Cingular Class Action Defense Case-Kinkel v. Cingular: Illinois Rejects Defense Efforts To Enforce Arbitration Clause Barring Class Action Device And Refuses To Apply Arbitration Terms Effective After Class Action Plaintiff Terminated Service Contract

Court Holds that Arbitration Clause in Effect at Time Class Action Plaintiff Terminated her Service Agreement Governed in Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Class Action Waiver in Wireless Service Provider’s Arbitration Clause Held Unenforceable by Illinois Supreme Court

Plaintiff filed a class action in Illinois state court against her cellular telephone service provider, Cingular Wireless, for alleged violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act on the ground that the early termination fee is an unlawful penalty. Defense attorneys moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause that provided that “‘no arbitrator has the authority’ to resolve class claims.” Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC, ___ N.E.2d ___, 2006 WL 2828664 (Ill. October 5, 2006) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The trial court refused to compel arbitration. The appellate court held that the arbitration clause was enforceable, but that the prohibition against class action arbitrations was not; accordingly, it reversed the trial court’s ruling. _Id._ The Illinois Supreme Court rejected defense arguments that the class action bar was enforceable and affirmed the decision of the appellate court.

Plaintiff signed a two-year service contract with Cingular in July 2001, but terminated her service in April 2002. Cingular charged her a $150 early-termination fee, in accordance with the terms of the service agreement plaintiff signed when she became a customer. Slip Opn., at 2. Plaintiff filed a class action against Cingular, arguing that the early-termination fee was an illegal penalty and that the class action waiver in the arbitration clause “prevents her and others from ‘effectively vindicating their statutory and common law causes of action and facilitates rather than remedies Cingular’s fraudulent and unlawful conduct.’” Id. The trial court denied a defense motion to compel arbitration; the appellate court found the class-action waiver provision to be unenforceable but severable from the balance of the arbitration clause, and so reversed. Id.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Koehl v. Verio-Class Action Defense Cases: Class Representatives Hit With Damages And Half-Million Dollar Attorney Fee Award By California Court After Losing Labor Law Class Action Against Former Employer

California Court Holds that Compensation Scheme Permitting Chargebacks Against Monies Advanced Against Unearned Commissions did not Violate State Labor Laws Because Such Commissions were not Wages

Four former employees filed a class action in California state court against internet service provider Verio for violations of California’s labor laws on the grounds that Verio’s compensation scheme – which provided for a base salary, plus commissions that were subject to charge backs under certain conditions – violated California Labor Code § 221 because the commissions were wages. Koehl v. Verio, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 749, 751 (Cal.App. 2006). “The complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) commission chargebacks in violation of Labor Code sections 221, 223, 225 and 400-410; (2) waiting penalties pursuant to section 203; and (3) unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 _et seq._” _Id._, at 759 (footnote omitted). Verio cross-complained against the class representatives for commissions recoverable as charge-backs under the compensation scheme, _id._ The trial court agreed that the commissions were not wages, awarded the employer compensatory damages (for overpayment of unearned commissions) and prejudgment interest totaling more than $250,000, and awarded the employer more than $548,000 in attorney fees. _Id._, at 759-60. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 77b-1–Swap Agreements 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 defined “swap agreements” in 15 U.S.C. § 77b-1: § 77b-1. Swap agreements (a) Non-security-based swap agreements The definition of “security” in section 77b(a)(1) of this title does not include any non-security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206C of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). (b) Security-based swap agreements

PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 77b–Definitions Applicable To Lawsuits 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. Preliminarily, Congress set forth the applicable definitions in 15 U.S.C. § 77b:

§ 77b. Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation

(a) Definitions

When used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires–

(1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.

PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Public Accommodation/ADA Class Action Lawsuits Again Seize Top Spot Of Weekly Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts

The evidence suggests that the recent wave of public accommodation/ADA class action lawsuits will continue for the foreseeable future. In order to assist class action defense attorneys in California to anticipate 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.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

U-Haul Class Action Defense Case-Aron v. U-Haul: Trial Court Erred In Granting Defense Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings In Class Action Alleging California CLRA And UCL Violations

California Court Holds that Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Based on Truck Rental Company’s Refueling Practices

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against U-Haul for violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) arising out of U-Haul’s refueling charges and practices. Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2006 WL 2808074 (Cal.App. October 3, 2006) [Slip Opn., at 2]. Defense attorneys moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed. _Id._ The facts of the case are simple, and are concisely summarized by the appellate court at page 2 as follows:

U-Haul Company of California and U-Haul International, Inc. (“U-Haul”) rent trucks to customers. Rather than supplying those customers with fully fueled trucks, U-Haul rents its trucks partially fueled, presenting them to each succeeding customer with the fuel remaining when the previous customer returned the vehicle. The level of the fuel gauge is the exclusive means of measurement relied on. If on return, the fuel gauge is lower than at rental, U-Haul charges the customer a $20 fueling fee as well as $2 per gallon for fuel estimated to have been used, but not replaced, by the customer. U-Haul does not reimburse customers for additional fuel if a truck is returned with more fuel than initially provided.

The rental contract sets out these two options explicitly: “I confirm equipment is clean and agree to pay for all fuel used and return the truck with the same fuel gauge reading as indicated on this rental contract and will pay $20 fueling fee plus $2 per gallon for estimated fuel used. U-Haul does not reimburse for excess fuel purchased by the customer.”

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Farm Raised Salmon Class Action Defense Case: Class Action Preempted By Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act (FDCA) Because No State Law Private Right Of Action Exists Based On FDCA Violations California Court Holds

In Action Alleging California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Business Practices (UCL) Claims Concerning Artificially Colored Farmed Salmon, California Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action on Grounds of Federal Preemption

Plaintiffs filed separate class action lawsuits against various defendants for unfair competition, false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) based on the alleged sale of artificially colored farmed salmon without disclosing that the salmon had been artificially colored. Farm Raised Salmon Cases, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 449, 451 (Cal.App. 2006). The class action was premised on the allegation that the flesh of farmed salmon is naturally “grayish,” so they were fed chemicals for the purpose of coloring the flesh so that it would resemble the color of wild salmon. The complaint alleged that consumers would be less inclined to purchase the salmon without the chemical coloring, and that consumers were not informed of the artificial coloring. Specifically, the class action alleged that “the FDCA and parallel state laws require food labeling to state that farmed salmon is artificially colored,” _id._ Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that it was preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 _et seq._ The trial court dismissed the class action and the appellate court affirmed, holding that “Congress made clear its intention to preclude private enforcement of the FDCA” and that “a state law private right of action based on an FDCA violation would frustrate the purposes of exclusive federal and state governmental prosecution of the act,” _id._

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Del Campo v. Kennedy: California Federal Court Denies Defense Motion For Protective Order That Sought To Bar Third Party Precertification Discovery In FDCPA Class Action

California Federal Court Reaffirms that Scope of Precertification Discovery in Class Action Lawsuits is Within the Discretion of the Court

A putative class action alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was filed against a county district attorney and a private company (ACCS) under contract to administer the county’s Bad Check Restitution Program. Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454 (N.D. Cal. 2006). After plaintiff learned that the check she had given a store merchant (Fry’s Electronics) did not clear, she called the store and offered to make full payment: “The store declined her offer because the check had not been entered yet into the computer system.” Id., at 456. Plaintiff later received a letter from the district attorney concerning the crime of writing a bad check, and advising her that she owed not only the amount of the check ($95.02), but a returned item fee ($10), administrative fee ($35), and bad check restitution program fee ($125); plaintiff tendered only the amount of the delinquent check. Id. Upon receiving a demand threatening criminal action if she failed to pay the $170 in additional fees, plaintiff filed the FDCPA class action. Id. Eventually, the class action was consolidated with another lawsuit. Plaintiff then filed subpoenas on two stores (Safeway and Target), and defense attorneys filed a motion to quash the subpoenas or for a protective order.

Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Anchor Lighting v. SoCal Edison: California Public Utilities Commission Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over State Utilities

California Courts Lack Jurisdiction Over Class Action By Commercial Electricity Customer Against Electricity Supplier

A commercial electricity customer, Anchor Lighting, filed a putative class action against electricity supplier Southern California Edison after it failed to qualify for a 10% rate reduction; the trial court agreed with defense attorneys that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims and dismissed the lawsuit. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) had “exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation and control of utilities and that jurisdiction, once assumed, cannot be hampered or second-guessed by a superior court action addressing the same issue.” Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison Co., ___ Cal.App.4thh ___, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 7810, 784 (Cal.App. August 30, 2006).

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

DirecTV Class Action Defense Case-Cohen v. DirecTV: Class Action Waiver In Arbitration Clause Unconscionable And Unenforceable California Court Holds

In Action Alleging California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Business Practices (UCL) Claims, California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court Order Denying Defense Motion to Compel Arbitration of Under Arbitration Clause that Prohibited Class Action Litigation

Philip Cohen filed a putative class action in California state court against DirecTV under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and unfair business practices (UCL) on the grounds that DirecTV broadcast to its HDTV customers a “below-standard signal, contrary to its advertisements.” Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1445 (Cal.App. 2006). Defense attorneys moved to compel arbitration; plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable because it prohibited class action litigation of claims, and that the arbitration clause was not binding on plaintiff because of the manner in which it had been added to DirecTV’s customer agreement. The trial court denied the defense motion on the grounds that the arbitration provision was “procedurally and substantively unconscionable, against public policy and unenforceable.” Id., at 1446. DirecTV appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized