Further Drop In Employment Class Action Lawsuits Among Weekly Class Actions Filed In California State And Federal Courts But Labor Law Class Action Cases Continue To Lead List Of New California Class Action Filings

To assist California class action defense attorneys predict the cases against which they will have to defend, 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 preceding week.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

FEMA Class Action Defense Cases-In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Eastern District of Louisiana

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of Louisiana Four class action lawsuits were filed against various defendants alleging “that trailers – provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina – contain materials which emit dangerous, excessive levels of formaldehyde.” In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prod.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Options Backdating Class Action Defense Cases–American Tower Settles Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuits For $14 Million

The Associated Press reports that American Tower Corp. has agreed to pay $14 million to settle class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws “concern[ing] its historical stock option granting practices and related accounting.” American Tower operates broadcast and communications towers. At that time of AP’s report, it was not know whether American Tower’s insurers’ will contribute to the settlement.

Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-May’s v. Total Containment: Alabama Federal Court Remands Class Action To State Court Holding Amendment Of Complaint After CAFA’s (Class Action Fairness Act) Effective Date Did Not Permit Removal

Amendment of Class Action Complaint After Effective Date of Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) did not Trigger Removal Period Because Under State Law the Amendment Related Back to Original Complaint Alabama Federal Court Holds Plaintiff, operator of three gasoline distribution facilities, filed a putative class action against Total Containment (TCI) arising out of the manufacture, sale and installation of allegedly defective gas station piping systems. May’s Distributing Co. Inc.

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

Sprint Nextel Class Action Defense Cases—State Court Approves $57.5 Million Class Action Settlement Resolving Class Action Arising Out Of Recombination Of Its Tracking Stocks In 2004

The Kansas City Star reports that a state court judge granted final approval today to a class action settlement that “resolves a class-action lawsuit against Sprint Nextel Corp. over the recombination of its tracking stocks in 2004.” Johnson County District Judge Kevin Moriarty gave final approval to the settlement, which requires Sprint Nextel pay $57.5 million. The court also awarded class action counsel about $18 million in attorney fees and costs, but ordered further that about $1.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-John v. National Security: Second Circuit Reverses District Court Approval Of Class Action Settlement Holding Lower Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over Class Action Claims For Unregistered Copyrights

Copyright Act Section 411(a) Limits Federal Court Jurisdiction to Registered Works and District Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Approve Class Action Settlement that Included Unregistered Copyrights Second Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of a class that consisted primarily “of freelance writers who contracted with publishers to author the works for publication in print media, and retained the copyrights in those works,” but whose work had been reproduced without their consent on various electronic databases. In re Literary Works In Electronic Databases Copyright Litig., ___ F. 3d ___ (2d Cir. November 29, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 3]. The legal foundation of the class action rested on _New York Times Co. v. Tasini_, 533 U.S. 483, 488 (2001), which “held that § 201(c) of the Copyright Act does not permit publishers to reproduce freelance works electronically when they lack specific authorization to do so.” _Id._, at 4. Essentially, _Tasini_ requires publishers obtain a separate license to reproduce written works electronically. Defense counsel argued, however, relying on section 411(a) of the Copyright Act, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the class action because putative members of the class action generally failed to register their copyrights. _Id._, at 5. The Circuit Court noted at page 3 that “The overwhelming majority of claims within the certified class arise from the infringement of unregistered copyrights.” Nonetheless, based on _Tasini_ the district court ordered the parties to mediation, and after three years a settlement was reached, _id._, at 6. The district court eventually approved the class action settlement, and several objectors appealed. _Id._, at 7-8. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement.

We do not here discuss the details of the class action allegations or the terms of the class action settlement. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that class was defined so as to include works that had not been registered, In re Literary Works, at 6, and that defense counsel argued “that this litigation possessed scant settlement value because the District Court could never certify the vast majority of the claims for inclusion in any proposed class” because section 411(a) of the Copyright Act provides that “no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title,” id., at 5 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)). Defense counsel introduced survey evidence suggesting that less than one percent of the works had been registered; thus, according to the defense the jurisdictional defect exited as to “more than 99 percent of the claims at issue.” Id., at 5-6. Plaintiffs’ lawyers did not concede the precise number at issue, but admitted that “the large majority of ‘subject works’ have not been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.” Id., at 6. “The District Court never considered whether it had jurisdiction to certify a class consisting mostly of claims arising from unregistered copyrights, or to approve a settlement resolving those claims.” Id., at 8.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Smith v. Nationwide: Sixth Circuit Affirms Applicability Of CAFA To Class Action Complaint And Affirms Order Remanding Class Action To State Court Because Plaintiff Disclaimed Damages Over $5 Million

Amendment to Complaint Adding Class Action Allegations “Commences” Action within Meaning of Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) but Plaintiff may Disclaim Damages in Order to Defeat Federal Court Jurisdiction and Defense Failed to Establish Requisite Amount in Controversy to Satisfy CAFA Removal Jurisdiction Sixth Circuit Holds

In 2004, plaintiff filed an individual lawsuit (not a class action) in Tennessee state court against his automobile insurance carrier for failing to pay for the post-repair loss of value he suffered – that is, alleging that when the insurer pays for repairs to the vehicle, it is further “obligated to restore vehicles to their prior appearance, function and value” and breaches this alleged duty “by not assessing the vehicle after it [is] repaired, not informing Plaintiff of any lost value following such an assessment, and failing to pay the post-repair loss of value unless Plaintiff demands and proves loss of value.” Smith v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 505 F. 3d 401, 403 (6th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff amended the complaint so as to assert class action allegations in September 2006, and limited recovery on behalf of individual insureds to $74,999, and on behalf of the class to $4,999,999. Id. Defense attorneys removed the class action complaint to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 205 (CAFA), but the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the class action to state court. Id., at 402-03. Defense counsel appealed this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), id., at 404, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The Sixth Circuit began its analysis by employing the majority rule that CAFA does not alter the defendant’s burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction. Smith, at 404-05. It then turned to the question of whether CAFA applies to this class action, given that the original complaint was filed in 2004 but the class action allegations were not added until 2006. Id., at 405. The Circuit Court held that under Tennessee law the class action was “commenced” after the effective date of CAFA because “Defendant was neither afforded adequate notice of the generic identity of the proposed class nor provided adequate notice of claims of all plaintiffs who might someday fall within a putative class by virtue of [the] original complaint.” Id., at 406. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit resolved the threshold inquiry by holding that defendant’s notice of removal was timely, id., at 406-07.

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

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Literary Works: Second Circuit Rejects Ethics Committee Recommendation For Recusal From Hearing Class Action Settlement Appeal Based On Judges Membership In Class Action

Judge Who Learns He is Member of Class Action need not Recuse Himself from Hearing Appeal of Class Action Settlement if Financial Interest is Small and He Promptly Divests Himself of that Interest Second Circuit Holds

Prior to hearing oral argument in an appeal from a class action settlement, but after the three-judge panel had completed a substantial amount of work in preparing for oral argument, the Second Circuit panel learned that two of the judges may be members of the class action. In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litig., ___ F. 3d ___ (2d Cir. November 29, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 2 and n.1]. The Circuit Court requested that the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference opine as to whether the panel should recuse itself from hearing the appeal; by letter dated March 22, 2007, the Committee concluded that recusal was required. _Id._ The Panel advised the Committee of additional facts not previously known

A class action was filed “on behalf of freelance authors whose work has been reproduced without their express consent on a variety of electronic databases, including but not limited to LexisNexis and Westlaw.” Literary Works, at 4. The class action was certified and ultimately settled. Notice of the class action settlement was given to class members by mail and publication, and required members of the class action submit proofs of claim by September 30, 2005. Id. The class action settlement received final approval on September 27, 2005, id., and on October 21, 2005, several of the class members who had objected to the settlement filed an appeal, id., at 5. Months after the claims period had expired, the three-judge panel received the briefing on the appeal and in March 2007, “after extensive pre-argument preparation,” two of the judges learned that they may be members of the class because “there was a high probability that we held copyrights in works, such as law review articles and speeches, reproduced on defendants’ databases.” Id. At oral argument, the panel members disclaimed any financial interest in the settlement; no one advised the Panel that the claims period already had expired so they “were at that point ineligible to recover anything in the class action in any event.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

New Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Drop In Weekly List Of Class Actions Filed In California State And Federal Courts But Still Top Categories Of New Class Action Cases

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 preceding week. This report covers the time period of November 30 – December 6, 2007, during which time 52 new class action lawsuits were filed.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Avandia Marketing: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects Eastern District of Pennsylvania As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request, Over Defense Objection, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 but Agrees With Defense Request to Transfer Class Actions to Eastern District of Pennsylvania Two class action lawsuits (followed by 28 potential tag-along class actions) were filed against various defendants, including SmithKlineBeecham Corp., arising out of the manufacture and sale of certain diabetes drugs that allegedly caused increased risk of heart attack and other injuries.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized