Class Action Defense Cases-Land Grantors v. United States: Over Defense Objection Federal Claims Court Certifies Only Third Class Action Under Revised RCFC 23

Court of Federal Claims Rejects Federal Government’s Defense Arguments and Certifies Class Action Under RCFC 23

On June 22, 2006, the Court of Federal Claims certified, over defense objections, only the third class action under RCFC 23 since the statute’s substantial revision in May 2002. Land Grantors in Henderson, Union & Webster Counties, Kentucky v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 614 (Ct. Cl. 2006). Briefly, the federal government acquired about 36,000 acres of land in Kentucky to establish what became Camp Breckinridge. Most of the land had been family farms, and it was acquired – either by settlement or jury verdict – after the government initiated condemnation proceedings. From 1942-1944, the government paid approximately $3.1 million for fee simple title to the land. In 1951, the government learned of gas and oil reserves on the property, and from 1957-1964 it realized more than $1.8 million in lease revenues. After Camp Breckinridge became inactive, in 1966 the governmental sold the coal rights for $7.4 million, and the gas, oil and mineral rights for almost $24.6 million. Former landowners claimed “they were paid nothing for their coal, gas, oil, and other mineral rights or a de minimus amount for existing leases when their land was condemned in 1942-1944.” Id., at 617-18. Still later, the government sold the surface rights to the condemned land for almost $6 million. Id., at 618. In 1993, Congress intervened. Id., at 618-19.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Law Firm Milberg Weiss Opens Checkbook To Keep Attorneys

As Defections Mount, Class Action Firm Offers Financial Incentives to Retain Lawyers We have devoted several articles to the trials facing class action plaintiff firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, from its federal indictment for allegedly paying millions in kickbacks to clients to serve as class representatives to the continual loss of top attorneys. Now Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reports that Milberg Weiss has decided to fight defections with a different kind of kickback – bonuses and higher salaries for attorneys who stay with the firm.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—Trevizo v. Adams: Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of § 1983 Class Action Claims Against City And Denial Of Class Certification

District Court did not Abuse Discretion in Denying Class Certification for Lack of Commonality and Numerosity even though Class Contained 84 Members and in Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment Tenth Circuit Holds

Thirty-three individuals filed a putative class action against Salt Lake City and certain law enforcement officers alleging “gross improprieties from the SWAT-style police raid” and setting forth “a litany of horrific facts to support their claims.” Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1158, 1159 (10th Cir. 2006). The district court denied a motion to certify the action as a class action, and subsequently granted a defense motion for summary judgment that dismissed all claims as to the ten plaintiffs who failed to appear for deposition. The court denied class certification based on numerosity and commonality. Id., at 1162. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

As to the defense summary judgment motion, the Circuit Court held that because plaintiffs did not appear for deposition “it was incumbent upon [them] to provide – at the very least – affidavits detailing what happened to them” but they didn’t. Trevizo, at 1160.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Rejects Federal Courts Requested By Plaintiffs And Defense, And Transfers Class Actions Against Volkswagon To District Of Massachusetts Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

MDL Judicial Panel Transfers Class Action Lawsuits to Massachusetts Despite Fact that No Cases were Pending in that State After four statewide class actions were filed against Volkswagon of America arising out of its August 1004 warranty extension/reimbursement program for certain Volkswagon and Audi vehicles, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed a § 1407 motion for centralization of the litigation. In re Volkswagon and Audi Warranty Extension Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 2548199 (Jud.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 – Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information to Consumer Reporting Agencies: Statutory Provisions of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) for Class Action Defense Attorneys

As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against class actions brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. Congress outlined in detail the responsibilities of those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies in Section 1681s-2 as follows:

§ 1681s-2. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information

(1) Prohibition

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors.

A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.

(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors.

A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if

(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and

(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

(C) No address requirement.

A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address.

(D) Definition.

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate” means having specific knowledge, other than solely allegations by the consumer, that would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information.

(2) Duty to correct and update information.

A person who

(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person’s transactions or experiences with any consumer; and

(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute.

If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

(4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts.

A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed.

(5) Duty to Provide Notice of Delinquency of Accounts

(A) In general.

A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date of delinquency on the account, which shall be the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency on the account that immediately preceded the action.

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Labor Law Cases Again Lead Weekly Filings In California

As a service to class action defense attorneys, we recently began providing unofficial summaries of the categories of new class action lawsuits filed in California. It is our hope that this will permit defense attorneys to anticipate claims against which they may have to defend. This weekly, unofficial summary covers 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

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers: Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Judicial Panel Transfers Putative Federal Antitrust Class Action Cases To Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Over Defense Objection

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants § 1407 Motion Over Objection of Some Defense Attorneys to Avoid Inconsistent Rulings on Class Action Certification in Federal Antitrust Cases Six class action lawsuits were filed against Merck, Medco Health, PAID Prescriptions (now part of Medco), ExpressScripts, Caremark, and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS) alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on the “conduct by the pharmacy-benefit manager (PBM) defendants – including the negotiation of rates for the sale of prescription drugs by retail pharmacies.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Transfers Class Action Against JP Morgan Chase To Northern District Of Illinois Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

MDL Judicial Panel Centralizes Class Action Lawsuits in Illinois Because Action in that State is More Procedurally Advanced Three lawsuits were filed against JP Morgan Chase alleging misrepresentations in connection with its merger in 2004 with Bank One; two lawsuits were filed in Delaware, and one lawsuit was filed in Illinois. The plaintiff in the Delaware lawsuits moved for centralization of the class actions in Delaware. The defense supported centralization, but requested that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-1 – Information on Overdue Child Support Obligations: Statutory Provisions of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) for Class Action Defense Attorneys

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against class actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. The FCRA specifically addresses the question of information needed in connection with overdue child support obligations as follows: § 1681s-1. Information on overdue child support obligations Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall include in any consumer report furnished by the agency in accordance with section 1681b of this title, any information on the failure of the consumer to pay overdue support which

FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Federal District Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Putative Class Action Alleging 180Solutions Was A Spyware Company

Illinois Federal Court Gives Defense Latest Victory in Spyware Class Action Lawsuits

Eric Benderoff of the Chicago Tribune reports today that a federal district court has granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against 180solutions (now known as Zango), and quotes the company’s Chief Compliance Officer as stating, “[Plaintiffs] claimed we were a spyware company and that we trespass on people’s computers. We don’t do that; we are invited on the customer’s computer.” This is but the latest defense victory against such class actions: Benderoff states, “So far, there has not been a successful class-action suit against software firms that are accused of planting unwanted and irritating spyware programs on computers.” However, the article identifies at least one lawsuit where plaintiff’s lawyer “successfully argued that spyware companies were trespassing on personal property” which Benderoff describes as “a tactic lifted from environmental law.” Recent governmental efforts to attack the spyware problem may prove more successful, and Benderoff notes that the Federal Trade Commission “has brought six cases to date under its unfair and deceptive practices authority while the Justice Department has pursued spyware cases using the Wiretap Act.”

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized