Employment Law Class Action Lawsuits Regain Top Spot In Weekly California State And Federal Court Class Action Filings

In order to assist California defense attorneys in anticipating the claims against which they may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class actions 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

24 CFR § 3500.11—Mailing Of Documents Under Regulation X (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act-RESPA)

For class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of Regulation X. Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate regulations for RESPA, and the regulations are set forth in 24 CFR § 3500.1 et seq. The regulations concerning the mailing of documents are set forth in § 3500.11, which provides:

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re CitiFinancial: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff’s Motion Supported By Defense To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of Illinois

Judicial Panel Agrees with Plaintiffs and Defense that Class Action Cases Warranted Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Rejecting Arguments of Sole Plaintiff’s Lawyer in Opposition to Request Five class action lawsuits (Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri and Wisconsin) were filed against CitiFinancial Services and others alleging that certain prescreened mailings from Citifinancial violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because defendants improperly used consumer reports for purposes of mailing prescreened offers of credit for loans to plaintiffs and potential class members.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Lycoming Crankshaft: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Denies Defense Request To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Class Action Lawsuits did not Warrant Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Holds Three class action lawsuits were filed in California and Pennsylvania against various defendants involving crankshaft products liability. Defense attorneys for some of the defendants moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the lawsuits for pretrial purposes in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiffs in all class actions opposed pretrial coordination.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

CertainTeed Class Action Defense Case—In re CertainTeed: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff’s Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects Northern District of Illinois As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Request, Unopposed by Defense, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Easter District of Pennsylvania Eight class action lawsuits were filed against CertainTeed Corp. and other defendants advancing negligence and products liability based on alleged defects in roofing shingles manufactured, warranted, and distributed by CertainTeed. In re CertainTeed Corp. Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 549356, *1 (Jud.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Milberg Weiss Class Action Defense Case-In re New Motor Vehicles: Federal Court Removes Milberg Weiss As Lead Counsel In Multimillion Dollar Antitrust Class Action Litigation

Indictment of Milberg Weiss Warranted Removal of Firm as Vice-Chair of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in Antitrust Class Action Maine Federal Court Holds

Several state and federal antitrust class action lawsuits were filed against most of the major automobile manufacturers and distributors. In June 2003, the class actions were transferred to federal district court for the District of Maine by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. To assist in managing the complex class action litigation, in November 2003 the district court approved a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee consisting of nine law firms, and appointed Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman as vice-chair. In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., 466 F.Supp.2d 364, 366 (D. Me. 2006). Extensive law and motion practice followed, leading to the court certifying a class action as to one of the claims and to two proposed settlements (one for $35 million and one for $700,000), id., at 365-66. In May 2006, a Los Angeles federal grand jury indicted Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners (David Bershad and Steven Schulman) charging that the class action law firm “has engaged in a kickback scheme, illegally paying millions of dollars to certain individuals to represent them as named plaintiffs and thereby achieve the role of lead counsel in class action lawsuits” and seeking criminal forfeiture of hundreds of millions of dollars, id., at 365. Due to the fiduciary duties owed to class members, the district court sua sponte raised the issue of whether Milberg Weiss should continue to serve in a “leadership role,” id., at 365-66. Defense attorneys thereafter moved to disqualify Milberg Weiss from serving on the Executive Committee and from further participation in the class action litigation; the district court removed Milberg Weiss from the Executive Committee “even though the Indictment does not refer to activity in this civil litigation and neither of the two partners actively participating in this litigation has been accused of any misconduct,” but did not grant the request to exclude the firm entirely id., at 366.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Sperry v. Crompton: New York Law Precludes Class Action Lawsuits That Seek To Collect Penalties Unless Expressly Allowed By Statute

CPLR 901(b) Precludes Antitrust Class Action Lawsuits Because Treble Damages Award Under the Donnelly Act is a Penalty New York Court of Appeals Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various defendants seeking damages under New York’s antitrust statute (the Donnelly Act) and deceptive practices statute, and an unjust enrichment theory, alleging that defendants overcharged tire manufacturers for chemicals used in the processing of rubber for tires. Based on the Donnelly Act, the class action complaint prayed for treble damages, costs and attorney fees. Sperry v. Crompton Corp., ___ N.E.2d ___, 2007 WL 527726 (N.Y. February 22, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 2-3.]. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action. The trial court granted the motion, holding that “CPLR 901(b), which precludes a class action to collect a penalty unless specifically authorized by statute, barred the Donnelly Act claim.” _Id._, at 3. The lower court dismissed the remaining counts on grounds not relevant here. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.

Plaintiff argued that a treble damages award under the Donnelly Act did not constitute a penalty within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), citing both New York law and federal case law that treble damages in antitrust actions “are primarily remedial in nature.” Sperry, at 3-4. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The High Court found it “evident” that the Legislature intended the penalty exception in CPLR 901(b) to preclude class action relief “where individual plaintiffs were afforded sufficient economic encouragement to institute actions (through statutory provisions awarding something beyond or unrelated to actual damages), unless a statute expressly authorized the option of class action status.” Id., at 9. The Court explained at page 9, “This means sense, given that class actions are designed in large part to incentivize plaintiffs to sue when the economic benefit would otherwise be too small, particularly when taking into account the court costs and attorneys’ fees typically incurred.”

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Hall v. County of Los Angeles: Defense Properly Granted Summary Judgment In Sex Discrimination Labor Law Class Action Against County California Court Holds

California Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense Because no Evidence Supported Class Action Allegations that County Program Discriminated Against Women or Affected Women Disproportionately to Men

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the County of Los Angeles alleging that it violated the federal Equal Pay Act because it paid female lawyers employed under the County’s “Auxiliary Legal Services” program (ALS) less than it paid male lawyers serving as County Counsel. Hall v. County of Los Angeles, ___ Cal.App..4th ___, 2007 WL 529963, *1 (Cal.App. February 22, 2007). Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the defense motion and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that “the wage disparity between ALS and County Counsel was based on an acceptable business reason, which is a recognized ‘factor other than sex.’” _Id._, at *4 (citation omitted).

In 1984, in order to address a dramatic increase in juvenile court cases, the County formed ALS to supplement the legal services provided by County Counsel. The ALS attorneys were independent contractors, and by the express terms of their contracts they were employees of ALS, not the County. Hall, at *1. ALS was intended to allow the County to realize cost savings by hiring additional attorneys on “as needed” basis “without increasing the number of permanent classified County employees.” Id. “Similarly situated male and female lawyers at ALS were treated the same in terms of salary and benefits, and similarly situated male and female lawyers at County Counsel were treated the same in terms of salary and benefits.” Id., at *2. The class action complaint alleged, however, that there were more female lawyers at ALS than at County Counsel, and that female lawyers at ALS were not paid comparably with male lawyers at County Counsel. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

TILA Class Action Defense Cases-McKenna v. First Horizon: First Circuit Holds As Matter Of First Impression That Rescission Relief Under Federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA) Not Appropriate For Class Action Treatment

As Matter of First Impression, Class Action Treatment for Rescission Claims Under TILA (Truth in Lending Act) is not Proper First Circuit Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Massachusetts federal court against First Horizon Home Loan alleging that it violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its state law equivalent, the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act (MCCCDA) by failing to accurately disclose to borrowers their statutory rescission rights.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

Antitrust Class Action Lawsuits Wrest Top Spot From Labor Law Class Action Cases In Weekly California State And Federal Court Class Action Filings

To assist California defense attorneys in anticipating the claims against which they may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class actions 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