Class Action Filings Rise But Labor Law Class Action Cases Continue To Lead List Among New Class Action Lawsuits In California State And Federal Courts

As a resource for California 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 14 – September 20, 2007, during which time 48 new class action lawsuits were filed in these California state and federal courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer Melvin Weiss Indicted Only Days After William Lerach Pleads Guilty To Criminal Conspiracy Charges

Molly Selvin of the Los Angeles Times reports today that class action plaintiff lawyer Melvin Weiss has been indicted “on charges that he participated in a kickback scheme that allegedly netted millions of dollars in illicit legal fees.” The federal indictment comes on the heels of a guilty plea by class action plaintiff lawyer William Lerach, who was once a partner at Milberg Weiss, to charges of criminal conspiracy. The recent indictment added to the criminal charges filed against the law firm of Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Steve Schulman and David Bershad, last year.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Wall Street Journal Reports On Federal Indictment Of Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer Melvyn Weiss On Illegal Kickback Charges

Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reports today on the long-anticipated criminal charges leveled against well known class action plaintiff lawyer Melvyn Weiss. The criminal charges are contained in an amendment to the federal indictment handed down last year against the plaintiff class action law firm of Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Steven Schulman and David Bershad. The criminal charges against Weiss comes just days after former Milberg Weiss attorney William Lerach, himself a well-known class action plaintiff lawyer, pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges, and to the guilty plea of Steve Schulman to federal racketeering and conspiracy charges.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

GM-OnStar Class Action Defense Case-In re General Motors OnStar: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Eastern District of Michigan

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Opposed by Certain Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Concurs with Defense Recommendation to Transfer Class Actions to Eastern District of Michigan Four putative class action lawsuits (three in Michigan and one in California) were filed against General Motors “relating to (1) the impact of the conversion of the cellular network from an analog/digital network to a digital-only network on December 31, 2007, and (2) the availability of OnStar service in certain vehicles thereafter.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Securities Fraud Class Action Defense Cases-In re JDS Uniphase: California Federal Court Holds Certain Claims In Securities Fraud Class Action May Proceed To Trial But Grants Defense Summary Judgment Motion As To Most Claims

Defense Motion for Summary Judgment in Securities Fraud Class Action Warranted as to 28 Statements Challenged by Class Action Complaint but Triable Issues Existed as to Remaining Class Action Claims California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a securities fraud class action in California federal court against JDS Uniphase and certain officers alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b), 14, 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Sec. Litig., Slip Opn., at 1-2 and 6-7 (N.D. Cal. August 24, 2007). JDS Uniphase manufactures and supplies components of fiber-optic networks. Id., at 2. The class action alleges that the company and its officers falsely represented the company’s financial condition in order to artificially inflate the stock price, in part so JDS could purchase other companies “for less than their worth.” Id., at 3. After the court certified the litigation as a class action, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed cross-motions for summary judgment, id., at 1-2. The district court granted the defense motions in part and deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ motion; in so ruling, the federal court held that certain disputes could be resolved only at trial.

At the time the defense filed its summary judgment motion, plaintiffs were challenging 56 separate statements. JDS, at 10. The defense argued that it was entitled to judgment as to 24 of these statements either because plaintiffs failed to include them in the class action complaint or because plaintiffs abandoned them, id., at 9-10. The district court concluded: (1) plaintiffs did not abandon any claims raised in the class action complaint, id., at 10; (2) despite the holding in Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994), plaintiffs were entitled to leave to amend to add 16 of the challenged statements to the class action complaint, id., at 10-12; and (3) plaintiffs failed to properly place at issue three of the statements challenged by the defense, and so the motion for summary judgment was granted as to those statements, id., at 13.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Vioxx Class Action Defense Cases-Int’l Union v. Merck: New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Certification Of Nationwide Vioxx Class Action Holding That Common Questions Of Fact Or Law Do Not Predominate And Class Action Not Superior Means For Redress

Trial Court Erred in Certifying Nationwide Class Action Against Merck Arising out of Sale of Vioxx because Class Action Treatment is not Superior to Other Avenues of Redress and because Defense Correctly Argued that Common Questions of Fact or Law do not Predominate New Jersey Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiff – “a joint union-employer Taft-Hartley trust fund” that “acts as a party to benefit contracts, a policy issuer, and a sponsor of health benefit plans that provide prescription drug coverage for its members and beneficiaries” and “is therefore a third-party payor, meaning that it makes payments to pharmaceutical companies for prescription medications for those for whom its benefit plans afford coverage” – filed a putative class action in New Jersey state court against Merck arising out of its manufacture and sale of Vioxx. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., ___ A.2d __, Slip Opn., at 6 (N.J. Sept. 6, 2007). Specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Merck engaged in a “wide-ranging fraudulent marketing scheme” to sell Vioxx, with the class action alleging that Merck “marketed its product as a safer and more effective alternative to other traditional pain medications, thus driving the price of its product substantially higher than the price charged for similar medications.” _Id._, at 6-7. The class action further alleged that Merck continued to make these marketing representations “through an aggressive marketing campaign” after it knew that Vioxx “was neither more effective nor safer than other available products.” _Id._, at 7. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking certification of a nationwide class action against Merck; the trial court rejected defense attorney arguments against class action treatment and granted plaintiff’s motion. _Id._, at 4-5. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed.

The interest plaintiff had in pursuing a putative nationwide class action is summarized below (see Note). “Central to plaintiff’s class action assertions is its argument that defendant engaged in a fraudulent marketing campaign that induced, or was intended to induce, all third-party payors to accord Vioxx preferred status in their formularies.” Merck, at 12-13. Defense attorneys argued that this “amounts to nothing more than a ‘fraud on the market’ theory that cannot be sustained in accordance with [New Jersey] law.” Id., at 13. The trial court order certifying a nationwide class action was affirmed by the New Jersey Appellate Division, id., at 4-5, but the Supreme Court reversed.

After summarizing New Jersey law on class actions, see Merck, at 14-18, and the findings of the trial court and appellate court on the topics of predominance and superiority, including choice of law, id., at 18-21, the Supreme Court turned to the defense arguments that predominance and superiority were not met, id., at 22. With respect to predominance, the defense conceded that there were “some common questions” in that “[Merck’s] marketing plan and withholding of adverse information did not vary as among potential consumers” and the “facts as they relate to the FDA warning letters or the drug’s eventual withdrawal from the market” were the same. Id., at 22. The Supreme Court explained, however, that in New Jersey the consumer fraud statute does not require a showing of reliance but does require a showing of an “ascertainable loss.” Id., at 23-24. While plaintiff urged the Court to consider generally that Merck’s marketing scheme was the same for all class members, the Supreme Court rejected this limited view of predominance, explaining at pages 26 and 27:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions

Wall Street Journal Reports On Criminal Conspiracy Guilty Plea By Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach

Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reports today on the guilty plea by leading class action plaintiff lawyer William Lerach to criminal conspiracy charges arising out of illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs in class action shareholder lawsuits. The plea arises from the criminal indictment filed last year against the well known plaintiff class action law firm Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Steven Schulman and David Bershad. The guilty plea was announced just days after Lerach resigned from his law firm to reportedly focus on his defense against the as-then uncharged allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

State and City of New York File Lawsuit Against Merck Seeking Restitution of Medicaid and Prescription-Drug Payments Made for Vioxx

Heather Won Tesoriero of the Wall Street Journal reports today that the State of New York and New York City have filed a lawsuit against Merck seeking tens of millions of dollars for payments made from 1999 through 2004 on Vioxx through Medicaid and a prescription-drug assistance program for the elderly. According to the lawsuit, “Merck tried to distort each negative disclosure about Vioxx. Merck cherry-picked outcomes from its own research, omitting material information that would have communicated Vioxx’s real cardiovascular dangers.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Leading Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach To Plead Guilty To Conspiracy In Illegal Kickback Scheme

Securities Fraud Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach Reportedly Agrees to Plead Guilty to Conspiracy in Paying Kickbacks to Class Representative On the heels of our report that William Lerach announced his resignation in order to focus his energies on defending himself against the as-then unannounced criminal charges leveled against him in the wake of the federal court indictment of Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners, Molly Selvin reports today that Lerach that agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Catalyst v. Kaiser: California Court Upholds Dismissal Of Class Action Because Established Business Relationship Exception Precluded Class Action Complaint Claims Alleging Violations Of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

While the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Prohibits Sending Unsolicited Advertisements via Facsimile, Trial Court Properly Dismissed Class Action Complaint because “Established Business Relationship” Exception Applied California Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiff Catalyst Strategic Design filed a putative class action in California state court against its insurer, Kaiser Foundation Health, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) arising out of the insurer faxing an unsolicited advertisement to the company. Catalyst Strategic Design, Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 1328, 1330-31 (Cal.App. 2007). Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had an “established business relationship” with Catalyst based on their numerous discussions about insurance coverage and, thus, Catalyst is deemed under federal regulations to have consented to receiving the faxed advertisement, id., at 1331. The district court agreed and dismissed the class action. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

In August 2001, Catalyst Strategic Design contacted Kaiser regarding health insurance for its employees, and provided Kaiser with its fax number so that it could receive written information on Kaiser’s health plans; however, Catalyst did not sign up for insurance coverage with Kaiser at that time. Catalyst, at 1330. “Over the next year and a half, Kaiser contacted Catalyst about a dozen times by phone and in writing, including faxes, to discuss Kaiser’s on-going individual coverage of Catalyst’s president and in the hope of selling coverage to the company’s employees”; in January 2003, Catalyst told Kaiser it no longer intended to buy insurance coverage for its employees, but it did not tell Kaiser to stop contacting it about insurance. Id., at 1331. In May 2004, Kaiser faxed a one-page ad to Catalyst about various health plans: in response, Catalyst filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the TCPA, which generally prohibits faxing unsolicited advertisements. Id. The class action complaint also alleged violations of California’s UCL, id.. Based on these facts, defense attorneys argued that Kaiser was entitled to send the fax to Catalyst because they had an “established business relationship” within the meaning of the federal regulations governing the TCPA, id. The district court agreed and dismissed the class action complaint. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized