Class Action Fairness Act May Trump Securities Act Of 1933

District Court Erred in Remanding Securities Class Action to State Court because Evidentiary Hearing Required to Determine Whether Section 22(a) of Securities Act Precluded Removal of Class Action to Federal Court Pursuant to CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Complaint Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in state court against various defendants purportedly on behalf of “a class of persons who contributed real property (or interests in real property) to the Archstone real estate investment trust, in exchange for interests called ‘A-1 Units’”; the class action complaint asserted that defendants violated federal securities laws. Katz v. Gerardi, 552 F.3d 558, 559 (7th Cir. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, “In 2007 Archstone merged into Tishman-Lehman Partnership. Holders of A-1 Units were offered a choice of cash or Series O Preferred Units in the entity formed by the merger. [Plaintiff] contends that the merger violated the terms of the A-1 Units, because neither cash nor the Series O Preferred Units offered investors the same tax benefits as A-1 Units.” Id. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), id. The district court remanded the class action to state court on the grounds that the Securities Act of 1933 prohibited removal, id., at 560. The Seventh Circuit granted defendants’ application for permission to appeal and reversed the district court’s remand order.

The Circuit Court began its analysis by observing, “One might suppose that a statute enacted in 2005 supersedes a statute enacted in 1933, but the district court held that § 22(a) [of the Securities Act of 1933] controls because it is ‘more specific’ than the 2005 Act – for § 22(a) deals only with securities litigation, while the 2005 Act covers class actions in many substantive fields.” Katz, at 560. The Seventh Circuit also noted that “[o]nly purchasers of securities may pursue actions under the 1933 Act,” id. (citation omitted). But the district court found it sufficient that the class action complaint “invokes the Securities Act of 1933,” which, in the district court’s view, was alone sufficient to preclude removal.” Id. The Seventh Circuit disagreed: “It is hard to distinguish between a claim artfully designed to defeat federal jurisdiction and one that is properly pleaded but unsuccessful on the merits, but it cannot be right to say that a pleader’s choice of language always defeats removal.” Id. Based on the Circuit Court’s analysis, “Section 22(a) and the 2005 Act are incompatible; one or the other must yield,” id., at 561, and further that § 22(a) did not “insulate” the class action’s alleged claims under the Securities Act from removal under CAFA. See id., at 561-63.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Pfizer Class Action Defense Cases–Clark v. Pfizer: Pennsylvania State Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment As To Certain Class Action Claims And Decertifies Litigation As Class Action

Defense Motion for Summary Judgment Granted as to Class Action’s Express Warranty Claim and Granted as to Other Class Action’s Claims as to Individuals who did not Benefit from Off Label Use of Prescription Drug, and Defense Established Grounds to Decertify Class Action because Individual Questions Predominate Pennsylvania State Trial Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Pfizer and Warner-Lambert alleging that their drug, Neurontin, approved by the FDA for epilepsy and for neuralgia, was sold by prescription for “off label” purposes “not approved by the FDA.” Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., Philadelphia Common Pleas Case No. 1819 (February 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The trial court noted that doctors were free to prescribe Neurontin “for any condition that they believe to be appropriate even if not FDA approved,” explaining that this practice “is known as off-label prescribing and although permissible in the medical profession, federal law prohibits a drug manufacturer from promoting off-label uses of an approved medication.” Id. According to the class action, defendants “deliberately and unlawfully promoted Neurontin to physicians for ‘off-label uses’ for which effectiveness had not been scientifically demonstrated.” Id., at 2. Defendants were charged criminally in federal court; they pleaded guilty to two specific violations of off-label marketing, and paid a $240 million fine. Id. The class action asserted claims for misrepresentation, negligence and breach of warranty, and sought reimbursement of all drug costs paid by individuals as opposed to insurers, id., at 1. The trial court certified the lawsuit as a class action; defense attorneys moved to decertify the class action and for summary judgment. Id.

Defendants’ motion stressed that certain physician’s prescribed Neurontin for off-label purposes because they believed it would help – and believed it did help – their patients, not because of defendants’ marketing efforts. Clark, at 2-4. The trial court easily concluded that the class action’s express warranty claim failed because “there is no evidence that plaintiffs saw, heard or in any way received any warranties that Neurontin could be used in circumstances not approved by the FDA.” Id., at 4. Further, “[t]he alleged fraud on the medical profession which is the essence of plaintiffs’ claims does not create any warranty.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment as to the class action’s express warranty claim, id. As to the misrepresentation and negligence claims, the class action alleged that “through defendants’ concerted activities they incorrectly convinced that entire medical community of the effectiveness of off label uses.” Id. However the evidence presented demonstrated that “some of the class members have suffered no injury” because they “received a medical benefit” from the off-label use of Neurontin, id. The court therefore granted summary judgment “as to those class members who benefited from prescribed off label uses of Neurontin,” but denied the motion as to class members who received no benefit from off label uses. Id., at 4-5.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Microsoft/Vista Class Action Defense Cases–Kelley v. Microsoft: Washington Federal Court Grants Microsoft Motion To Decertify Class Action Because Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance Requirement No Longer Met

Though District Court Initially Granted Class Action Treatment in Class Action Challenging Microsoft’s Marketing of “Vista Capable” PCs, Motion to Decertify Class Action Granted because Plaintiffs could not Establish Causation Element on a Class-Wide Basis Washington Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative nationwide class action against Microsoft alleging inter alia violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act or similar state consumer protection statutes and for unjust enrichment; the class action complaint “challenge[d] various aspects of Microsoft’s marketing of its Windows Vista…operating system.” Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Wash. February 18, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 2-3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, nearly a year before releasing Vista, Microsoft authorized PC manufacturers to place stickers on their computers indicating that they were “Windows Vista Capable”; the class action complained that “a large number” of these computers were in fact capable of operating only the “Basic” version of Vista, not the Premium, Business or Ultimate versions of Vista. _Id._, at 2. The class action additionally alleged that Microsoft’s “Express Upgrade Guarantee Program” permitted customers to upgrade from Windows XP only to Vista Basic, _id._ The gravamen of the class action complaint is that “Basic cannot fairly be called ‘The Real Vista.’” _Id._ Defense attorneys countered that “Basic provides customers with a number of benefits over XP and is part of the Vista line.” _Id._ The district court certified the litigation as a class action, and Microsoft subsequently moved to decertify the class and for summary judgment, _id._, at 1. The district court granted the motion to decertify the litigation as a class action but denied summary judgment.

The federal court began by noting that “a district court may revisit its decision to certify a class in order to address developments that arise during the course of litigation.” Kelley, at 4 (citations omitted). Indeed, “[a] court’s power to revisit certification is ‘a vital ingredient in the flexibility of courts to realize the full potential benefits from the judicious use of the class action device.’” Id., at 5 (citation omitted). Microsoft’s motion for class decertification centered on Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement, id. “Courts have recognized that consumer fraud cases may present unique considerations when determining predominance” and “courts have decertified classes when it becomes apparent that the predominance factor can no longer be satisfied.” Id. (citations omitted). Defense attorneys argued that plaintiffs cannot establish on a class-wide basis the “causation” element of the complaint’s consumer fraud claim. Id., at 8. The district court agreed.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Amex Class Action Defense Cases–Homa v. American Express: Third Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Consumer Fraud Class Action Holding Class Action Arbitration Waiver Unenforceable Under New Jersey Law

District Court Erred in Dismissing Class Action Based on Arbitration Clause in Credit Card Agreement and Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Clause because New Jersey Law rather than Utah Law Applied and, under Facts Underlying Class Action Complaint, New Jersey would not Enforce Class Action Arbitration Waiver Third Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against American Express and American Express Centurion Bank (collectively “Amex”) alleging violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act; the class action complaint asserted that Amex misrepresented the terms of its “Blue Cash” credit card reward program, which allegedly promised customers up to 5% cash back on purchases made with the card. Homa v. American Express Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 440912, *1 (3d Cir. February 24, 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, plaintiff (a New Jersey resident filing the putative class action on behalf of other New Jersey residents) was denied “failed to award him the promised amount of cash back in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.” _Id._ The credit card underlying the class action claims was subject to a cardholder agreement that required arbitration of any disputes and that included a class action waiver, requiring that any claim “be arbitrated on an individual basis … [with] no right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated [as] a class action.” _Id._ The Agreement included also a choice-of-law provision that stated Utah law governed any disputes, _id._ Defense attorneys moved to compel arbitration of the putative class action claims on individual basis; the defense argued in part that Utah law expressly permits class action arbitration waivers in consumer credit agreements. _Id._ Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground New Jersey law would prohibit enforcement of the class action waiver and that application of Utah law to deny class action relief would violate New Jersey’s public policy. _Id._ The district court treated the motion as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted the motion, dismissing the class action complaint with prejudice. _Id._ Plaintiff appealed and the Third Circuit reversed.

According to the Third Circuit, “This appeal raises important issues under state law. Nevertheless, we must first consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, precludes this Court from applying state law unconscionability principles to void a class-arbitration waiver. We conclude that it does not.” Homa, at *1 (citing Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996)). As part of that analysis, the Circuit Court determined whether Utah law or New Jersey law governed the dispute. Id., at *2-*3. The Court concluded that “the Supreme Court of New Jersey might well find that the application of Utah law allowing class-arbitration waivers in the context of a low-value consumer credit suit violates a fundamental policy of New Jersey.” Id., at *3 (footnote omitted). But the Third Circuit found also that it must first address whether “the FAA and this Court’s decision in Gay v. CreditInform, 511 F.3d 369 (3d Cir. 2007), preclude us from applying New Jersey unconscionability principles to a class-arbitration waiver.” Id. Based on its analysis of the FAA, id., at *3-*5, the Circuit Court held that its prior decision in Gay does not preclude the Court from relying on New Jersey law to invalidate the class action arbitration waiver, id., at *5. And the Court further concluded that if New Jersey law governed the dispute then the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss the class action because “the class-arbitration waiver violates fundamental New Jersey public policy as applied to small-sum cases,” id., at *6. So the critical issue was whether Utah law or New Jersey law applied.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

New Employment-Related Class Action Lawsuits Retain Top Spot Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed In California State And Federal Courts

As a resource for California class defense attorneys, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in the California 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 February 20 – 26, 2009, during which time 41 class actions were filed.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Bank of America Auction Rate Securities (ARS): Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Transfer Class Actions To California

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Responding Class Action Plaintiffs, but Transfers Actions to Northern District of California Three class actions – one each in California, Illinois and New York – were filed against Bank of America Investment Services, Inc.; Bank of America Securities, LLC; Bank of America Corp. (collectively “BofA”) alleging “that Bank of America entities and/or its employees made misrepresentations in the context of the sale of auction rate securities (ARS).

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–Dennison v. Carolina Payday Loans: Fourth Circuit Affirms Remand Of Class Action To State Court Holding Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Minimal Diversity Not Established

Class Action Properly Remanded to State Court because under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Defendant is Citizen of Both State of Incorporation and State of Principal Place of Business, and CAFA does not Permit Defendant to Choose State of Citizenship to Satisfy Minimal Diversity for Removal Jurisdiction Fourth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action in South Carolina state court against Carolina Payday Loans alleging violations of state law in “payday loans” that were allegedly unconscionable; plaintiff was a South Carolina citizen, and brought the putative class action complaint on behalf of herself and other South Carolina citizens. Dennison v. Carolina Payday Loans, Inc., 549 F.3d 941, 942 (4th Cir. 2008). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court asserting removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); the defense argued minimal diversity had been met because Carolina Payday “is a citizen of Georgia, where it claims it has its principal place of business, even though it is also a citizen of South Carolina, where it is incorporated,” or because some members of the putative class may have moved out of state. Id. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the class action to state court because Carolina Payday and the putative class members were citizens of South Carolina. Id. The district court additionally found that the class action “fell within the ‘home-state exception’ to CAFA jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4) because in a class limited by definition to ‘citizens of South Carolina,’ at least two-thirds of the class members necessarily are citizens of South Carolina.” Id. The Fourth Circuit granted defendant’s request for permission to appeal the remand order, and affirmed.

The Circuit Court found this case to be “substantively identical” to Johnson v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc., 549 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2008). Dennison, at 942. Because the class action complaint expressly defined the putative class “to include only citizens of South Carolina,” defense counsel’s speculation that class members may have moved out of state was inaccurate. Id. The Fourth Circuit first held that a class defined as “all citizens of South Carolina” is indistinguishable from a class defined as “citizens of South Carolina who are domiciled in South Carolina” because “an individual must be domiciled in a State in order to be a citizen of that State.” Id., at 942-43 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the class action complaint properly limited the scope of the class to South Carolina residents/citizens. Id., at 943. The Court therefore found irrelevant Carolina Payday’s evidence that some of its South Carolina borrowers were now citizens of other states because class membership was limited to “citizen[s] of South Carolina at the time the complaint was filed.” Id. The Fourth Circuit also found unpersuasive the defense argument that because Carolina Payday has its principal place of business in Georgia, it is allowed to rely on its Georgia citizenship to establish minimal diversity under CAFA. See id., at 943-44. The Circuit Court explained at page 944 that CAFA “does not give greater weight to a corporation’s principal place of business than to its place of incorporation” and that, accordingly, for purposes of establishing diversity under CAFA “Carolina Payday is a citizen of both South Carolina, its State of incorporation, and Georgia, assuming it is able to demonstrate that its principal place of business is in Georgia.” The Fourth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court order remanding the class action to state court, id., at 944.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–McLoughlin v. People’s United: Connecticut Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand Class Action To State Court Holding Removal Jurisdiction Exists Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

Class Action Properly Removed to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) because Defendants Established by Preponderance of the Evidence that Class Action Placed more than $5 Million in Controversy Connecticut Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action in Connecticut state court against Bank of New York Mellon (“Mellon”) and People’s United Bank (“Bank”) alleging negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); the class action complaint asserted that Mellon lost electronic data belong to Bank customers.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Class Action For Failure To Arbitrate Under RLA And Holds Class Action Improperly Removed To Federal Court

Defendant Improperly Removed Labor Law Class Action to Federal Court and Therefore District Court Erred in Dismissing Class Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against Alaska Airlines alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that defendant willfully failed to pay its former employees all wages due upon termination as required by Oregon law. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., ___ F.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized