Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Surge Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed 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 8 – 14, 2010, during which time 42 new class action cases were filed in these California state and federal courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Arias v. DynCorp: District of Columbia Federal Court Dismisses With Prejudice Mass Action Plaintiffs Who Failed To Complete Defense Discovery Questionnaires

Repeated Failure of Mass Action Plaintiffs to Respond to Discovery Questionnaires from Defense Attorneys Warranted Dismissal of those Plaintiffs with Prejudice District of Columbia Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs, “citizens and domiciliaries of Ecuador,” filed a mass action complaint against various defendants “alleging physical harm and property damage stemming from the defendants’ contract with the United States government to spray pesticides in order to eradicate Colombian cocaine and heroin farms.” Arias v. DynCorp Aerospace Operations, LLC, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D.D.C. January 12, 2010) [Slip Opn., at 1.] Defense attorneys served questionnaires on the class members, seeking specific information related to the claims; some individuals failed to respond at all. Other plaintiffs, however, provided incomplete responses and repeatedly failed to do so. The parties jointly moved to dismiss from the litigation 425 plaintiffs who fell within two categories: “(1) plaintiffs who have provided sufficient information about the alleged date(s) of their exposure to the defendants’ spray but who did not disclose sufficient information about their location at the time of their exposure; and (2) plaintiffs who did not provide sufficient information about their alleged damages.” _Id._, at 1-2. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the dismissal should be without prejudice; defense attorneys urged the district court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. _Id._, at 1, 2. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs with prejudice.

Defense attorneys argued that the plaintiffs falling within the two groups at issue should be dismissed with prejudice because they “have been ‘given several chances to provide the information ordered by the Court but [have] failed to do so.’” Arias, at 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel disagreed, arguing that the plaintiffs “provided sufficient information regarding either exposure location or damages.” Id., at 2-3. After summarizing the rules governing dismissals under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41, see id., at 3-4, the district court summarized the history of the discovery requests and the various court orders violated by plaintiffs, see id., at 4-5. The federal court explained at page 5, “It has been over two years since the plaintiffs were first directed to complete the defendants’ questionnaires. Multiple orders have directed the plaintiffs to respond in full to the questionnaires, and the plaintiffs received three extensions of time in which to do so.” Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the information provided, while incomplete, was adequate to allow defendants to “draw their own conclusions” as to the plaintiffs’ claims. Id., at 6. The district court disagreed: “The plaintiffs essentially are asking the defendants to draw conclusions based on incomplete information. If a plaintiff meant “my farm” rather than “the farm,” that plaintiff simply should have stated so in his questionnaire. Despite the plaintiffs’ ample opportunity to fill in the information gaps, they now turn to the defendants to do this work for them. This, however, is not the defendants’ duty.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Carfax Class Action Defense Cases–West v. Carfax: Ohio Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court Approval Of Class Action Settlement Holding Notice To Class Members Was Inadequate

Class Action Settlement Approved by Trial Court Warranted Reversal because Notice to Absent Class Members was not Best Practicable under the Circumstances Ohio Appellate Court Holds

In August 2004, plaintiff filed a putative class action in Ohio state court against Carfax and Center for Auto Safety alleging violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (as well as common law claims) based on the central allegation that Carfax failed to advise consumers that its reports “did not contain all information regarding vehicles’ histories.” West v. Carfax, Inc., 2009-Ohio-6857, 2, ¶2 (Ohio App. December 24, 2009). (Around the same time, nine other class actions were filed against Carfax in seven other states. Id.) Two years later, in September 2006, plaintiff and Carfax entered into a proposed class action settlement; the trial court gave preliminary approval to the class action settlement the following month. Id., at 2, ¶3. The court order “gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement, certified a class, appointed [plaintiff] the class representative, and ordered that class members be notified of the proposed settlement in the manner specified therein.” Id. Several objections were filed to the proposed class action settlement, including objections by a group of class members who sought received leave to intervene, and objections by co-defendant Center for Auto Safety. Id., at 3, ¶4. The fairness hearing concluded with the trial court ordering further settlement negotiations, id. A revised class action settlement was reached, which the trial court approved after rejecting objections to the settlement and denying a request to compel discovery. Id., at ¶¶5-6. A group of objectors appealed the trial court’s order, supported by an amicus brief filed by the State of Ohio. Id., at ¶6. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed.

Appellants advanced three challenges to the class action settlement: (1) that the notice procedure failed to “take reasonable steps to provide individual notice to all class members”; (2) that the trial court failed to require disclosure of “the likely redemption rate, and, in particular, information about the number of claims made”; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying their motion to compel discovery as to claims information. West, at 3-4, ¶¶ 8-10. The appellate court first addressed whether the trial court abused its discretion in approving the notice procedures at issue, see id., at 4, ¶ 11. The Court explained that due process requires only that “individual notice be given all class members ‘who are identifiable through reasonable effort’” and that it be the “‘best notice practicable.’” Id., at 5, ¶13 (citations omitted). “In this case, the class consisted of all persons purchasing a Carfax Vehicle History Report directly from Carfax in the United States prior to the date the trial court gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement: i.e., October 27, 2006. This class may include people extending as far back as 1996.” Id., at ¶15. The settlement approved by the court required “(1) individual email notice to email addresses of purchasers in the Carfax database extending back to October 27, 2003; and, (2) publication, one time each, in Investor’s Business Daily and USA Today.” Id. According to defense attorneys, Carfax sent more than 1.77 million emails, 92% of which were not rejected, and the two publications had a combined circulation of 2.7 million readers per day. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

RESPA Class Action Defense Cases–Mims v. Stewart Title: Fifth Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification Of RESPA Claim Holding Individual Issues Predominate

Class Action Alleging Illegal Fee Splitting of Title Insurance Premiums in Violation of RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act) did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Individual Inquiries Predominate as to Whether Section 8(b) Violation Occurred Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against their title insurer, Stewart Title Guaranty, alleging inter alia violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA); the class action complaint alleged that Stewart Title failed to provide certain discounts to class members and split with its agents “the illegal, unearned charges on the policies.” Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 590 F.3d 298, 2009 WL 4642631, *1 (5th Cir. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, “consumers who refinanced their home mortgages…[were entitled ] to receive a mandatory discount on their premiums for new title insurance policies acquired from Stewart” provided that the new title insurance policy “is issued within seven years of the closing of the prior mortgage.” Id. The class action alleged that Stewart Title “consistently failed to provide the reissue insurance discount” but, instead, split the savings with its agents, and that this conduct constituted illegal splitting of unearned fees in violation of § 8(b) of RESPA. Id., at *1-*2. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the litigation as a class action, id., at *2; defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, but the district court granted the motion, see id., at *1. Stewart Title sought permission to appeal the class action certification order. Id., at *2. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that “individual factual issues predominate the RESPA claim.” Id.

The Circuit Court first addressed Stewart Title’s claim that plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the class action’s RESPA claim, and explained that the challenge was more accurately denominated an attack on the merits of the claim rather than an issue of standing. See Mims, at *2. The Fifth Circuit stated at page *2, “There is no serious question that the plaintiffs have standing to bring this claim.” The defense argument went to the merits of the RESPA claim which – in light of the limited scope of review under Rule 23(f) – “may only be considered in this case if relevant to the class certification question.” Id., at *3. After summarizing Section 8(b) of RESPA, see id., at *4, the Circuit Court explained that the question is whether Stewart Title’s alleged failure to give consumers discounts represented the retention of a fee for services that were not performed, id. In sum, “plaintiffs’ argument thus rests on the theory that the title insurance premium can be split between the amount allowed under Rule R-8 after the appropriate discount is applied and the amount in excess of that amount; they argue that this excess amount represents a charge for which no services were actually performed.” Id. In the Fifth Circuit’s view, the class action alleged: “Stewart charged excessive premiums. Stewart gave, and title agents accepted, a portion of the excessive premiums. The portion accepted by the title agents was excessive and not ‘for services actually performed,’ but instead were in the nature of kickbacks or referral fees.” Id., at *5. The district court had denied Stewart Title’s previous motion to dismiss the RESPA claim because it would that the splitting of such fees “may” violate Section 8(b), depending on the circumstances. Id. The Circuit Court held that class action treatment of the RESPA claim was therefore inappropriate, “because the district court’s liability model for violations of RESPA § 8(b) requires an inquiry into the facts of each individual class member’s title insurance transaction.” Id. In other words, “The only way the overall practice may be proven to violate RESPA, consistently with the HUD liability standard, is to examine the reasonableness of payments for goods and services. This inquiry must be performed on a transaction-by-transaction basis, because a single finding of liability on an unreasonable relationship between goods and services does not necessitate the conclusion that such unreasonableness exists on a class-wide basis.” Id., at *6. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in granting class action treatment to the RESPA claim, id., at *8.

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

Slow Start To New Class Action Filings In 2010 But Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Begin Year At Top Spot Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed In California State And Federal Courts

In order 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

Bayer Class Action Defense Cases–In re Baycol: Eighth Circuit Affirms Injunction Against State Court Deciding Class Action Certification Motion Because Federal Court Rejected Class Action Treatment Of Identical Claims By Different Plaintiffs

Following Denial of Class Action Treatment, Federal Court did not Abuse Discretion in Granting Defense Motion to Enjoin State Court from Ruling on Class Action Certification Motion of Identical Claims brought by Different Plaintiffs Eighth Circuit Court Holds

Plaintiff George McCollins filed a putative class action against Bayer and other defendants, “who manufactured and produced Baycol, a prescription cholesterol lowering medication,” seeking damages for breach of warranties and violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA); Baycol was sold from 1997 to 2001, but was taken off the market following the deaths of 31 people. In re Baycol Products Litig., 593 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010) [Slip Opn., at 2, 3.] McCollins’ class action complaint sought to represent residents of West Virginia, id., at 2. McCollins filed his complaint in West Virginia state court in 2001, but defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court on diversity grounds. Id., at 3. (The Circuit Court noted that had the class action been filed “a few years later,” it would have been removable under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Id.) Also in 2001, two other individuals (Keith Smith and Shirley Sperlazza) filed a similar class action in West Virginia state court, but it was not removed to federal court. Id., at 4. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) consolidated the McCollins class action with thousands of other individual and class action lawsuits involving Baycol, id., at 2, 3. As the sole putative class representative of West Virginia residents, plaintiff “had not experienced the side effect that led to Baycol’s withdrawal from the market[ and the] undisputed record evidence showed that he had physically benefitted from the drug.” Id., at 3. After extensive litigation, including the issuance of more than 160 pretrial orders, the district court rejected the motion by the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee to certify the Master Class Action Complaint as a nationwide class action, “concluding that since such plaintiffs ‘would have to demonstrate that they were either injured by Baycol, or that Baycol did not provide them any health benefits[,]’ common issues did not predominate,” id., at 3. The district court later issued an order denying class action treatment to McCollins’ complaint on behalf of West Virginia residents, id., at 3, 4. Thereafter, Smith and Sperlazza sought class action certification in West Virginia state court of their Baycol class action; defense attorneys moved the federal court “to enjoin Smith and Sperlazza from relitigating in state court the certification of a West Virginia class.” Id., at 2. The district court granted the motion, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Id.

The Eighth Circuit explained that “the Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from interfering in state proceedings, [but] it permits injunctions necessary to ‘protect or effectuate its judgments.’” In re Baycol, at 5 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2283). The Circuit Court “review[ed] de novo the district court’s determination that the Act’s ‘relitigation exception’ applies…, and that it had personal jurisdiction over [Smith and Sperlazza],” id. (citations omitted). This, in turn, required an analysis of collateral estoppel requirements under West Virginia law. Id., at 6. The Circuit Court held that the issue presented by Smith and Sperlazza in their state court motion for class action treatment had been previously decided by the district court in connection with the McCollins action, and that they sought class action certification “on the same legal basis of the same class already denied in this case.” Id. The fact that West Virginia’s Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 would be applied in Smith and Sperlazza’s action rather than Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23 was of no moment, id. Put simply, “[T]he district court concluded that Baycol plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the WVCCPA without proof of harm or injury. Economic loss alone is insufficient. Certification under the state rule would undermine this conclusion of substantive state law properly made by the district court.” Id. (citation omitted).

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Apple iPod Class Action Defense Cases–Birdsong v. Apple: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of UCL Class Action Holding Risky Consumer Behavior Caused Any Damage Rather Than Apple’s iPod Design

UCL Class Action Alleging Apple iPod Created Unreasonable Risk of Hearing Loss Properly Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim because while iPod was Capable of Causing Hearing Loss it was Consumer Behavior that Proximately Caused Injury rather than iPod’s Design Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Apple alleging inter alia violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Apple’s iPod “is defective because it poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss to its users.” Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 16867, 16870.] Federal court jurisdiction was premised on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Id., at 16872 n.1. The class action originated in Louisiana, but it was transferred to California and a California resident was added as a putative class representative in the third amended class action complaint. Id., at 16871. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, the iPods were sold with “detachable ‘earbud’ headphones” (but other headphones and audio devices could be used for playback), and were capable of “producing sounds as loud as 115 decibels.” Id., at 16870. Each iPod can with a warning concerning the risk of hearing damage, id., at 16870-71. The class action alleged that iPod’s ability to produce 115 decibels was a “defect” that constituted a “breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose,” id., at 16870. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the third amended class action complaint for failure to state a claim and on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the class action’s UCL claim. Id. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the class action. Id., at 16871-72. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Circuit Court first summarized California law concerning the implied warranty of merchantability. See Birdsong, at 16872-73. The district court dismissed that class action claim based on its determination that it was the manner in which a consumer used the iPod, not its design, that created the risk of hearing loss. Id., at 16873. The Ninth Circuit agreed, explaining at page 16873 that “the iPod has an ‘ordinary purpose of listening to music,’ and nothing [plaintiffs] allege suggests iPods are unsafe for that use or defective.” While iPods are capable of playing music at loud volumes, and capable of playing music for 12-14 hours before the batteries need to be recharged or replaced, the bottom line is that “users have the option of using an iPod in a risky manner, not that the product lacks any minimum level of quality.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized

Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits End 2009 With Firm Hold On Top Spot Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed 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. Because of the holidays, this report covers the time period from December 18 – 30, 2009, during which time 59 new class action cases were filed in these California state and federal courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Truk v. Wehlmann: Texas Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action Based On Cautionary Language In Public Offering Documents

Class Action Alleging Violations of Federal Securities Laws based on Oil Company’s “Proved Reserves” Estimates in Public Offering Documents Warranted Dismissal because Cautionary Language Warned Reasonable Investor of Risk of Lower Reserves Texas Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Cano Petroleum (an independent oil and natural gas company) and individual officers and directors of Cano, as well as defendants involved in the underwriting of Cano’s secondary public offering, alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that the documents issued in connection with the secondary public offering contained material misrepresentations in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases–In re Heartland Payment Systems: New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint Failed To Satisfy PSLRA

Class Action Complaint Alleging Securities Fraud Failed to Adequately Plead Misrepresentation or Scienter under Heightened Pleading Requirements Established by Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) New Jersey Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Heartland Payment Systems and others alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants concealed information and/or made affirmative misrepresentations that were material to the value of the company’s stock and that plaintiffs suffered damage because the company’s stock value declined almost 80%.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized