CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Lott v. Pfizer: Seventh Circuit Holds Defense Basis For Erroneous Removal Of Class Action Pursuant To CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Was Objectively Reasonable So Sanction Award Was Improper

District Court Erred in Awarding Attorney Fees Against Defendant for Removing Class Action Under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Because even though Basis for Removal was Flawed – that Class Action was “Commenced” when Removed rather than when Filed – Defense had Objectively Reasonable Grounds for its Interpretation of the Statute Seventh Circuit Holds

In an effort to avoid removal to federal court, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Illinois state court on February 17, 2005: the class action alleged violations of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in that defendant Pfizer misrepresented the health risks of using Celebrex and Bextra, and charged more than fair market value for these drugs. Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d 789, 790-91 (7th Cir. 2007). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court on the basis of CAFA, id., at 790, arguing that the action “commenced” when defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, id., at 791. The district court remanded the class action to state court on the ground that CAFA applied only to class actions filed after CAFA’s effective date, and awarded attorney fees and costs against Pfizer. Id. The defense appealed the award of fees and the Seventh Circuit reversed.

We do not here discuss the unsuccessful arguments made by the defense in support of removal, both under CAFA and under traditional diversity jurisdiction: suffice it to say that the district court remanded the class action to state court based on its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction had not been met – a decision affirmed by the Seventh Circuit in Pfizer, Inc. v. Lott, 417 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir.2005), which held that for purposes of CAFA jurisdiction a class action was “commenced” when it was “filed” not when it was “removed,” and that Pfizer had not established diversity jurisdiction. We address here the defense appeal from the award of attorney fees against Pfizer.

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

Employment Law Class Action Cases Only Category To Break 10% Threshold Of New Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts

In order to assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the type of 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 relevant timeframe.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases-In re Charlotte Russe: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Central District of California

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Opposed by Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees to Transfer Class Actions to Central District of California as Requested by Defense Two class action lawsuits were filed against Charlotte Russe alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by failing to block certain credit and debit card information from customer receipts. In re Charlotte Russe, Inc.

Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

SLUSA Class Action Defense Cases-Disher v. Citigroup: Illinois Federal Court Holds Securities Class Action Must Remanded To State Court But Holds Further That SLUSA Bars Prosecution Of Class Action Claims

While Defense Failed to Timely Remove Class Action to Federal Court Thereby Necessitating Remand of the Class Action Complaint to State Court, the Class Action Claims are Precluded by SLUSA (Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act) thus Entitling Defense to Judgment in State Court Illinois District Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against securities brokerage firm Citigroup, as successor in interest to Salomon Smith Barney, seeking damages because it allegedly “disseminated misleading research concerning the value of shares in certain Internet and telecommunications companies, thereby inducing Smith Barney customers like [plaintiff] to hold the shares.” Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 487 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1012 (S.D. Ill. 2007). Defense attorneys removed the class action federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), but the district court remanded the matter to state court, id. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that SLUSA applied and required dismissal of the class action complaint, id., at 1012-13 (see Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 419 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2005)). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that district court remand orders of class actions removed under SLUSA are not reviewable on appeal, see Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2964 (2006), causing the class action to wind its way back to state court, _id._, at 1013. Once there, defense attorneys again removed the class action to federal court, and the plaintiff again sought remand, _id._ The district court granted the motion finding “procedural defects in removal,” _id._, at 1012, but essentially hands defense victory on the merits by holding that the class action claims are barred by SLUSA and declaring that holding to be law of the case.

After discussing the general rules governing removal, including the burden placed on the party seeking removal to establish federal jurisdiction and the general rule that removal must be sought within 30 days of service of the initial pleading, see Disher, at 1014-15, the district court turned to whether an amended pleading created a basis to support defense removal of the class action, id., at 1015. Defense attorneys “point[ed] to numerous purported orders or other papers supposedly authorizing removal of the claims” in the class action complaint, id., but the district court found each pleading insufficient to support the delayed filing of the notice of removal including (1) that the motions and orders filed in state court authorized removal, see id., at 1015-17; (2) that plaintiff’s amended class action complaint did not trigger a right of removal because even though “the claims alleged in both [plaintiff’s] original complaint and his amended complaint are precluded by SLUSA,” id., at 1018, the fact remained that the defense failed to timely file its notice of removal and the amended class action complaint did not revive the right to remove because it did not alter the basic nature of the allegations, id., at 1019-22; and (3) that the appellate proceedings did not authorize removal of the action to federal court, id., at 1022. Accordingly, the federal court remanded the putative class action to state court, id., at 1023-24.

But while the district court denied the defense effort to maintain the class action federal court, it nonetheless handed the defense a victory on the merits. The federal court concluded at pages 1022 and 1023,

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons: Eleventh Circuit Holds That Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) Class Action May Be Certified Independent Of FLSA Class Action Claims

Where Class Action Asserted Claims Under Both Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), District Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Certifying AWPA “Opt-Out” Class Action After Conditionally Certifying FLSA “Opt-In” Class Action Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs, migrant workers hired under the H2-B non-immigrant visa program, filed a class action in Georgia federal court against Eller & Sons Trees alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2456206, *1 (11th Cir. August 31, 2007). Plaintiffs sought class action treatment of their AWPA claims, but the district court denied the motion without prejudice; plaintiffs also sought preliminary certification of a class action under the FLSA, which the district court granted. _Id._ After conducting additional discovery, and after receiving only 5 “opt-in” requests from among the 1800 notices sent under the FLSA class action, plaintiffs again sought certification of a class action for the AWPA claims. _Id._ The district court granted the motion and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) “opt out” class action under the AWPA, _id._ Specifically, the district court certified a class action on behalf of more than 1,500 migrant workers admitted to the United States under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program, and sub-class of migrant workers who pledged collateral with Eller & Sons’ agents in order to obtain employment. _Id._, at *2. Defense attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal but the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment.

Eller & Sons is a small Georgia company that provides reforestation and forestry services; most of its employees plant trees throughout the southern U.S. from December through February. Eller hires people from Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico under the H2-B non-immigrant visa program, and is required to pay hourly wages as determined by the State Workforce Agency (SWA). De Leon-Granados, at *1. The class action complaint alleges that Eller was to pay an average hourly rate of $8.32, well above the federal minimum wage rate, but that it failed to do so. Id. The defense objected to class action treatment, arguing that a collective action under the FLSA would be a superior method of addressing the AWPA claims, but the district court disagreed. Id., at *2. The district court further found that plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for class actions under Rule 23, id. The appellate court reviewed that ruling for abuse of discretion, id.

Defense attorneys first argued that the AWPA claims were premised on violations of the FLSA and “must therefore be adjudicated as an opt-in collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) instead of an opt-out Rule 23(b)(3) class action.” De Leon-Granados, at *2-*3. Under the FLSA, class members must affirmatively elect to “opt in” to the class action, but under Rule 23(b)(3) “all qualifying class members become party-plaintiffs unless they opt out of the action.” Id., at *3 (citations omitted). After rejecting defense claims that “the workers’ AWPA claims are truly FLSA claims in disguise,” the Eleventh Court concluded that the statutory language of the AWPA indicates Congressional intent to allow such claims to be brought as Rule 23 class actions. Id. The Circuit Court concluded at page *3, “If Congress intended § 216(b) to be the exclusive remedy for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions, it would have also said so.” It therefore held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying an AWPA class action, id. (The author notes that there is case law holding that it is improper to certify “opt in” and “opt out” classes as part of the same action, but it does not appear that defense attorneys asserted this objection.)

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Arbitration Class Action Defense Cases-Dale v. Comcast: Eleventh Circuit Distinguishes Prior Cases Upholding Class Action Waivers And Holds Class Action Waiver And Arbitration Clause Unconscionable

Absence of Ability to Recover Attorney Fees Rendered Class Action Waiver and Arbitration Clause Unconscionable Because it would Effectively Insulate Company from Liability for Small-Value Claims Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in Georgia federal court against their cable television provider, Comcast, alleging violations of the federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Cable Act), 47 U.S.C. § 521 et seq., by miscalculating the “pass-through” franchise fees charged customers. Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 2007 WL 2471222, *1 (11th Cir. 2007). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class the action and compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in the subscriber agreements; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the class action. Id. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding the arbitration agreement and class action waiver provision to be unenforceable.

Defense attorneys argued that the class action had to be dismissed because in 2004, either in the “welcome kit” given new subscribers or with the December invoice of existing subscribers, each customer received a “Policies and Procedures” notice that contained a mandatory arbitration clause. Dale, at *1. The arbitration clause contained a class action waiver provision, id., and “Comcast argued the subscribers accepted the Arbitration Provision, including the class action waiver, by their continued subscription to Comcast’s services after receiving the notices,” id., at *2. Plaintiffs argued that the damages suffered by the class in this case were $0.66 every three months, or a total of $10.56 over the four-year class period, and so the class action waiver was substantively unconscionable because “if Comcast’s class action waiver is held valid, they will effectively be denied any remedy.” Id., at *3. Plaintiffs also challenged the arbitration fee structure imposed under the subscriber agreement, which placed on subscribers the financial burden of attorney fees and all costs incurred in the arbitration other than the filing fee and arbitrator’s costs. Id. The district court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the class action waiver was unconscionable, dismissed the class action, and compelled arbitration of the dispute. Id., at *2.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Kansas Federal Court Gives Final Approval to $57 Million Class Action Settlement In Labor Law Class Action Against Sprint Alleging Discriminatory Firing Of Employees Over Age 40

The Kansas City Business Journal reports that federal judge John Lungstrum has given final approval to a $57 million settlement of an employment discrimination class action against Sprint. The class action, filed in Kansas federal court, alleged that Sprint unlawfully fired nearly 1,700 employees because of their age. The Business Journal reports that the class action plaintiffs charged Sprint with using a computerized performance management system that unfairly singled out employees over 40 for termination.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Tobacco Class Action Defense Cases-Good v. Altria Group: First Circuit Holds That Class Action Claims Challenging “Light” And “Low Tar” Labels Not Preempted By Federal Law And Reverses Dismissal Of Class Action

District Court Erred in Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Challenging Advertising of “Light” and “Low Tar” as Expressly Preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) First Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Philip Morris and others violations of the state’s unfair and deceptive business practices statutes arising out of its design, marketing and sale of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes, which plaintiffs argued suggested that they were “safer” – i.e., lower in tar and nicotine – than regular cigarettes. Good v. Altria Group, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, Slip Opn., at 2-3 (1st Cir. August 31, 2007). Defense attorneys moved the federal court for summary judgment on the ground that the claims in the class action complaint were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), _id._, at 2. The district court agreed the dismissed the class action, but the First Circuit reversed, concluding that the class action claims were not preempted.

Plaintiffs alleged that they had smoked for 15 years. Good, at 2. The class action apparently did not contest that under the “Cambridge Filter Method” test conducted using a machine that “smoked” cigarettes and collected tar and nicotine for weighing, less tar and nicotine was drawn into the filter using “light” or “low tar” cigarettes. Id., at 3. Rather, plaintiffs alleged that a smoker “engages in unconscious behavior that essentially negate” the benefits sought to be achieved by the cigarette filter design, id. The class action claimed that defendants knew of this “compensation” effect yet marketed “light” cigarettes with an intent to deceive smokers into believing that the cigarettes were less harmful, id., at 4. Defense attorneys argued that the FCLAA expressly preempted the class action claims, id., at 5. Alternatively, the defense argued that the class action claims were implicitly preempted by “the efforts of Congress and the [Federal Trade Commission] for 40 years to implement to a national, uniform policy of informing the public about the health risks of smoking,” id. Finally, the defense argued that the state law claims in the class action complaint, brought under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, id. The thrust of Philip Morris’ argument was the FTC’s “comprehensive, nationwide program regulating the disclosure of tar and nicotine yields,” id., at 5, and that tobacco companies have been complying with FTC pronouncements concerning tar and nicotine content of cigarettes, id., at 5-8. Accordingly, the class action constituted, in effect, “a challenge to the FTC’s regulatory scheme,” id., at 8. The district court agreed and dismissed the class action finding that it was expressly preempted by the FCLAA, id., at 8-9.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Labor Law Class Actions Continue To Lead List Of New Class Action Filings 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 August 31 – September 6, 2007, during which time 44 new class action lawsuits were filed in these California state and federal courts.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Vonage: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff’s Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District of New Jersey

Judicial Panel Grants Request, Unopposed by Defense, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Rejecting Objection by one Group of Plaintiffs, and Concurs with Request to Transfer Class Actions to District of New Jersey Four putative class action lawsuits were filed (two in California, one in New Jersey and one in Washington) against various Vonage entities challenging defendants’ marketing and sales practices with respect to its internet telephone services, including its “one free month” trial period.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized