AT&T Class Action Defense Cases–Morgan v. AT&T: California Appellate Court Reinstates Class Action Against AT&T Holding Class Action Complaint Sufficiently Alleged UCL, CLRA and Fraud To Survive Demurrer

Class Action Complaint Alleging AT&T Violated State Consumer Protection Laws Concerning Advertising of Premium Cell Phone Properly Dismissed as to False Advertising and Declaratory Relief Claims but UCL, CLRA and Fraud Claims Improperly Dismissed California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against AT&T Wireless alleging violations of various state consumer protection laws; specifically, the class action complaint was “based upon AT&T‟s marketing and sale of premium cell phones that operated on a wireless network that AT&T allegedly modified in a manner that rendered those premium cell phones essentially useless.” Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (Cal.App. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, AT&T sold the Sony Ericsson T68i as a premium cell phone that “could make and receive calls around the world and had other advanced technologies”; at the time, however, AT&T knew that “it had no intention to continue to support and service the T68i” and modified its wireless system so as to render the phone “worthless.” Id., at 3. AT&T also allegedly sought to “surreptitiously ‘phase out’ these worthless premium phones without paying any compensation to the purchasers, or providing them with a new phone of equal capabilities and compatible with the changes made to their system,” id. The original class action complaint was 13 pages long and alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), fraud and declaratory relief; the third amended class action complaint contained the same claims for relief but had “morphed” into a 47-page long pleading “after the trial court sustained AT&T‟s successive demurrers on the ground that the complaint lacked the requisite specificity.” Id., at 2. The trial court again sustained AT&T’s demurrer to the class action complaint because “plaintiffs’ theory of recovery [was] obscured by extraneous allegations in the third amended complaint” and because “plaintiffs still failed to identify with particularity any actionable misrepresentations made by AT&T.” Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, sending the class action back for further proceedings.

We do not here summarize the allegations in each variation of the class action complaint. See Morgan, at 3-13. Nor do we summarize the theories underlying the class action’s claims for relief. See id., at 13-17. In ruling on AT&T’s demurrer, the trial court observed that the class action complaint “included so much extraneous matter that it was difficult to determine what plaintiffs’ theory was, and which allegations supported that theory.” Id., at 18. The trial court concluded, “In sum, no CLRA damages claim is stated because no CLRA notice was given. Plaintiffs‟ argument that pre-suit notice provided to [AT&T] as required by the CLRA may be provided 2 years into the case, with the filing of an amended complaint, is rejected. No fraud claim is stated because plaintiffs do not allege what specific misrepresentation was made to them that they relied on and were injured by. At most, a UCL or FAL claim might be found amongst the foliage, but plaintiffs have not identified where.” Id., at 19. Because plaintiffs had “failed to identify with particularity any actionable misrepresentation by AT&T” after four attempts to do so, and because plaintiffs had not identified how the class action complaint may be amended to rectify this deficiency, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

New Class Actions Alleging Employment-Related Claims Hold On To Top Spot Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed In California State And Federal Courts But UCL Claims Run Close Second

As a resource for 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 September 18 – 24, 2009, during which time 40 new class action cases were filed in these California courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Blood Reagents: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiffs’ Motions To Centralize Class Action Litigation And Transfers Class Actions To Eastern District Of Pennsylvania

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Requests for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs or Common Defendants, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of Pennsylvania Ten (10) class actions – eight in New Jersey, one in New York and one in Pennsylvania – were filed against various defendants alleging antitrust violations; specifically, the class action complaints allege “price fixing in a claimed nationwide market for blood reagent products and seek recovery under federal antitrust law” In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–County of Nassau v. Hotels.Com: Second Circuit Remands Class Action For Consideration In First Instance Of Propriety Of Class Action Treatment Is Appropriate

Class Action Alleging Failure to Online Hotel Room Reseller to Pay Proper Occupancy Taxes, Dismissed by District Court for Failure of County to Comply with Administrative Process for Assessing and Collecting Taxes, Remanded for District Court Consideration of Whether Class Action Certification is Appropriate Second Circuit Holds Plaintiff County of Nassau filed a putative class action against Hotels.Com alleging failure to pay the proper hotel occupancy taxes. County of Nassau v.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Rynearson v. Motricity: Washington Federal Court Again Remands Class Action To State Court Holding CAFA Jurisdiction Not Met And “Other Paper” Does Not Include Pleadings In Unrelated Action

Class Action Improperly Removed to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) because Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel in Unrelated Lawsuit Against Different Defendant was Insufficient to Establish $5 Million Amount in Controversy and, in Any Event, did not Constitute an “Other Paper” within Meaning of Removal Statute, Warranting Remand of Class Action and Award of Attorney Fees and Costs for Frivolous Removal Washington Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Washington state court against Motricity alleging violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendant “facilitated placing unauthorized charges for mobile content on customers’ bills.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Hicks v. Client Services: Florida Federal Court Denies Motion To Decertify Class Action Holding De Minimis Recovery Does Not Defeat Rule 23(b)’s Superiority Requirement

Class Action Alleging Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Properly Certified as Class Action despite De Minimis Recovery for Class Members Florida Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Client Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); plaintiff moved to certify the litigation as a class action, and the district court agreed that class action treatment was warranted under Rule 23. Hicks v. Client Services, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 699, 700 (S.D.Fla. 2009). Defense attorneys moved to decertify the litigation as a class action, arguing that in light of the statutory cap on damages awardable under FDCPA class actions, the de minimis recovery awaiting class members defeated the “superiority” prong of class certification. Id. Specifically, the FDCPA caps damages in class actions to “the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B). Defendant asserted that its net worth was only $15 million, and that the putative class contained more than 122,000 members: “Thus, should Plaintiff class prevail, the maximum recovery per class member would be $1.24.” Id. (footnote omitted). Plaintiff countered that “courts have not allowed the prospect of de minimis individual recovery to defeat certification of FDCPA classes.” Id. The district court denied the motion, determining that class action treatment was warranted.

The district court explained that, in analyzing the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), courts have recognized that [c]lass actions are particularly superior for cases where individual recovery would be small, because class actions ‘overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.’” Hicks, at 700 (quoting Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997)). “A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.” Amchem, at 617. The court considered the cases cited by defendants for the proposition that a de minimis recovery may defeat class certification, see id., at 700-01. The court discussed also the cases cited by plaintiffs hold that de minims recovery does not defeat class certification of FDCPA claims. Id., at 701. The federal court observed, then, that “[t]here is authority supporting both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s positions.” Id. It concluded, however, that the cases supporting plaintiff’s view were the more persuasive, id. The district court explained at page 701,

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Target Class Action Defense Cases–Muro v. Target: Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of TILA Class Action Holding Plaintiff Lack Standing To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification As She Settled Individual Claim

As Matter of First Impression, because Plaintiff Settled her Individual Claims Following Denial of Class Action Certification Motion of Class Action Alleging Violations of Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Plaintiff Lacked Standing to Appeal Propriety of District Court Order Denying Class Certification Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various Target entities alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA); the class action complaint alleged that Target sent plaintiff an unsolicited Target Visa card in the mail in violation of TILA’s prohibition against sending credit cards in the absence of a request or application by the consumer. Muro v. Target Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. August 31, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, Target sent unsolicited Visa Cards, which may be used anywhere that accepts Visa cards, to holders of Target Guest Card, which may be used only at Target stores. _Id._, at 2 and n.2. Guest Card holders were given the option of activating the Visa cards, and if they elected to do so, then the corresponding Guest Card would be deactivated and any balance on the Guest Card would be transferred to the Visa card. _Id._, at 2-3. Plaintiff had a Guest Card account that she closed in 1999; plaintiff “received no further correspondence from Target for nearly five years” at which time she received the unsolicited Visa card. _Id._, at 2. Plaintiff did not activate the Visa card and did not incur any charges or fees in connection with the solicitation. _Id._ Nonetheless, plaintiff filed her class action complaint alleging TILA violations, _id._ Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action and defense attorneys moved for summary judgment; the district court “granted summary judgment as to Target and denied class certification.” _Id._ The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by noting that while TILA states “[n]o credit card shall be issued expect in response to a request or application therefor,” this provision “does not apply to the issuance of a credit card in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card.” Muro, at 3-4 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1642). According to the district court, any class members that had Guest Card accounts fell within the exception of credit cards issued in “renewal or substitution” thereof, id., at 4. The district court also had denied class action treatment because plaintiff’s claims were not typical of those of the class – “unlike most of the proposed class members, [plaintiff] had alleged that she had closed her Guest Card account.” Id., at 4-5. And while plaintiff could adequately represent a class defined as recipients of the unsolicited Visa cards that previously had closed their Guest Card accounts, the district court found that plaintiff had not demonstrated that such a class would be sufficiently numerous to warrant class action treatment. Id., at 5. Plaintiff then settled her individual claim but claimed to reserve the right to appeal the denial of her class action certification motion, id. The Circuit Court held that plaintiff had “no cognizable interest” in the class action certification issue because she accepted the offer of judgment, so the Court focused on the issue of whether she could nevertheless appeal the district court’s decision not to certify the proposed class. Id., at 5-6.

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

Labor Law Class Actions Continue To Hold Top Spot Among Weekly Class Action Lawsuits Filed In California State And Federal Courts

In order to allow class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of class actions 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

Madoff-Related Class Action Defense Cases—In re Optimal Strategic: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Southern District Of Florida

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by New York Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Southern District of Florida Three class actions – two in Florida and one in New York – were filed against various defendants, including various Banco Santander entities and HSBC entities, alleging securities laws violations; specifically, the class action complaints allege that “defendants failed to perform adequate due diligence before investing money from their fund, Optimal Multiadvisors, Ltd.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Brown v. JEVIC: Third Circuit Reverses Order Remanding Class Action To State Court Holding Class Action Properly Removed Under Class Action Fairness Act Despite Fact Co-Defendant Was In Bankruptcy

Class Action Filed in State Court Against Defendant and Co-Defendant Debtor in Bankruptcy Removable to Federal Court under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) because Co-Defendant Sued in Violation of Automatic Stay and because Co-Defendant’s Bankruptcy does not Preclude Defendant from Removing Class Action to Federal Court Third Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against JEVIC Transportation and its parent company, Sun Capital Partners, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants violated New Jersey’s WARN Act which, “[l]ike its federal counterpart, …requires advance notice of a plant closing under certain circumstances.” Brown v. JEVIC, 575 F.3d 322, 325 (3d Cir. 2009). JEVIC had filed for bankruptcy protection, and the class action was filed as an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, id. One week later, and despite the automatic stay afforded by the bankruptcy proceeding, plaintiffs filed a class action in New Jersey state court against JEVIC and Sun Capital Partners. Id. Defense attorneys for JEVIC removed the state court class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); the district court remanded the class action sua sponte on the grounds that the automatic stay precluded the debtor’s petition for removal. Id. Defense attorneys for Sun Capital then removed the state court class action to federal court under CAFA; the district court again remanded the class action, ruling that “[w]hen an action is initiated after the filing of a Chapter 11 petition, in violation of the accompanying stay, removal is not available.” Id., at 325-26. The Third Circuit granted Sun Capital’s petition for leave to appeal the remand order, id., at 326. The Circuit Court explained at page 325, “In this appeal implicating the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, we consider whether a defendant is precluded from removing a class action to federal court because a co-defendant is in bankruptcy. We hold that it is not.”

The Third Circuit began its analysis by noting that Sun Capital bore the “heavy burden” of establishing federal court jurisdiction. Brown, at 326 (citation omitted). Central to the Circuit Court’s analysis was the fact that Sun Capital was not in bankruptcy, so the district court’s reliance “on cases dealing with debtor defendants who attempted to remove actions” were inapplicable. Id. Also central to its analysis was the fact that the state court class action against JEVIC was improper because it was filed in knowing violation of the automatic stay, so plaintiffs had “improperly joined JEVIC in the [state court class action], [and] that joinder cannot prevent Sun from removing the action.” Id. In essence, plaintiffs fraudulently joined JEVIC in the state court class action. Id., at 326-27. The Third Circuit summarized its holding at page 327: “In sum, because [plaintiffs] had no reasonable basis to believe that JEVIC was amenable to suit, we hold that JEVIC was a fraudulently joined party and its status as a Defendant could not be used to defeat otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.” (The Third Circuit also held that the district court erred in remanding the class action to state court because JEVIC had never been served with legal process and therefore was not properly before the district court. See id., at 327. We do not here analyze that aspect of the Circuit Court’s opinion.) Accordingly, the Circuit Court reversed the district court order remanding the class action to state court, id., at 329.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Employment Law Class Actions Removal & Remand Uncategorized