Edwards v. City of Long Beach Class Action Defense Case: California Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Certify Class Action But Grants Collective Action Status Under § 216(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

California Court Rejects Defense Arguments Against Collective Action for Alleged Violations of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) but Agrees with Defense that Class Action is not Superior Device for Litigating State Employment Law Claims and Denies Class Action Status to Claims Based on California Labor Code, Over Which it had Supplemental Jurisdiction, as Inconsistent with “Opt-In” Requirements for FLSA Collective Action

Plaintiff, former Long Beach police officer, filed a putative class action against the City of Long Beach for alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of California’s Labor Code sections 226.7, 512 and 2802 based on the allegations that he was denied meal and rest breaks and was not properly reimbursed for business expenses while a police officer. Edwards v. City of Long Beach, ___ F.R.D. ___ (C.D. Cal. December 15, 2006) [Slip Opn., at 2-3.] The thrust of the class action complaint asserted that while police officers kept track of, and received pay for, overtime hours worked, no policy or procedure existed for officers to record or report missed meal and rest periods. _Id._, at 2-3. Further, while officers were required to have clean and functional uniforms and equipment, the City did not reimburse class members for the costs incurred in maintaining those items. _Id._, at 3. Plaintiff filed two motions in the district court: one requested certification of the lawsuit as a class action under Rule 23, _id._, at 7, which defense attorneys opposed on the grounds that the numerosity, commonality and typicality requirements are not met, a class action will not benefit the class, and other alternatives exist rather than class action litigation, _id._, at 8; the second sought certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), _id._, at 1, which defense attorneys opposed by focusing on the differences in job duties between the plaintiff and other class members, _id._, at 6. The district court refused to certify a class action under Rule 23, but granted the motion to certify a collective “opt-in” action under § 216(b), _id._, at 1.

In granting the motion to certify a collective action (in essence an “opt-in” class action) under § 216(b) of the FLSA, the federal court explained that “employees wishing to join the suit must ‘opt-in’ by filing a written consent with the court” or else they are not bound by any judgment or settlement. Edwards, at 4. In a majority of jurisdictions, certifying such a collective action requires a two-step process: “the first step is for the court to decide, ‘based primarily on the pleadings and any affidavits submitted by the parties, whether the potential class should be given notice of the action,'” id., at 5 (citations omitted); the court found that the “lenient standard” required to overcome this hurdle had been met. Id., at 5-7. The second step in the process is a motion by defense attorneys to decertify the class action, id., at 7; but the district court explained that it does not address that issue until after the opt-in time period has passed, id. The court rejected defense arguments that a collective action was inappropriate because of the differences in job duties between the plaintiff and other class members, id., at 6, explaining that – even though the defense had presented a “detailed analysis” of those differences, together with a “detailed discussion” of the differences in claims that potential class members may assert – the defense arguments were “better suited for motion to decertify the § 216(b) collective action,” id., at 7.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

California Defense Attorneys Confront Spike In Class Action Antitrust/Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Claims As New Employment Law Class Action Cases Fall To Second Place In Weekly Filings

To aid California class action defense attorneys in anticipating claims against which they may have to defend, we provide weekly an unofficial summary of legal categories for 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. This report covers the time period of from December 8 – December 14, 2006. We include only those categories that contain 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad: Illinois Supreme Court Agrees With Defense That Class Action Status Should Not Have Granted In Lawsuit Arising From Train Derailment

Factual and Legal Issues Arising from Train Derailment Would Require Individual Minitrials Thereby Rendering Class Action Treatment Inappropriate Illinois Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action in Illinois state court against Illinois Central Railroad seeking damages allegedly caused by the derailment of a train in Tamaroa, Illinois. Smith v. Illinois Central RR Co., ___ N.E.2d ___, 2006 WL 3491683 (Ill. November 30, 2006) [Slip Opn., at 1.]. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ request to certify the lawsuit as a class action; the appellate court rejected defense arguments and affirmed. _Id._ The Illinois Supreme Court, however, granted the defense leave to appeal and reversed the lower courts. _Id._, at 1-2. The High Court agreed with defense attorneys that common issues of law and fact do not predominate, thus rendering the lawsuit unsuitable for class action treatment. “Proof of proximate causation and damages will be highly individualized and will consume the bulk of the time at trial.” _Id._, at 14.

In February 2003, the derailment in Southern Illinois of a train carrying various chemicals led to the mandatory evacuation of at least 1000 people. Slip Opn., at 2. Shortly thereafter, the railroad instituted a claims process through which it compensated individuals and businesses for alleged losses caused by the derailment and evacuation; in return, the railroad received written releases of liability from all known claims. Id. In June 2003, plaintiffs initiated a class action seeking (as detailed in the Note below) damages for injuries resulting from the derailment and evacuation. Id., at 2-3. The circuit court rejected defense arguments against certification of the lawsuit as a class action, and granted plaintiffs’ motion. Id., at 3. Before the appellate court, defense attorneys advanced several arguments including, (a) mass tort actions are not proper for class action treatment “because such actions would trigger an unworkable array of fact-intensive, claimant-specific questions that would inevitably result in numerous minitrials that defy class treatment”; (b) commonality does not exist as common questions of fact and law do not predominate; (c) the class definition was overly broad and would require individualized analyses to determine membership. Id., at 4-5. The appellate court, over a dissent, rejected each argument and affirmed the judgment authorizing class certification.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Alabama State Court Jury Finds For Defense As Merck Wins Another Vioxx Lawsuit

The New York Times reports that Merck’s defense team has won another Vioxx case, this time in Alabama state court. The lawsuit, filed by a 57-yearold man, blamed Vioxx for a mild heart attack the man suffered. The defense argued that plaintiff was a high risk for a heart attack because he suffered from “diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and was overweight.” Jurors attributed the defense victory to the fact that the plaintiff “had too many health problems before his heart attack to blame Vioxx.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 77z-1–Private Securities Litigation Under The Securities Act Of 1933

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against securities class actions, we provide the text of the Securities Act of 1933. Congress set forth the statutory provisions for private securities litigation in 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1, which provides:

§ 77z-1. Private securities litigation

(a) Private class actions

(1) In general

The provisions of this subsection shall apply to each private action arising under this subchapter that is brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) Certification filed with complaint

(A) In general

Each plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class shall provide a sworn certification, which shall be personally signed by such plaintiff and filed with the complaint, that–

(i) states that the plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing;

(ii) states that the plaintiff did not purchase the security that is the subject of the complaint at the direction of plaintiff’s counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under this subchapter;

(iii) states that the plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary;

(iv) sets forth all of the transactions of the plaintiff in the security that is the subject of the complaint during the class period specified in the complaint;

(v) identifies any other action under this subchapter, filed during the 3-year period preceding the date on which the certification is signed by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff has sought to serve, or served, as a representative party on behalf of a class; and

(vi) states that the plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of a class beyond the plaintiff’s pro rata share of any recovery, except as ordered or approved by the court in accordance with paragraph (4).

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Farmers Insurance Agrees To Settle California Class Action

John O’Dell of the Los Angeles Times reports that Farmers Insurance has settled a class action lawsuit filed in Southern California that alleged the company required the use of substandard metal replacement parts to repair vehicles damaged in a crash. The settlement reportedly requires Farmers Insurance to pay class members between $20 and $40 for each substandard part used in a vehicle repair, together with $17 million in legal fees.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 77y and 77z–Jurisdiction Of Other Government Agencies Over Securities And Separability Under The Securities Act Of 1933

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against securities class actions, we provide the text of the Securities Act of 1933. Congress provided for the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies over securities and for the severability of the provisions of the Act in 15 U.S.C. § 77y and § 77z, respectively, which provide: § 77y. Jurisdiction of other Government agencies over securities Nothing in this subchapter shall relieve any person from submitting to the respective supervisory units of the Government of the United States information, reports, or other documents that may be required by any provision of law.

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Fosamax: Over Defense Objection Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Rejects Defense Opposition to Motion for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Grants Motion for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits in the Southern District of New York After 19 products liability lawsuits – many of them class action proceedings – were filed against various pharmaceutical companies arising out of the use of Fosamax, a prescription drug manufactured by Merck and used in the treatment of osteoporosis, several plaintiffs’ lawyers (apparently supported by plaintiffs in all pending actions) moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Sutter Health Defense Against California Class Action Challenging Pricing And Collection Practices For Uninsured Patients Ends With Settlement

On December 12, 2006, the Sacramento Superior Court gave final approval to a proposed class action settlement, bringing to a close the defense of a statewide class action against Sutter Health. The class action, reportedly covering hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients over a six-year period, alleged that Sutter Health and its affiliated California hospitals charged excessive prices to uninsured patients – allegations that the defense vehemently denied. Under the settlement, uninsured patients may be entitled to receive 25% to 45% discounts off of their Sutter Health-affiliated hospital bills.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Digital Music: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Plaintiff/Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Finds Good Cause for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 as Requested by Defense and Plaintiffs Nine class action lawsuits were filed against Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America, Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc., Bertelsmann, Inc., Universal Music Group, Inc., Time Warner Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and EMI Music North America (defendants), alleging “on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers, that the various defendants illegally conspired to artificially fix or maintain the prices of digitally formatted music offered for sale on the internet in violation of 1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized