Wall Street Journal Reports On Federal Indictment Of Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer Melvyn Weiss On Illegal Kickback Charges

Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reports today on the long-anticipated criminal charges leveled against well known class action plaintiff lawyer Melvyn Weiss. The criminal charges are contained in an amendment to the federal indictment handed down last year against the plaintiff class action law firm of Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Steven Schulman and David Bershad. The criminal charges against Weiss comes just days after former Milberg Weiss attorney William Lerach, himself a well-known class action plaintiff lawyer, pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges, and to the guilty plea of Steve Schulman to federal racketeering and conspiracy charges.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

GM-OnStar Class Action Defense Case-In re General Motors OnStar: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Eastern District of Michigan

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Opposed by Certain Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Concurs with Defense Recommendation to Transfer Class Actions to Eastern District of Michigan Four putative class action lawsuits (three in Michigan and one in California) were filed against General Motors “relating to (1) the impact of the conversion of the cellular network from an analog/digital network to a digital-only network on December 31, 2007, and (2) the availability of OnStar service in certain vehicles thereafter.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Securities Fraud Class Action Defense Cases-In re JDS Uniphase: California Federal Court Holds Certain Claims In Securities Fraud Class Action May Proceed To Trial But Grants Defense Summary Judgment Motion As To Most Claims

Defense Motion for Summary Judgment in Securities Fraud Class Action Warranted as to 28 Statements Challenged by Class Action Complaint but Triable Issues Existed as to Remaining Class Action Claims California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a securities fraud class action in California federal court against JDS Uniphase and certain officers alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b), 14, 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Sec. Litig., Slip Opn., at 1-2 and 6-7 (N.D. Cal. August 24, 2007). JDS Uniphase manufactures and supplies components of fiber-optic networks. Id., at 2. The class action alleges that the company and its officers falsely represented the company’s financial condition in order to artificially inflate the stock price, in part so JDS could purchase other companies “for less than their worth.” Id., at 3. After the court certified the litigation as a class action, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed cross-motions for summary judgment, id., at 1-2. The district court granted the defense motions in part and deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ motion; in so ruling, the federal court held that certain disputes could be resolved only at trial.

At the time the defense filed its summary judgment motion, plaintiffs were challenging 56 separate statements. JDS, at 10. The defense argued that it was entitled to judgment as to 24 of these statements either because plaintiffs failed to include them in the class action complaint or because plaintiffs abandoned them, id., at 9-10. The district court concluded: (1) plaintiffs did not abandon any claims raised in the class action complaint, id., at 10; (2) despite the holding in Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994), plaintiffs were entitled to leave to amend to add 16 of the challenged statements to the class action complaint, id., at 10-12; and (3) plaintiffs failed to properly place at issue three of the statements challenged by the defense, and so the motion for summary judgment was granted as to those statements, id., at 13.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Wall Street Journal Reports On Criminal Conspiracy Guilty Plea By Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach

Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reports today on the guilty plea by leading class action plaintiff lawyer William Lerach to criminal conspiracy charges arising out of illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs in class action shareholder lawsuits. The plea arises from the criminal indictment filed last year against the well known plaintiff class action law firm Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Steven Schulman and David Bershad. The guilty plea was announced just days after Lerach resigned from his law firm to reportedly focus on his defense against the as-then uncharged allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

State and City of New York File Lawsuit Against Merck Seeking Restitution of Medicaid and Prescription-Drug Payments Made for Vioxx

Heather Won Tesoriero of the Wall Street Journal reports today that the State of New York and New York City have filed a lawsuit against Merck seeking tens of millions of dollars for payments made from 1999 through 2004 on Vioxx through Medicaid and a prescription-drug assistance program for the elderly. According to the lawsuit, “Merck tried to distort each negative disclosure about Vioxx. Merck cherry-picked outcomes from its own research, omitting material information that would have communicated Vioxx’s real cardiovascular dangers.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Leading Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach To Plead Guilty To Conspiracy In Illegal Kickback Scheme

Securities Fraud Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach Reportedly Agrees to Plead Guilty to Conspiracy in Paying Kickbacks to Class Representative On the heels of our report that William Lerach announced his resignation in order to focus his energies on defending himself against the as-then unannounced criminal charges leveled against him in the wake of the federal court indictment of Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Molly Selvin reports today that Lerach that agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Catalyst v. Kaiser: California Court Upholds Dismissal Of Class Action Because Established Business Relationship Exception Precluded Class Action Complaint Claims Alleging Violations Of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

While the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Prohibits Sending Unsolicited Advertisements via Facsimile, Trial Court Properly Dismissed Class Action Complaint because “Established Business Relationship” Exception Applied California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiff Catalyst Strategic Design filed a putative class action in California state court against its insurer, Kaiser Foundation Health, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) arising out of the insurer faxing an unsolicited advertisement to the company. Catalyst Strategic Design, Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 1328, 1330-31 (Cal.App. 2007). Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had an “established business relationship” with Catalyst based on their numerous discussions about insurance coverage and, thus, Catalyst is deemed under federal regulations to have consented to receiving the faxed advertisement, id., at 1331. The district court agreed and dismissed the class action. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

In August 2001, Catalyst Strategic Design contacted Kaiser regarding health insurance for its employees, and provided Kaiser with its fax number so that it could receive written information on Kaiser’s health plans; however, Catalyst did not sign up for insurance coverage with Kaiser at that time. Catalyst, at 1330. “Over the next year and a half, Kaiser contacted Catalyst about a dozen times by phone and in writing, including faxes, to discuss Kaiser’s on-going individual coverage of Catalyst’s president and in the hope of selling coverage to the company’s employees”; in January 2003, Catalyst told Kaiser it no longer intended to buy insurance coverage for its employees, but it did not tell Kaiser to stop contacting it about insurance. Id., at 1331. In May 2004, Kaiser faxed a one-page ad to Catalyst about various health plans: in response, Catalyst filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the TCPA, which generally prohibits faxing unsolicited advertisements. Id. The class action complaint also alleged violations of California’s UCL, id.. Based on these facts, defense attorneys argued that Kaiser was entitled to send the fax to Catalyst because they had an “established business relationship” within the meaning of the federal regulations governing the TCPA, id. The district court agreed and dismissed the class action complaint. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Lott v. Pfizer: Seventh Circuit Holds Defense Basis For Erroneous Removal Of Class Action Pursuant To CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Was Objectively Reasonable So Sanction Award Was Improper

District Court Erred in Awarding Attorney Fees Against Defendant for Removing Class Action Under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Because even though Basis for Removal was Flawed – that Class Action was “Commenced” when Removed rather than when Filed – Defense had Objectively Reasonable Grounds for its Interpretation of the Statute Seventh Circuit Holds

In an effort to avoid removal to federal court, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Illinois state court on February 17, 2005: the class action alleged violations of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in that defendant Pfizer misrepresented the health risks of using Celebrex and Bextra, and charged more than fair market value for these drugs. Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d 789, 790-91 (7th Cir. 2007). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court on the basis of CAFA, id., at 790, arguing that the action “commenced” when defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, id., at 791. The district court remanded the class action to state court on the ground that CAFA applied only to class actions filed after CAFA’s effective date, and awarded attorney fees and costs against Pfizer. Id. The defense appealed the award of fees and the Seventh Circuit reversed.

We do not here discuss the unsuccessful arguments made by the defense in support of removal, both under CAFA and under traditional diversity jurisdiction: suffice it to say that the district court remanded the class action to state court based on its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction had not been met – a decision affirmed by the Seventh Circuit in Pfizer, Inc. v. Lott, 417 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir.2005), which held that for purposes of CAFA jurisdiction a class action was “commenced” when it was “filed” not when it was “removed,” and that Pfizer had not established diversity jurisdiction. We address here the defense appeal from the award of attorney fees against Pfizer.

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

Employment Law Class Action Cases Only Category To Break 10% Threshold Of New Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts

In order to assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the type of cases against which they will have to defend, 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 relevant timeframe.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases-In re Charlotte Russe: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Central District of California

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Opposed by Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees to Transfer Class Actions to Central District of California as Requested by Defense Two class action lawsuits were filed against Charlotte Russe alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by failing to block certain credit and debit card information from customer receipts. In re Charlotte Russe, Inc.

Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized