Vioxx Class Action Defense Cases–In re Vioxx: California Appellate Court Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Putative UCL/CLRA Class Action Involving Vioxx Because Individual Issues Predominate

Class Action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) Arising out of Merck’s Manufacture and Marketing of Vioxx Properly Denied Class Action Certification because Evidence Supported Trial Court’s Conclusion that Individual Issues Predominate Over Common Issues California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against Merck arising out of its manufacture and marketing of Vioxx, which Merck pulled from the market in September 2004 after a study revealed an increased risk of cardiovascular problems associated with the drug; specifically, the class action complaint alleged causes of action for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and alleging unjust enrichment. In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 83, 87-88 (Cal.App. December 15, 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, plaintiffs did not “suffer[] any adverse effects from taking Vioxx” but, they alleged, Merck was liable for false advertising and for marketing a drug that was “less safe than other, less expensive, pain relievers.” Id., at 87; see also id., at 89-90. Plaintiffs moved the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action, id., at 90; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment on the grounds that individual issues would predominate over questions common to the putative class and that the claims of the named representatives were not typical. Id., at 91-92. The trial court agreed with Merck and denied class action certification. Id., at 92-93. In part, the trial court found that the named plaintiffs (who were individuals) “did not possess claims typical of prescription drug benefit providers,” id., at 88. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that reversal was compelled by the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009), which issued after the trial court order denying class action treatment.

The appellate court observed that “trial courts are ideally situated to evaluate the efficiencies and practicalities of permitting group action, [and so] they are afforded great discretion in granting or denying certification.” In re Vioxx, at 93 (quoting In re Tobacco II, at 311). In California, “in the absence of other error, a trial court ruling supported by substantial evidence generally will not be disturbed ‘unless (1) improper criteria were used [citation]; or (2) erroneous legal assumptions were made [citation].’” In re Tobacco II, at 311. Particularly here, where the trial court considered thousands of pages of documents in determining the propriety of class action treatment, the appellate court will not substitute its decision for the trial court’s with respect to the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In re Vioxx, at 94 (citation omitted).

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Vivendi Loses Securities Class Action: Jury Finds 57 Material Misrepresentations From October 2000 To June 2002

**Jury Returns Verdict in Favor of Plaintiffs in Securities Class Action Against Vivendi Universal, S.A., Finding that 57 Public Comments Made between October 2000 and June 2002 were False Attorneys are reporting that a jury has reached a verdict in the securities class action filed against Vivendi, though the court docket does not yet reflect that a verdict has been reached. In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litig., United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Percentage Of New Unfair Competition Law/False Advertising Claims Rise But Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Maintain Grip On To Top Spot For Class Action Lawsuits 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 January 22 – 28, 2010, during which time 47 new class action cases were filed in these California state and federal courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–In re Apple iPhone: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects Eastern District Of Louisiana As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1407 and Selects Movant’s Alternative Transferee Forum Over Competing Request of Other Common Class Action Defendant Twelve (12) class actions – three in Ohio, two in the Central and Northern Districts of California and one in the Southern District of California, and one in Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota and Missouri – were filed against Apple and AT&T “arising from the advertising and marketing of multimedia message service (MMS) functionality of Apple’s iPhone 3G and 3GS supported by AT&T’s 3G network.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Murray v. Fidelity: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Class Action Complaint Holding Defense Tender Mooted New Plaintiffs’ Individual Claims

Class Action Complaint that was Non-Justiciable for Failure of Original Plaintiffs’ Claims was Properly Dismissed Following Addition of New Plaintiffs because Defense Tender of Full Payment Prior to Amendment Adding New Plaintiffs as Class Representatives Mooted their Claims Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Fidelity National Financial and others “alleging that Ticor Title Insurance Company…had overcharged them to record documents related to their residential real estate closings and that the other Defendants were also liable under theories of vicarious liability.” Murray v. Fidelity Nat’l Financial, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 143454, *1 (5th Cir. January 15, 2010). However, it turned out plaintiffs had not conducted business with Ticor Title but, rather, “had dealt with a third party that promoted itself as ‘Ticor Title of San Antonio,’ despite having no authority to act for any of the Defendants.” _Id._ Accordingly, plaintiffs moved the district court to amend their class action complaint to add two additional plaintiffs (the Murrays) as class representatives on the ground that the Murrays had conducted business with Defendant Chicago Title Insurance Group. _Id._ While that motion was pending, Chicago Title tendered the Murrays a check in full payment of their individual claim; the district court nonetheless granted plaintiffs’ motion and added the Murrays as named representatives for the putative class. _Id._ The new group of plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended class action complaint, _id._ Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint on the ground that the Murrays’ claims had been rendered moot by Chicago Title’s tender; defendants moved also for summary judgment on the grounds that the original plaintiffs “failed to establish any case or controversy against any Defendant, because none of the Defendants handled Original Plaintiffs’ real estate transactions.” _Id._ The federal court granted the defense motions, _id._ The Murrays appealed the dismissal of their claims against Chicago Title, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The Murrays argued that because Rule 15(a)(2) requires plaintiffs to inform defendants of the names of proposed class representatives, this “provides defendants the opportunity to ‘pick off’ would-be class representatives by tendering the amount claimed individually by the plaintiff, thereby effectively preventing the original plaintiffs from amending a complaint to add other plaintiffs who better represent the interests of the putative class.” Murray, at 1. Relying on its decision in Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981), the Circuit Court held that “As a general principle, a purported class action becomes moot when the personal claims of all named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class has been certified.” Murray, at 2 (citing Zeidman, at 1045). The Court observed at page *2, “In such a case there is no plaintiff (either named or unnamed) who can assert a justiciable claim against any defendant and consequently there is no longer a ‘case or controversy’ within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution.” Id. (citations omitted). And while the Fifth Circuit has “recognized a limited exception to this general principle” where a plaintiff’s claims have been “prematurely mooted” by the defendant. Id. (citations omitted). More specifically, the Circuit Court explained at page *2:

Foreshadowing the concerns raised by the Murrays, the [Zeidman] court noted “that in those cases in which it is financially feasible to pay off successive named plaintiffs, the defendants would have the option to preclude a viable class action from ever reaching the certification stage.” [Citation.] The court ultimately held “that a suit brought as a class action should not be dismissed for mootness upon tender to the named plaintiffs of their personal claims, at least when … there is pending before the district court a timely filed and diligently pursued motion for class certification.” [Citation.]

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Thomas v. Blue Cross: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Denial Of OSC For Contempt Against Absent Class Member Seeking To Prosecute Individual Claims Released As Part Of Class Action Settlement

District Court Abused its Discretion in Denying OSC for Contempt against Absent Class Member who Filed Lawsuit against Party Released under Class Action Settlement because Class Member’s Individual Claims Fell Within Scope of Release in Class Action Settlement Agreement Eleventh Circuit Holds

In May 2003, a group of physicians filed a putative nationwide class action Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, and its member plans, alleging conspiracy and aiding and abetting under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); the class action complaint prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief, and sought monetary damages. Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 174765, *1 (11th Cir. January 20, 2010). According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, defendants had “engaged in a conspiracy to improperly deny, delay, and/or reduce payments to physicians, physician groups, and physician organizations by engaging in several types of allegedly improper conduct.” _Id._ The parties negotiated a class action settlement on behalf of a nationwide class, which eventually secured the approval of the district court. _Id._ The class action settlement required members of the class “release the Blue Cross plans from all claims arising out of or related to matters referenced in the class action and settlement agreement,” _id._, at *1-*2. Thus, as part of the class action settlement, “[t]he district court permanently enjoined the releasing parties from filing or prosecuting ‘any or all Released Claims against one or more Released Parties,’” and “expressly retained jurisdiction as to matters relating to the interpretation, administration, and consummation of the settlement agreement, and the enforcement of extant injunctions.” _Id._, at *2. In January 2008, plaintiff Dr. Robert Kolbusz, a physician at the Center for Dermatology and Skin Cancer, and the Center filed a lawsuit in Illinois against Health Care Service Corporation (the “Corporation”) for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relationships and prospective economic advantage, and defamation; in part, the _Kolbusz_ complaint “alleged that the Corporation had made false statements to his patients regarding its reasons for refusing to pay for medical services that he had rendered.” _Id._ Under the class action settlement, Kolbusz is a releasing party and the Corporation is a released party; however, while Kolbusz was a member of the class, he failed to timely object to or opt out of the class action settlement. _Id._ The Corporation filed a motion with the district court alleging that the _Kolbusz_ complaint violated the permanent injunction and sought an OSC for contempt against Kolbusz. _Id._, at *3. The district court concluded that the tortious interference and defamation claims were not barred by the class action settlement, but found that the breach of contract fell within the scope of the class action release and ordered Kolbusz to drop the claim within 20 days to avoid being held in contempt. _Id._ Both parties appealed. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Kolbusz’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction “because the decision to afford Kolbusz 20 days to withdraw his claim of breach of contract is not a final or otherwise appealable order,” and reversed the district court’s determination that Kolbusz’s tort claims were not barred by the class action settlement. _Id._, at *1.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Starr v. Sony BMG: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Antitrust Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint’s Allegations Satisfied Twombly

District Court Erred in Dismissing Antitrust Class Action because Allegations in Class Action Complaint were Sufficient to “Plausibly Suggest” an Agreement Among Defendants in Violation of Sherman Act Second Circuit Holds

Several class actions were filed in various state and federal courts against numerous defendants, including Sony BMG Music Entertainment, EMI, Universal Music Group Recordings, Warner Music Group and others, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged “a conspiracy by major record labels to fix the prices and terms under which [Digital Music] would be sold over the Internet.” Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. January 13, 2010) [Slip Opn., at 2-3.] Ultimately, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 28 class actions in the Southern District of New York, and plaintiffs eventually filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint that “brought claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust and unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. It also brought state common law claims for unjust enrichment.” _Id._, at 6-7. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, “Defendants produce, license and distribute music sold as digital files (‘Digital Music’) online via the Internet (‘Internet Music’) and on compact discs (‘CDs’),” and they together “control over 80% of Digital Music sold to end purchasers in the United States.” _Id._, at 3. Certain named defendants launched a service called “MusicNet”; others launched a service called “Duet” that was later renamed as “pressplay.” _Id._ The class action complaint alleged that “defendants signed distribution agreements with MusicNet or pressplay and sold music directly to consumers over the Internet through these ventures (the ‘joint ventures’),” and that “[b]oth the joint ventures and the Recording Industry Association of America (‘RIAA’) provided a forum and means through which defendants could communicate about pricing, terms, and use restrictions.” _Id._ Moreover, “[t]o obtain Internet Music from all major record labels, a consumer initially would have had to subscribe to both MusicNet and pressplay, at a cost of approximately $240 per year,” and “[b]oth services required consumers to agree to unpopular Digital Rights Management terms (‘DRMs’).” _Id._ Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to meet the pleading requirements enunciated in _Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly_, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). _Starr_, at 3, 7. The district court granted the motion, _id._, at 7. The Second Circuit reversed, concluding that the non-conclusory allegations in the class action complaint were adequate to survive the defense motion to dismiss. _Id._, at 2.

The Circuit Court summarized the basis of the class action’s claims at page 4 as follows: “For example, pressplay prohibited consumers from copying more than two songs from any particular artist onto a CD each month. Music purchased from MusicNet and pressplay would often ‘expire’ unless repurchased: A MusicNet consumer would need to repurchase music each year and a pressplay consumer who unsubscribed would immediately lose access to all of the music he or she had purchased. MusicNet and pressplay also did not allow consumers to transfer songs from their computers to portable digital music players like the iPod. One industry commentator observed that MusicNet and pressplay did not offer reasonable prices, and one prominent computer industry magazine concluded that ‘nobody in their right mind will want to use’ these services. [Citation.]” The class action complaint also alleged that “dramatic cost reductions” realized by the individual defendants were not passed on to consumers “as would be expected in a competitive market.” Starr, at 4. Moreover, defendants allegedly entered into “Most Favored Nation clauses (‘MFNs’) in their licenses that had the effect of guaranteeing that the licensor who signed the clause received terms no less favorable than the terms offered to other licensors.” Id., at 5. Defendants allegedly hid these agreements “because they knew they would attract antitrust scrutiny.” Id. At bottom, the class action alleged “that defendants engaged in a continuing conspiracy to ‘restrain the availability and distribution of Internet Music, fix and maintain at artificially high and non-competitive levels the prices at which they sold Internet Music and impose unreasonably restrictive terms in the purchase and use of Internet Music’” and that plaintiffs “were injured by paying more for Internet Music and CDs than they would have in the absence of an illegal agreement.” Id., at 6.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Microsoft WGA Class Action Defense Cases–Johnson v. Microsoft: Washington Federal Court Dismisses All Class Action Allegations In Class Action Complaint And Requires Plaintiffs Pay Defense Fees Incurred Opposing Withdrawn Class Certification Motion

Class Action Complaint Challenging Microsoft’s “Windows Genuine Advantage” Software could be Amended to Withdraw Class Action Allegations Provided Plaintiffs Dismiss All Class Claims and Provided Plaintiffs Reimburse Microsoft the Attorney Fees Reasonably Incurred in Opposing Plaintiffs’ Class Action Certification Motion before Plaintiffs Voluntarily Withdrew that Motion Washington Federal Court Holds

In April 2009, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Microsoft in Washington federal court alleging, in the second amended class action complaint, “claims for unjust enrichment, breach of End User License Agreement (‘EULA’) contracts, violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and trespass to chattels, nuisance and interference with property” arising out of “Microsoft’s distribution of Windows Genuine Advantage (‘WGA’) software.” Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., ___ F.Supp. 2d ___ (W.D.Wash. January 15, 2010) [Slip Opn., at 1-2.] In September 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the district court certify the litigation as a class action; however, in November 2009, plaintiffs withdrew their class action certification motion and “indicated an intent to withdraw class allegations.” _Id._, at 2. Plaintiffs thereafter moved to file a third amended class action complaint “that would eliminate most (but not all) class allegations, add a new cause of action and related allegations, and specify injunctive relief sought.” _Id._ Defense attorneys opposed the motion with one exception: Microsoft did not oppose the motion to the extent it sought to withdraw class action claims, provided that plaintiffs did not seek to “re-inject them at a later point in the proceeding.” _Id._ In addition, defense attorneys requested permission “to file a fee petition for the expenses incurred as a result of defending against Plaintiffs’ class-certification motion,” _id._ The district court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

The district court began by noting the well-settled rule that leave to amend is “generally allowed absent bad faith, undue delay, futility, or prejudice to the opposing party.” Johnson, at 2 (citing Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003)). Nonetheless, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ request to add claims (and allegations in support of claims) for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment because defense attorneys opposed these amendments and plaintiffs agreed to withdraw them. Id., at 2-3. Similarly, Microsoft opposed plaintiffs’ request to seek additional forms of injunctive relief, and plaintiffs agreed to withdraw those proposed amendments. Id., at 3. Accordingly, the district court denied that portion of plaintiffs’ motion, id. For our purposes, the most important aspect of the district court’s order concerns the class action allegations, to which we now turn.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

New Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Hold On To Top Spot In Slow Week For Class Action Lawsuits In California State And Federal Courts

To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of cases against which they will have to defend in California, 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

UCL Class Action Defense Cases–Webster v. Allstate: California Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal Of UCL Class Action Complaint Holding Plaintiff Lacked Standing And Conduct Not Violative Of UCL

Class Action Alleging Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Properly Dismissed because Plaintiff Lacked Standing to Prosecute Class Action Claim California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiff, the owner and operator of an auto body repair shop, filed a putative class action on behalf of California auto body repair shops against automobile insurers Allstate Insurance and Progressive Casualty Insurance California auto body repair shops for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Cartwright Act, and for unjust enrichment, on the ground that the insurers paid class members “based on rates that were allegedly below their ‘actual repair rate.’” Webster v. Allstate Ins. Co., Case No. B211390 (Cal.App. January 11, 2010) [Slip Opn., at 1-2.] According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, the insurers “unlawfully and unfairly steer customers away from plaintiff’s business and towards direct repair providers (DRPs) who have a contractual relationship with defendants.” Id., at 2. The class action further alleged that defendants paid class members “‘artificially low’ rates for auto body work,” based on “unlawful and unfair surveys of body shop rates that include rates charged by DRPs who provide volume discounts to defendants.” Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint; the trial court granted the motion, holding that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the class action’s UCL claim for injunctive relief. Id. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed that plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute the UCL claim and held that “plaintiff failed to allege unlawful or unfair conduct within the meaning of the statute.” Id. It further affirmed the dismissal of the class action’s unjust enrichment and Cartwright Act claims and, accordingly, affirmed.

The Court of Appeal explained that the class action sought “an injunction prohibiting defendants from using negotiated rates in their surveys to determine the prevailing auto body rate in a geographic area, treble damages for violations of the Cartwright Act, attorney fees, interest and costs,” and prayed additionally for “disgorgement of all benefits wrongfully taken from plaintiff and the class in an amount that defendants have been unjustly enriched.” Webster, at 4. Plaintiff conceded, however, that he could recover restitution under the class action’s UCL claim, id. “The purpose of the UCL is to protect consumers and competitors from unfair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.” Id., at 4-5 (citation omitted). Plaintiff is neither a consumer nor a competitor of defendants, but argued “he has standing to pursue a UCL cause of action even though he is not eligible for restitution,” and that defendants “engaged in both unlawful and unfair business practices.” Id., at 5. The appellate court rejected both claims.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized