Class Action Defense Cases-Arias-Benn v. State Farm: Fifth Circuit Holds Class Action Claims Against Insurer For Damages Caused By Hurricane Katrina Properly Dismissed For Failure To State A Claim

District Court Properly Granted Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Alleging Insurer Failed to Pay Insurance Benefits Because Court Correctly Determined that Class Action Allegations did not Support a Breach of Contract Claim Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Louisiana state court against her insured, State Farm, for failing to pay insurance policy benefits for loss suffered as a result of power outages caused by Hurricane Katrina. Arias-Benn v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Class Action Lawsuits Tie Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits In Weekly Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts

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 relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from August 3 – August 9, 2007.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Pilgrim’s Pride: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Actions In Western District of Arkansas

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Unopposed by Plaintiffs’ Lawyers, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Class Actions to Western District of Arkansas Five labor law class action lawsuits were filed against Pilgrim’s Pride alleging failure to comply with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In re Pilgrim’s Pride Labor Standards Act Litig., 489 F.Supp.2d 1381, 1381 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2007). Defense attorneys for the common defendant filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re ConAgra Peanut Butter: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Class Action Lawsuits And Selects Northern District of Georgia As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Request, Unopposed by Defense and Other Responding Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of Georgia Twenty (20) products liability class action lawsuits were filed in 13 different federal district courts against various defendants arising from the consumption of contaminated peanut butter. In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Products Liab. Litig., 495 F.Supp.2d 1381, 1381-82 (Jud.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Schulz v. Neovi Data: California Court Affirms Defense Judgment In Class Action As To Certain Defendants But Grants Plaintiff Leave To Amend Class Action Claims Against Other Defendants

Following Defense Judgment in Class Action Complaint for Aiding and Abetting Intentional Tort, California Court Affirms as to PayPal and Neovi Defendants but Holds Plaintiff is Entitled to Opportunity to Amend as to PaySystems and Ginix Defendants

Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in California state court against Neovi Data Corporation, Ginix, PaySystems and PayPal, alleging that they aided and abetted the operation of an illegal lottery. Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp., 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 810, 812-13 (Cal.App. 2007). The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended class action complaint without leave to amend, id., at 812. The appellate court affirmed the judgment as to Neovi and PayPal, but reversed as to Ginix and PaySystems, concluding that plaintiff should be given an additional opportunity to amend the class action complaint in an effort to state a claim against those defendants, id., at 812-13.

The second amended class action complaint alleged that defendant EZ Expo operated an Internet site that purportedly provided consumers the chance to “receive expensive electronic products for a fraction of the price” but requires that participants “pay[] a fee to enter a ‘matrix’” and that other consumers “join the ‘matrix’ after him.” Schulz, at 813. The class action alleged that to get a $5500, 50-inch plasma television at EZ’s website, a consumer “enters the plasma television matrix by purchasing the required three ‘E-books’ for $150” and their name is then “placed on the list of those eligible to receive the television.” Id. According to the class action complaint, “[W]hen 50 persons have each paid $150, the first person to enter will receive the plasma television ‘for free’ and his name is removed from the list.” Id. The appellate court explained at page 813 that once a participant gets the TV then “the second name on the list moves to the top and 50 more people need to enter for that person to receive the television.” Plaintiff alleged further that EZ “encourage[d] participants to recruit others to enter the matrix.” Id. The complaint alleged that the E-books themselves have “minimal” value and that EZ sold millions of dollars in E-books. Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Tobacco Class Action Defense Cases-In re Tobacco Cases: California Supreme Court Holds That Federal Law Preempts State Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Class Action Against Tobacco Companies

Class Action Against Tobacco Companies Alleging UCL Claims for Marketing Cigarettes to Minors is Preempted by Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) California Supreme Court Holds In 1994, the California Supreme Court held that a lawsuit against tobacco companies alleging violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). See Mangini v.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Plaintiff Class Action Law Firm Milberg Weiss Named As Defendant In Class Action Filed By Former Class Members

In a case of “boy bites dog,” plaintiff class-action law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman was named August 2, 2007, as a defendant in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by six individuals who were class members in class action lawsuits where Milberg Weiss served as lead class counsel. The putative class action also names the well known plaintiff class action law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as a defendant.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Falcon v. Philips Electronics: New York District Court Holds Plaintiff’s Lawyer Not Entitled To Go “Fishing” For New Class Representative And Dismisses Class Action For Lack Of Jurisdiction

After Denying Motion to Certify Class Action on Grounds that Named Plaintiff would be an Inadequate Class Representative, New York District Court Denies Plaintiff’s Lawyer Leave to Conduct Discovery to Identify New Class Representative and Dismisses Class Action Because Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) no Longer Existed

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Philips Electronics alleging design defects in certain television models that caused them to require repair after the expiration of the express warranty period; federal court jurisdiction existed solely because of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Falcon v. Philips Electronics North Am. Corp., 489 F.Supp.2d 367,368 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Plaintiff moved the district court for an order certifying the litigation as a class action; the district court denied the motion, agreeing with defense attorneys that plaintiff was not an adequate representative of the class. Id. Plaintiff’s lawyers then sought further discovery in an effort to find an adequate representative of the class, id. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the class action for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court order refusing to certify a class action turned on the fact that the sole named plaintiff “could not be an adequate class representative, because, among other problems, she did not actually purchase the television in question and because after receiving it, she subsequently discarded it.” Falcon, at 368. Plaintiff’s lawyer sought discovery of the names of customers who complained about the television models identified in the class action complaint “in the hope that that will lead to identification of an adequate class representative.” Id. The district court refused to reopen discovery so plaintiff’s lawyer could go “fishing” for a new class representative, explaining at page 369:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized

Home Depot Class Action Defense Case-Kitzes v. Home Depot: Illinois Court Holds Denial Of Class Action Was Not Improper Because Individual Issues Would Predominate Over Common Questions Of Fact

Class Action Complaint Alleging Damages from Sale of CCA-Treated Wood did not Warrant Class Action Treatment as Defense Showed Individual Defenses and Individual Damage Analyses would Predominate over Fact Questions Common to Class Illinois Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against Home Depot alleging violations of the state’s unfair and deceptive business practices statutes arising out of its sale of outdoor products made with wood treated with chromate copper arsenate (CCA) on the theory that “all CCA-treated wood is defective because it leaches toxic chemicals, such as arsenic and chromium VI to the surface of the wood and to nearby soil.” Kitzes v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 872 N.E.2d 53, Slip Opn., at 1 (Ill.App. June 28, 2007). Plaintiffs’ moved the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment. The appellate court affirmed.

The class action complaint alleged that Home Depot misrepresented that CCA-treated wood was safe for outdoor use. Kitzes, at 1-2. Plaintiffs’ class action certification motion was supported by an expert declaration claiming “a reasonably high degree of scientific certainty that CCA-treated wood used in outdoor settings leaches arsenic to the surface of the wood and the surrounding soil, regardless of factors such as use, location, age and sealant history (except for very recently sealed surfaces),” and an expert declaration that “proposed methodology for calculating the removal and replacement costs associated with pressure-treated lumber in residential settings in multiple states.” Id., at 2. Among the pieces of evidence submitted against class action treatment, defense attorneys introduced plaintiffs’ deposition testimony (1) that they still used the CCA-treated wood deck, and had wood replaced and treated several times, (2) that no one told them that the CCA-treated wood deck diminished the value of their property, and (3) that they had a fence built with wood that had been treated with arsenic. Id., at 2-3. Defense attorneys also submitted press releases from the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the industry’s decision to stop using CCA-treated wood, and stating:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2—Prohibited Foreign Trade Practices By Domestic Concerns Under The Federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Governing Individual And Class Action Securities Lawsuits

To aid class action defense attorneys in defending against securities class action lawsuits, we provide the text of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Congress described prohibited foreign trade practices by domestic concerns under the PSLRA in 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2, which states:

§ 78dd–2. Prohibited foreign trade practices by domestic concerns

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for any domestic concern, other than an issuer which is subject to section 78dd–1 of this title, or for any officer, director, employee, or agent of such domestic concern or any stockholder thereof acting on behalf of such domestic concern, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of the giving of anything of value to—

(1) any foreign official for purposes of—

(A)

(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in his official capacity,

(ii) inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official, or

(iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such foreign official to use his influence with a foreign government or instrumentality thereof to affect or influence any act or decision of such government or instrumentality,

in order to assist such domestic concern in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person;

(2) any foreign political party or official thereof or any candidate for foreign political office for purposes of—

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized