CLASS ACTION DEFENSE BLOG
Welcome to Michael J. Hassen's Blog. Here you will find over 2,000 articles related to class actions.
Securities Class Action Complaint Failed to Adequately Articulate Factual Bases for Claims Necessitating Dismissal but with Leave to Amend California Federal Court Holds
Various plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against New Century. and various officers and directors aris[ing] from the collapse of New Century Financial Corporation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, and allegations of securities law violations that drastically reduced the value of stocked owned by shareholders. Gold v. Morrice, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (C.D. Cal. January 31, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. In September 2007, lead plaintiff (New York Teachers Retirement System) filed a consolidated class action complaint; defense attorneys moved to dismiss various class action claims, _id._ The class action was filed after New Centurys stock dropped 97% following several disclosures regarding errors in its previously reported financial statements, _id._, at 2. Specifically, the class action complaint alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a) of the Securities Act, as well as securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individually-named defendants, _id._ The district court granted the motion to dismiss but with leave to file an amended class action complaint.
In granting the defense Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to the class actions Securities Act claims, the district court concluded that the complaint lacks clarity in articulating the grounds for its claims and attributes this failure to a lack of organization and somewhat unclear presentation of the allegations. Gold, at 6. The court noted, for example, that despite many detailed factual allegations and underlined statements from stock offering documents, press releases, or other communications, the court ha[d] difficulty in determining whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim because the class action complaint either lacks facts to support that the statements are false or misleading or provides those facts in a different paragraph without guidance for cross-reference. Id. For guidance, recommended that the class action complaint be clear and concise in identifying false statements and articulating the factual allegations supporting an inference that the statement is false or misleading and directed plaintiffs to attach a chart to the complaint set[ting] forth for each claim ([i]) the alleged false or misleading statements, including the source of the statement in a registration statement where a required element of the claim; (ii) the supporting factual allegations; and (iii) the ultimate conclusion. Id., at 7.
Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized
Read more...
Failure to Timely Seek Permission to Appeal Denial of Motion to Remand Class Action Complaints Removed to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Required Dismissal of Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction Eleventh Circuit Holds
Plaintiff, a pharmacy, filed a putative class action against insurance/pharmacy benefit management companies for misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conspiracy, alleging that defendants failed to reimburse pharmacies “according to an agreed-upon formula for brand name prescriptions dispensed to Defendants’ insureds.” Main Drug, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1324 (M.D. Ala. 2006). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court asserting, inter alia, federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Id. Plaintiffs moved to remand the class action to state court, arguing that the defense had not established the requisite $5 million amount-in-controversy, id. The district court held that even under CAFA the defense bears the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction, but concluded that the defense had satisfied the amount in controversy requirement. Our summary of that district court order may be found here. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit; the Circuit Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Main Drug, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 475 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2007).
The Eleventh Circuit noted the two consolidated class action lawsuits had been filed prior to CAFA’s effective date but the clerk of the court did not issue the summons until after CAFA’s effective date. Defense attorneys removed the class actions to federal court, and plaintiffs’ lawyers filed motions to remand arguing that the class action complaints had been filed before CAFA went into effect. The district court denied the motion. Main Drug, at 1229. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the motion to remand within seven (7) days of the district court order, but never sought permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 5. Id. The Circuit Court explained at pages 1229 and 1230,
Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized
Read more...
Defense Motion for Summary Judgment Arguing that Class Action Claims Seeking Compensation under Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Time Spent Donning and Doffing Safety Gear Required by Employer Denied for Failure to Establish as a Matter of Law that Class Action Claims Fell Within Exception to FLSA Compensation Requirement Wisconsin Federal Court Holds
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, Kraft Foods, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law for time spent in donning and doffing safety and sanitation equipment as part of their jobs at a meat processing plant. Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 527 F.Supp.2d 860, 2007 WL 4564094, *1 (W.D. Wis. 2007). Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment arguing that the class action claims fell within the Portal-to-Portal Act exception, that the allegations in the class action complaint did not constitute “changing clothes” within the meaning of the FLSA, and that in any event the class action claims fell within the FLSA’s “de minimis” exception. Id. (While such dispositive motions are generally inappropriate prior to the court’s ruling on a class action certification motion, plaintiffs stipulated that they would not seek class action treatment until the court ruled on the summary judgment motion, id.) Except as explained in the Note, below, the district court denied the defense motion because it could not find as a matter of law “that the donning and doffing of the equipment at issue in this case is excluded from the protections of the FLSA,” id.
The district court stated at page 1, “This case presents a straightforward question: does the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, require defendant Kraft Foods Global, Inc., to pay its employees for time they spend putting on and taking off items of safety and sanitation equipment that defendant’s policies and federal law require the employees to wear?” Kraft operates a meat processing plant in Wisconsin and requires employees to use time clocks “typically [located] right outside the ‘production area’” to track their time. Spoerle, at *1. Federal law, as well as company policy, requires employees wear safety and sanitation equipment in the production area, which “includes a hard hat or bump cap, steel-toed shoes or sanitation boots, ear plugs, hairnet and beard net, safety glasses, a freezer coat (if necessary), gloves, plastic gloves, paper frock or plastic apron, sleeves, slickers (for employees that work in wet areas) or a cotton frock (employees may choose to wear cotton pants and a shirt instead, which the parties refer to as ‘career clothes’).” Id. Failure to wear the required equipment may lead to discipline, id. The gravamen of the class action is that some of these items – all of which are owned by the employer and stored at the plant – must be put on before clocking in, id., at *2. The court noted that “The current collective bargaining agreement between plaintiffs and defendant does not guarantee compensation for the time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment,” id., and noted further that Kraft did not dispute that such conduct was “work,” id., at *3; rather, the defense argued that the conduct falls within an exception.
Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized
Read more...
To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of class actions 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 California state and federal courts 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 include 10% or more of the class action filings during the preceding week.
Class Actions In The News Uncategorized
Read more...
Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Over Plaintiffs’ Objections, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees With Defense that District of Minnesota is Appropriate Transferee Court Twenty-eight class action lawsuits were filed in 27 districts against various defendants, including KFC Corp. alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay assistant managers overtime pay. In re KFC Corp. Fair Labor Standards Act Litig.
Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized
Read more...
Plaintiffs in Labor Law Class Action Failed to Establish that Defense Failed to Properly Respond to Pre-Certification Discovery and Defense failed to Establish Good Cause for Untimely Designation of Rebuttal Expert District of Columbia Federal Magistrate Holds
Plaintiffs, five deaf employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS), filed a putative class action alleging that they were “denied a qualified sign language interpreter at safety meetings and mandatory work meetings” and that this “prevented from performing their duties safely, which they contend is an essential function of their job.” Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D 27, 2008 WL 43867, *1 (D.D.C. 2008). Plaintiffs alleged that a class action could be certified under either Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3), and sought pre-certification discovery to support a motion for class action certification. Id. Defense attorneys moved to terminate pre-certification discovery and for leave to designate a rebuttal expert witness, id. The federal magistrate granted the first motion but denied the second.
With respect to their first motion, defense attorneys argued that plaintiffs had been given sufficient time to conduct the discovery necessary to file for class action certification, and that further discovery was inappropriate pre-certification because “Plaintiffs either (a) have the evidence they need for class certification and are attempting to collect that which they need for trial on the merits, or (b) have failed in their attempts to meet the class certification requirements following this Court’s dismissal of their first class complaint and are trying to squeeze every last document out of the Postal Service in a vain attempt to piece together a plausible class certification theory for their second amended complaint.” Hubbard, at *1. Plaintiffs’ opposition “raised legitimate concerns regarding the discovery that has been thus far produced by defendant,” characterizing USPS’s discovery responses as “grossly insufficient and manifestly incomplete.” Id.
Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized
Read more...
Documents Plaintiff’s Counsel Found on Internet and Intends to Use in Prosecuting Class Action Against State Farm not Protected by Work Product Doctrine Indiana Federal Court Holds
Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; prior to the filing the class action, plaintiff’s lawyer “undertook a comprehensive factual investigation relevant to the claims being asserted,” gathering “numerous documents from publicly available sources, including from Defendant State Farm’s own web sites.” Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 4561607, *1 (S.D. Ind. December 21, 2007). In order to prepare its defense against the class action claims, defense attorneys requested production of all documents plaintiff obtained from “publicly available sources” prior to filing suit, _id._, at *3. Plaintiff’s lawyer admitted that he “plan[ned] to use these documents ‘for the purpose of cross-examining and impeaching State Farm representatives,’” but refused to produce them on the ground that the documents were protected by the work product doctrine. _Id._, at *1. Defense attorneys filed a motion to compel, _id._, and the district court granted motion.
The federal court explained that plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the documents sought were “prepared in anticipation of litigation.” Kartman, at *1. Plaintiff argued the documents “would necessarily reveal counsel’s mental impressions and litigation strategy”; defense attorneys countered that “Plaintiffs intend to withhold clearly responsive documents from State Farm based upon a temporary invocation of work product protection that Plaintiffs will waive at tactically opportune times.” Id. The district court explained that in order for the work product doctrine to apply, “the material must be documents or other tangible things, must be prepared in anticipation of litigation, and must be prepared by or for a party or his counsel.” Id., at *2. Here, however, the documents were “secured from other sources” and “were not prepared in anticipation of this particular litigation” or “by or for Plaintiff or his counsel in this litigation.” Id. In fact, the district court noted, the documents from State Farm’s web site “were prepared by State Farm with absolutely no thought whatsoever of this particular litigation.” Id., at *3. And while it is true that plaintiff’s lawyer assembled the documents from various public sources, the district court found persuasive the defense argument that “Merely gathering documents from third parties does not gloss the documents with an attorney’s mental impressions any more that simply sharing documents with an attorney stamps the documents with the imprimatur of attorney-client privilege.” Id.
Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized
Read more...
Class Action Alleging Fidelity Failed to Disclose and Provide Discounted Title Insurance Rates to Homeowners as Part of Refinance Transactions Entitled to Class Action Treatment Ohio Federal Court Holds
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against their title insurance carrier, Fidelity National Title, alleging that the cost it charged insureds for insurance issued in connection with refinance transactions; specifically, the class action alleged that plaintiffs “have been injured and wronged by defendant’s failure to charge them a lower premium,” as required by Ohio law, “even though they were not named insureds under the title insurance policy.” Randleman v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Ohio January 31, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Of course, homeowners typically pay for title insurance, both for themselves and for their lenders, _id._, at 2. Defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the class action to the extent it asserted claims for breach of implied-in-fact contract and unjust enrichment, which the district court denied. _See Randleman v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co._, 465 F.Supp.2d 812, 827 (N.D. Ohio 2007). Plaintiffs then filed a motion to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._ The trial court concluded that the matter may proceed as a class action.
Like all other title insurers doing business in Ohio, Fidelity belongs to the Ohio Title Insurance Rating Bureau (OTIRB) and files its insurance rates with the Ohio Superintendent of Insurance. Randleman, at 2. “The OTIRB files a manual of rates with the Ohio Department of Insurance (ODI), setting forth the rates title insurers will charge for policies.” Id. The rates in the manual are binding on title insurers, and the listed rates are mandatory though Ohio law provides for certain discounted rates, id., at 2-3. The class action complaint alleged that plaintiffs refinanced their Ohio home and paid a non-discounted rate for a title policy for their lender, id., at 3. The class action further alleged that plaintiffs had refinanced within the time period that would have qualified them to receive a discounted reissue rate, and that “they were overcharged $213.57.” Id., at 4. Plaintiffs’ class action certification motion argued that Fidelity systematically failed to provide discounts “despite knowledge that particular consumers are entitled to the discounted rate.” Id., at 5. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment on the ground that “the issue of knowledge of the discount on the part of each individual class member would be determinative, and would require individualized adjudication of ‘as to the knowledge and practices of the particular lender, mortgage broker, agent, and borrower involved in the transaction’…, and thus, individual adjudication of each class member’s claim.” Id. Plaintiffs countered that Fidelity’s non-disclosure or a homeowner’s lack of knowledge is not an element of the causes of action underlying the class certification motion, so individual trials would not be required. Id., at 5-6.
Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized
Read more...
On Appeal from Order Granting Class Action Treatment Against Dow Chemical for Damages Allegedly Caused by Dioxin from Dow Plant, Defense Failure to Request or Seek to Introduce Evidence in Opposition to Motion to Certify Class Action Undermines Claim that Trial Court Erred in Failing to Hold Evidentiary Hearing Split Michigan State Court Holds
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Dow Chemical alleging toxic tort claims based on the alleged release of dioxin at Dow’s Midland, Michigan, plant. Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., Mich. Ct. App. Case No. 266433 (unpublished) (Mich.App. January 24, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. In part, the class action complaint “presented an issue of first impression” in that plaintiffs sought certification of a class action to create a medical monitoring program funded by Dow, id. In 2003, plaintiffs moved for class action certification, and defense attorneys moved for summary disposition of the medical monitoring claim, id., at 2. The trial court denied the defense motion, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed reasoning that “[b]ecause plaintiffs do not allege a present injury, plaintiffs do not present a viable negligence claim under Michigan’s common law.” Henry v. The Dow Chemical Co., 701 N.W.2d 684, 473 Mich. 63, 68 (Mich. 2005). On remand, the trial court considered class action treatment of the remaining claims for nuisance, negligence, and public nuisance, Slip Opn., at 3, and granted the motion, id., at 6-7. Defense attorneys appealed and, in an unpublished and divided opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals noted that the sole issue before it was whether the trial court’s order granting class action treatment was “clearly erroneous.” Henry, at 7 (citation omitted). Defense attorneys argued on appeal that individual questions of law or fact will predominate over common questions, and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Id., at 8. The lead opinion, by Judge Hood, states at page 7 that “in my view, the trial court’s decision with regard to certification of the class was not clearly erroneous.” With respect to the lack of an evidentiary hearing, the court noted that the parties made the strategic decision not to introduce evidence but, rather, to rely on case law in support of, and opposition to, the class action certification motion, id., at 8. Of course, “[w]ithout an evidentiary hearing, there are no factual findings to review,” id., and having made the tactical decision not to request an evidentiary hearing or seek to present testimony in opposition to class certification, the defense could not now be heard to complaint. And with respect to Dow’s arguments that “the properties and the dioxin levels vary,” thus creating predominantly individual questions of fact, the appellate court concluded that (1) under Michigan law, “the trial court is not required to accept the defendant’s assertions and proofs, but looks to the allegations in the complaint,” and (2) the investigation and report of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) concluded that certain areas contained excessive amounts of dioxin and that Dow’s Midland facility was the source of the contamination. Id., at 11-12. While Dow argued that another sources of contamination existed, the MDEQ had concluded that the alternate source was not a factor so the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Id., at 12.
Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized
Read more...
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 California state and federal courts 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 include 10% or more of the class action filings during the preceding week. This report covers the two-week period of January 25 – January 31, 2008, during which time 46 new class action lawsuits were filed.
Class Actions In The News Uncategorized
Read more...