Class Action

Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Again Lead Categories Of New Class Actions Filed In California State And Federal Courts During Past Week

Posted on December 20, 2008
To assist class action defense attorneys anticipate the types of cases against which they will have to defend in California state and federal courts, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class action lawsuits filed in thestate and federal courts located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Oakland/Alameda and Orange County areas...

Class Action Defense Cases#8211;Turner v. AAMC: California State Court Reverses Class Action Judgment In Favor Of Plaintiffs Holding California#8217;s Civil Rights And Disabled Persons Act Did Not Apply To MCAT Standardized Tests

Posted on December 19, 2008
California State Law does not Require Testing Accommodations for Reading-Related Learning Disabilities so Class Action Against Association of American Medical Colleges for Failing to Afford Accommodations, other than those Required by Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fails California State Court Holds Plaintiffs, individuals with reading-related learning disabilities who applied to take the MCAT in California, filed a putative class action against the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that plaintiffs “requested more time and/or a private room in which to take the test,” but that the AAMC denied the requests, thus failing to afford them accommodations for reading-related disabilities...

Tobacco Class Action Defense Cases-Altria Group v. Good: Supreme Court Holds Class Action Claims Challenging "Light" And "Low Tar" Labels Not Preempted By Federal Law And Affirms Reinstatement Of Class Action

Posted on December 18, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms First Circuit Decision Reinstating Class Action Against Tobacco Companies Holding District Court Erred in Dismissing Class Action Challenging Advertising of “Light” and “Low Tar” Cigarettes as Expressly Preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) Plaintiffs filed a class action against Philip Morris and its parent, Altria, for violations of Maine’s Unfair Trade Practices Act; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants’ design, marketing and sale of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes “fraudulently conveyed the message that their ‘light’ cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine to consumers than regular brands despite [defendants’] knowledge that the message was untrue...

Sprint Class Action Defense Cases#8211;Harlow v. Sprint: Kansas Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To Labor Law Class Action Against Sprint Alleging Systematic Failure To Properly Calculate Commissions Due Employees

Posted on December 17, 2008
Class Action Complaint Alleging Computer Problems Systematically Caused Sprint to Pay Employees Less than they were Due Warranted Class Action Treatment as Common Issues – Centered on Sprint’s Computer System – Predominated Class Action Claims Kansas Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint/United Management (collectively “Sprint”) alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that a computer error caused Sprint to systematically fail to properly calculate commissions due employees of Sprint’s Business Direct Channel...

To access this complete feed in the blog feed reader login or register for free.

MARK YOUR CALENDARS - CLASS ACTION DEFENSE CONFERENCES COMING TO NEW YORK

Posted on December 17, 2008
The American Conference Institute is sponsoring its 8th Annual Conference on Consumer Finance Class Actions & Litigation. The conference will be held at the Affinia Manhattan Hotel in New York on January 27 and 28, 2009, and will feature an impressive panel of speakers...

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Quiroz v. Revenue Production Management: Illinois Federal Court Certifies Class Action Holding Requirements For Certification Of Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action Had Been Met

Posted on December 16, 2008
FDCPA Class Action Complaint Warranted Class Action Treatment because Plaintiff Satisfied Requirements for Rule 23(b)(3) Class Illinois Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against Revenue Production Management, Inc., a debt collection agency, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); the class action complaint asserted “that Defendant had a policy and practice of violating Section 1692e of the FDCPA by: (1) sending [debt collection letters] after the expiration of the 30-day validation period outlined in the initial communication; (2) informing the consumer that the debt must be disputed in writing after expiration of the 30-day validation period outlined in the initial communication; and (3) informing the consumer that a dispute must be made within 30 days of the initial communication, after the expiration of the 30-day validation period outlined in the initial communication...

MARK YOUR CALENDARS - CLASS ACTION DEFENSE CONFERENCE COMING TO NEW YORK

Posted on December 16, 2008
The American Conference Institute is sponsoring its 8th Annual Conference on Consumer Finance Class Actions & Litigation. The conference will be held at the Affinia Manhattan Hotel in New York on January 27 and 28, 2009, and will feature an impressive panel of speakers...

Class Action Defense Cases–Starbucks v. Superior Court: California State Appellate Court Orders Judgment In Favor Of Starbucks In Labor Law Class Action Holding Named Plaintiffs In Class Action Suffered No Injury

Posted on December 15, 2008
Class Action Seeking Statutory Damages on behalf of all Applicants could not Survive Defense Motion for Summary Judgment because Class Action Representatives Suffered no Injury and Legislature did not Intend to Permit Unaffected Individuals to Recover Statutory Damages California State Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against Starbucks alleging violations of California labor law provisions concerning information collected from prospective employees during the application process; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that Starbucks improperly asked applicants “about prior marijuana convictions that are more than two years old...

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

Posted on December 13, 2008
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...

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Velocity Express: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects Eastern District of Wisconsin

Posted on December 12, 2008
Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, but Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of Wisconsin Eight class actions – one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania – were filed against common defendants Velocity Express Corp...

Class Action Defense Cases-Kullar v. Foot Locker: California Court Reverses Approval Of Class Action Settlement Holding Insufficient Evidence Provided To Support Reasonableness Of Class Action Settlement Particularly As To Class Action's Meal Period Claim

Posted on December 11, 2008
Approval of Class Action Settlement of Labor Law Class Action must be Vacated and Remanded because Trial Court Lacked Sufficient Evidence to Determine Reasonableness of Proposed Class Action Settlement and because Objector (Plaintiff in a Separate Class Action) Wrongfully Denied Discovery Regarding Class Action Settlement California State Court Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against Foot Locker alleging violations of California’s Labor Code; the class action complaint asserted that defendant failed to reimburse employees for expenses related to mandatory uniforms as required by California law...

Class Action Defense Cases– Stewart v. Cheek & Zeehandelar: Ohio Federal Court Certifies (b)(2) Class Action But Refuses To Certify (b)(3) Class Action Of FDCPA Class Action Claims Against Law Firm Debt Collector

Posted on December 10, 2008
FDCPA Class Action Claims Certified as a (b)(2) Class after Modification of Class Definition but (b)(3) Class Lacked Predominance as Mini-Hearings would be Required to Establish Damages for each Class Member Ohio Federal Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against Cheek & Zeehandelar (an Ohio-based law firm that litigates debt collection actions) and two of its attorneys alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendant “seeks to garnish or attach the property of Ohio consumers who have defaulted on credit and loan agreements, without having first investigated the nature of the debtors' property to determine if it is legally exempt from garnishment or attachment...

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Gaisser v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: Florida Federal Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Certain Class Action Claims But Denies Motion To Dismiss FDCPA Class Action

Posted on December 09, 2008
Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Claim Premised on Filing Untimely Debt Collection Lawsuits Fails but Motion to Dismiss State Law Class Action Claims and to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Claim based on Attorney Fees Sought in Debt Collection Lawsuits were Meritorious Florida Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) and certain individuals (PRA’s lawyers) alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida’s Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA); the class action complaint asserted that in violation of state and federal law, defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of filing lawsuits to collect debts after the statute of limitations had expired for doing so, and that defendants sought a standard amount of attorney fees without supporting documentation and without actually having incurred the stated amount in attorney fees...

Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Again Hold Top Spont Among Weekly Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts But Securities Class Action Lawsuits Surge Into Second

Posted on December 06, 2008
To assist 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...

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Indianapolis Life: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of Texas

Posted on December 05, 2008
Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Texas but Excludes two Class Actions from the Scope of its Transfer Order Four class actions – in the District of Arizona, the Southern District of Indiana, the Northern District of Mississippi and the Northern District of Texas – were filed against Indianapolis Life and others alleging In re Indianapolis Life Ins...

Class Action Defense Cases–Carlson v. eHarmony.com: California State Trial Court Certifies Class Action Against eHarmony Granting Class Action Treatment To Claims Of Homosexual And Bisexual People Denied Services Based On Sexual Orientation

Posted on December 04, 2008
Discrimination Class Action Against eHarmony.com Granted Class Action Status as to Claims by Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People Denied Services on Basis of Sexual Orientation, but Class Action Treatment Denied as to Claims by Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People who were “Deterred” from using eHarmony because of its Refusal to Serve Homosexual and Bisexual Individuals California State Trial Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against matchmaking website eHarmony...

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases–Glazer Capital v. Magistri: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Class Action Holding Securities Class Action Complaint Failed To Plead Scienter Under PSLRA

Posted on December 03, 2008
Securities Class Action Complaint Properly Dismissed because Class Action Failed to Satisfy Heightened Pleading Requirements under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against InVision Technologies and two of its officers alleging violations of federal securities law; the class action complaint arose because after InVision announced that it had entered into a merger agreement with General Electric, the company disclosed that the merger may not occur because of the discovery of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act causing an immediate drop in InVision’s stock price, even though the merger eventually went through...

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases–Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema: California Federal Court Denies Class Action Certification Motion Holding Putative FACTA Class Action Failed Superiority Test Because Of Risk Of Excessive Damage Award

Posted on December 02, 2008
Putative Class Action Alleging Violations of FACTA not Entitled to Class Action Treatment because Rule 23(b)(3)’s Superiority Requirement for Class Action Certification not Met California Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action against American Multi-Cinema for violating the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendant printed not only the last four digits of a consumer’s credit or debit card on the customer’s receipt, but the first four digits as well...

Wal-Mart Class Action Defense Cases–Robinson v. Wal-Mart: Mississippi Federal Court Grants Wal-Mart Motion To Dismiss Labor Law Class Action Holding Rule 23(b) Requirements For Class Action Treatment Could Not Be Met

Posted on December 01, 2008
Labor Law Class Action Dismissed because Class Action Predominance Test of Rule 23(b) could not be Satisfied and, Absent Potential for Class Action Certification, Federal Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction because Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was Inapplicable Mississippi Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores alleging violations of Mississippi’s labor laws; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Wal-Mart required plaintiffs to work hours “off the clock,” and to work through meal and rest periods for which they were not paid in violation of state law...

CLASS ACTION DEFENSE BLOG OFF FOR THANKSGIVING

Posted on November 28, 2008
The author of the Class Action Defense Blog is taking the day off for the Thanksgiving holiday. A new class action article will be published on Monday, December 1

HAPPY THANKSGIVING FROM THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE BLOG

Posted on November 27, 2008
The author of the Class Action Defense Blog wishes all of you a very Happy Thanksgiving, and urges class action defense counsel to take the day off! A new class action article will be published on Monday, December 1.

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases–Ley v. Visteon: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Class Action Against Company, Individuals And Outside Auditor Holding Class Action Complaint Failed To Meet PSLRA’s Heightened Pleading Requirements

Posted on November 26, 2008
Securities Fraud Class Action Properly Dismissed by District Court because Class Action Complaint Failed to Adequately Allege Failure to Disclose and because Class Action Complaint Failed to Create Strong Inference of Scienter Sixth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against Visteon Corporation and certain officers and directors of Visteon, and against its outside auditor, Pricewaterhousecooper, alleging violations of federal securities law; specifically, the class action complaint asserted claims for violations of § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and § 20(a) of the Exchange Act...

Class Action Defense Cases–Danvers v. Ford Motor: Third Circuit Reverses Certification Of Class Action Holding Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance And Superiority Tests For Class Action Treatment Had Not Been Met

Posted on November 25, 2008
Class Action Complaint by Car Dealers Against Ford Arising out of Blue Oval Program Erroneously Certified as Class Action because Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance and Superiority Requirements not met Third Circuit Holds Nine plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ford on behalf of themselves and other Ford dealers; the class action complaint alleged that Ford’s Blue Oval Program violated state and federal law...

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases– Elam v. Neidorff: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint Failed To Satisfy PSLRA’s Heightened Pleading Requirements

Posted on November 24, 2008
Securities Fraud Class Action Properly Dismissed for Failure to Adequately Plead Falsity and Scienter because Allegations in Class Action Complaint did not Meet Heightened Pleading Requirements Under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) Eighth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against Centene Corporation and three of its officers alleging violations of federal securities law; the class action complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and of Rule 10b-5...

Back To Normal--Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Dominate Weekly Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts As UCL Class Actions Drop To Distant Second

Posted on November 22, 2008
As a resournce 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...

Class Action Defense Cases—In re SemGroup Energy: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of Oklahoma

Posted on November 21, 2008
Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Common Class Action Defendants or by Plaintiffs in New York Class Action, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of Oklahoma Two class actions – one in Oklahoma and one in New York – were filed against SemGroup Energy Partners alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaints alleged that defendants “made materially false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the price of SGLP common stock in violation of the federal securities laws” In re SemGroup Energy Partners, L...

Sprint Class Action Defense Cases–Harlow v. Sprint: Kansas Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Class Action Holding Kansas Wage Payment Act Class Action Claim May Be Brought By Employees Who Neither Live Nor Work In Kansas

Posted on November 20, 2008
Class Action Alleging Violations of Kansas Wage Payment Act may be Brought by Plaintiffs who do not Live or Work in Kansas because State Law Contains no Express Geographical Limitation and Employment Agreement Expressly Contained Kansas Choice of Law Provision Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against their employer, Sprint Nextel and Sprint/United Management (collectively “Sprint”) alleging violations of federal securities law; specifically, the class action claimed that “Sprint failed to pay [plaintiffs] proper commissions...

Oracle Labor Law Class Action Defense Cases–Sullivan v. Oracle: Ninth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In Labor Law Class Action Holding California Labor Code Applies To Work Performed In The State By Nonresidents

Posted on November 19, 2008
Class Action Against Oracle Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to State and Federal Laws Survives Summary Judgment as to California Law Claims because Nonresidents are Protected by California Labor Code for Work Performed within California, but District Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment as to Class Action Claim Alleging Violation of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act (UCL) for Failure to Pay Overtime under Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because California’s UCL “does not have Extraterritorial Application” Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against their employer, Oracle, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that Oracle failed to pay employees overtime under either the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or California state law...

Class Action Defense Cases--Stewart v. Cheek & Zeehandelar: Ohio Federal Court Strikes Rule 68 Offer Of Judgment In FDCPA Class Action Holding Rule 68 Offer To Settle Individual Claims After Class Action Certification Motion Filed Cannot Moot Class Claims

Posted on November 18, 2008
Class Action Claims not Rendered Moot by Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Settle Individual Claims of Named Plaintiffs so long as Plaintiffs have not Delayed in Seeking Class Action Treatment of Litigation Ohio Federal Holds Two class action lawsuits were filed against the law firm of Cheek & Zeehandelar, a consumer debt collection firm, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA); the class action complaints alleged that defendant “engages in misleading and deceptive debt-collection practices” and that it “uniformly fails to properly investigate whether debtor funds are lawfully subject to attachment, prior to seeking and obtaining orders of attachment...

Class Action Defense Cases–Harper v. 24 Hour Fitness: California State Court Reverses Decertification Of Class Action Holding Trial Court’s Analysis Of UCL Class Action Claims Was "Legally Incorrect"

Posted on November 17, 2008
Trial Court Erred in Decertifying UCL Class Action because Post-Proposition 64 UCL Relief does not Extend Beyond Named Plaintiffs Absent Class Action Treatment and because Attorney Fees Generally not Recoverable Absent Class-Wide Relief California State Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against 24 Hour Fitness alleging violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and false advertising; the class action complaint asserted that their health club memberships allowed them to renew for an additional three years – the same period as their original membership contract – “at the same rate if they renewed their membership when the initial term expired,” but defendant asserted that the membership contracts permitted “renewals at the specified rate for an annual term only...

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.