Source: https://www.uclpractitioner.com/uclprop_64_news_reports/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:14:14+00:00

Document:
Posts categorized "News reports and practice articles"
"Class action objectors defend 9th Circuit's infamous Hyundai ruling"
This article includes links to some of the briefs filed in connection with the rehearing petitions in the Hyundai case (discussed here).
According to the article, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have petitioned for rehearing, leaving the objectors to attempt to defend the decision. See In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018).
Could Nordstrom invoke the UCL over a Trump tweet?
I was asked this question today by a Politico reporter, and was subsequently quoted in his article, "Trump blasts Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's clothing line."
Happy New Year to my lovely readers! I hope everyone enjoys the long weekend.
The Fall 2016 issue of Competition (the journal of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section of the State Bar of California) has a very interesting article by my friend John Landry, entitled "Never Say Never: The Ninth Circuit's Misguided Categorical Approach to Individual Damages Questions When Assessing Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance."
If you are a member of the Section, you should have received your copy of Competition in the mail. If you are not a member, I encourage you to join when you renew your bar membership this year.
"Ninth Circuit Uneasy About a Higher Bar for 'Ascertainability'"
Yesterday, the Recorder had an article (subscription) about Monday's oral argument in In re ConAgra Foods, a false advertising case alleging that the defendant mislabeled its Wesson Oil products as "100% Natural." The district court found the classes ascertainable in a lengthy order about eighteen months ago. In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., 90 F.Supp.3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015). On appeal, the defendant is urging the Ninth Circuit to adopt the Third Circuit's truncated view of "ascertainability" set forth in in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F. 3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013).
According to the Recorder article, the panel's comments suggested skepticism of Carrera's heightened approach to ascertainability, which the Seventh Circuit considered and rejected in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015). It will be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit does, although I would be very surprised if it were to adopt Carrera's reasoning.
This month, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure published a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, governing class actions. The proposed changes to Rule 23, and the proposed Committee Note, appear at pp. 211-232 of the pdf file.
To my eye, most of the changes do nothing more than codify what is already standard class action practice and procedure. Only one of the changes stands out. Proposed amended Rule 23(e)(5)(B) would require court approval of any payment (or other "consideration") to an objector (or objector's counsel) to drop the objection. This would weaken professional objectors' leverage and perhaps deter frivolous objections.
Many practitioners say they see the rules change as a means of curbing what they consider to be an abuse of the class action settlement process.
"What's new about that proposal is it basically says that an objector can't be paid off to drop their objection without approval by the district court," said Leslie Brueckner, senior attorney at Public Justice. "That could have a big impact because it could effectively halt the problem of so-called 'professional objectors,' who basically hold up class action settlements for their own pecuniary gain, by basically exposing that kind of practice to the light of day."
(Hyperlink added.) Comments on the proposed rule changes (which include changes to other provisions besides Rule 23) are due on February 15, 2017.
"Will Uber drivers get class-action status for employment case?"
The motion for class certification in the Uber misclassification case made the San Francisco Chronicle. The motion was argued last Thursday before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.
Chen appeared skeptical of Uber’s arguments at the hearing’s outset. “Isn’t it contradictory that Uber says every single driver is an independent contractor and yet also says they are dramatically different from one another and thus can’t be certified as a class?” he asked.
Chen also questioned whether the plaintiff drivers had much backing among other drivers. “There’s nothing in the record to show mass support for the position of your three named plaintiffs,” he said to the drivers’ attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan.
(Hyperlink added.) Whenever I hear that argument, in state court at least, I always cite Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., 29 Cal.3d 462 (1981), which explains that if someone doesn't want to participate in the case, they can choose to opt out. Widespread affirmative support is not an element of class certification that the plaintiffs must prove.
The January/February 2015 issue of CAOC Forum has an article by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow entitled "Class(ic) Settlement Problems."
The article provides "a list of issues which often seem to pose problems when counsel file motions for preliminary approval of [class action] settlements."
Four resources are listed at the end of the article, including Judge Brick's Guidelines for Counsel re Class Settlement Applications, as uploaded to my blog in 2009 at this link.
Judge Karnow's author's note says that the article "has been submitted for publication in both defense and plaintiffs' publications for the benefit of both bars seeking to resolve class action cases through settlement." The link provided above is a CAOC members-only link. The article is also available here and here.
"Principles of litigating consumer class actions"
The January 2015 issue of Plaintiff Magazine has this article, and several others, in a symposium edition on class action litigation. The article by Joshua Haffner on class action trials is quite interesting.
"Class actions are thriving after Brinker"
This article appeared in the Daily Journal a few weeks ago, on May 8, 2014, while I was immersed in several briefing projects. I was pleasantly surprised to see my photo on the front page, and I received a number of kind congratulatory emails from friends and acquaintances.
[P]laintiffs' attorneys such as Kimberly Kralowec of The Kralowec Law Group say the pendulum of appellate decisions has swung in their clients' direction.
Kralowec argued Brinker before the Court of Appeal and ... before the state Supreme Court .... She said appellate decisions favor class certification if there is a blaket policy on employee breaks that doesn't square with the law. "It doesn't matter that it may have been applied differently, affected class members differently, or not affected some plaintiffs at all," she said.
In the raft of published opinions that apply Brinker, six favored class certification, and two did not. The state Supreme Court denied review on all of them. What's more, the high court depublished three appellate cases that favored the defense in early 2013.
"Justices Strike Overtime Award Based on Flawed Statistics"
The California Supreme Court tossed a $15 million overtime award to bank employees Thursday because of a faulty statistical sample, but justices were careful not to toss at-large reliance on statistics in wage-and-hour class actions.
Kimberly Kralowec, who filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, said the court shot down U.S. Bank's claim that it should have a right to call every class member individually to the stand. "Essentially they were arguing you never get to have a class action," she said.
[Plaintiffs' counsel Ed] Wynne called Thursday's opinion more favorable than the original court of appeal decision, which had dismissed the case permanently. Corrigan's opinion instead remands the case for fresh class certification proceedings and a new trial.
"We're really pleased," Wynne said. "While it's regrettable that the judgment wasn't upheld and the case was decertified, the court has given us valuable guidance for getting the case recertified." Wynne hasn't ruled out using a statistical model in round two of litigation.
"We're going to get the case certified again," he said. "I see no reason not to use statistical modeling again."
You have probably already heard the news last week, when Justice Joyce Kennard of the California Supreme Court announced that she would be retiring as of April 5, 2013, which will mark her 25th anniversary as a member of the Court.
Kennard's majority opinions included a 1991 ruling declaring high school graduation prayers unconstitutional, a conclusion the U.S. Supreme Court reached in a separate case a year later; another 1991 decision establishing an employee's right to sue for age discrimination; and a 1997 ruling allowing a suit against a city by a woman who was stopped by a police officer, taken into custody and raped - an abuse, Kennard said, of the "formidable power" the city had granted to the officer.
She voted often with the court's moderate-to-liberal bloc, but not always - for example, she joined a 1991 ruling that upheld legislative term limits and slashed the lawmakers' operating budget. But Kennard was impossible to pigeonhole.
When the court upheld the enforcement of surrogate-motherhood contracts in 1993, Kennard cast a lone dissent and told the all-male majority that a pregnant woman "is more than a mere container or breeding animal; she is a conscious agent of creation."
Last week, the Daily Journal offered some speculation on possible candidates to fill Justice Kennard's seat. The blog At the Lectern has more on this. The list of possible candidates recognizes that the current Court has no Latino members and no one from Southern California.
"Class actions: A path through the darkness?"
The January 2014 issue of Plaintiff Magazine has a very interesting article about class actions in the post-Dukes, post-Concepcion, and post-Comcast world. The article is by Jahan Sagafi and Jennifer Liu of Outten & Golden.
Speaking of post-Comcast cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again re-listed the trio of front-load washer cases. Whirlpool Corp. v. Glaser, No. 13-431; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, No. 13-430; BSH Home Appliances Corp. v. Cobb, No. 13-138.
Each of these cases is now scheduled for conference next Friday, February 21. If cert. is granted in any of them during that conference, the announcement should be online by Monday, February 24.
"Horton hears a death knell"
Yesterday's Daily Journal had this practice article with a defense perspective on the Fifth Circuit's decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013), discussed in this blog post.
A thorough explanation of the strongest arguments in favor of the Board’s decision, which embraces the Board’s distinctions from earlier Supreme Court pronouncements on arbitrations and adding some of its own, appears in a recent law review article. Charles A. Sullivan & Timothy P. Glynn, Horton Hatches the Egg: Concerted Action Includes Concerted Dispute Resolution, 64 ALA. L. REV. 1013 (2013). We do not adopt its reasoning but note our consideration of its advocacy.
Slip op. at 25 n.11.
"Appeals court revives suit against Skype"
Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle had this article (subscription) by Bob Egelko on the Court of Appeal's latest UCL and CLRA opinion, Chapman v. Skype Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Oct. 4, 2013).
Chapman stands in rather stark contrast to Simpson v. The Kroger Corp., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Sept. 25, 2013), decided the preceding week (see this blog post). More details on Chapman can be found on Professor Tushnet's blog, which also had a post on Simpson.
"Brinker case closer to trial, nine years after filing"
The meal and rest breaks case against Brinker Restaurant Corp. that led to a landmark state Supreme Court decision in 2012 is moving closer to trial after a judge Thursday granted class certification to hourly employees seeking damages for missed breaks.
"Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step"
Adam Liptak had another interesting article on the U.S. Supreme Court two days ago in The New York Times.
According to Liptak, "Chief Justice Roberts has proved adept at persuading the court’s more liberal justices to join compromise opinions, allowing him to cite their concessions years later as the basis for closely divided and deeply polarizing conservative victories."
"Circuit's reversal in wage case complicates Comcast"
On May 29, 2013, the Daily Journal had a story on the Ninth Circuit's opinion last week in Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. May 28, 2013), which reversed the district court's order denying class certification of certain wage and hour claims, and remanded with directions to certify the class.
standard. See Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1263.
Slip op. at 7-8. The panel's citation of Brinker and Dukes in support of its ruling is notable, as is its reliance on Yokoyama (discussed in this blog post) and Blackie, which reconfirms the continuing vitality of both opinions post-Dukes and post-Comcast.
This was my original report on Comcast.
I have been very busy in my day job lately, but I'm hoping to find time to catch up with my blogging in the coming weeks.
"Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court"
Last Saturday's New York Times had an interesting article on the U.S. Supreme Court by Adam Liptak. The article discusses Comcast, Dukes and Concepcion.
Today is the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's issuance of its opinion in Brinker. It is an opportune day for me to publicly congratulate my co-counsel, Tracee Lorens and Michael Rubin, who were both selected by California Lawyer magazine as recipients of 2013 CLAY Awards in Employment Law for their work on behalf of the employees in Brinker. (I was also an honoree.) The Awards were announced in the March 2013 issue of the magazine.
I am so proud of them, as I am of Michael Singer and Dave Mara, whose contributions were invaluable and who really should have been honored too. With three lawyers from the plaintiffs' team already selected by the editors of California Lawyer for our work, however, it seems not everyone could be named.
As I have said before, we could not be happier with the Supreme Court's ruling that employers may not simply "offer" meal periods, but rather must take affirmative steps to actually relieve workers of all duty, while at the same time refraining from doing anything to interfere with employees' ability to actually take their meal periods. We are pleased that the editors of California Lawyer saw fit to recognize our work.
Congratulations also to the rest of the 2013 CLAY Award recipients. My co-counsel in LCDs, Fran Scarpulla, received a well-deserved award for his work on that antitrust class action, and Michael Rubin's partner Danielle Leonard was the first attorney ever to receive two CLAY Awards in the same year (Education Law and Voting Rights). Contratulations to her and to all.
"Lawyers increasingly exposed to Unfair Competition Law liability"
The April 2013 issue of the California Bar Journal has an "Ethics Byte" article by attorney Diane Karpman called "Lawyers increasingly exposed to Unfair Competition Law liability."
Sometimes you can see clear trends developing in legal ethics. We are seeing an explosion of unfair competition law claims against lawyers, by lawyers, and against online legal service providers. By the way, according to insurance mavens, your coverage should include UCL claims, since they are incurred in the performance of legal services.
The article discusses People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Dec. 4, 2012; pub. ord. Jan. 3, 2013) (discussed in this blog post), but, curiously, does not mention Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 14, 2013) (discussed here).
The article does mention a pending bill that would allow the State Bar to recover the civil enforcement penalties authorized by the UCL for public prosecutor actions. The bill does not add the State Bar to the list of public prosecutor offices permitted to bring UCL claims; rather, it would allow the State Bar to bring civil enforcement actions for violations of some of the Business & Professions Code provisions governing lawyers, and to recover the civil penalties of the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code section 17206) in such actions.
In other words, if passed, the new law would "borrow" the UCL's civil penalty provisions.
On March 1, 2013, the Recorder had this article on the numerous false advertising cases pending against food manufacturers in the Northern District of California, which the article says has "emerg[ed] as preferred venue for a new wave of class action litigation over food labels alleged to mislead consumers or violate federal regulations."
Many thanks to the blog reader who forwarded the link.
New podcast of interest: "Class Re-Action"
Scott Leviant of The Complex Litigator has launched a new podcast, "Class Re-Action."
The inaugural episode of the podcast is now available through this link and through iTunes. It runs approximately one hour and features attorneys Tim Blood of Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, Michael Singer of Cohelan, Khoury & Singer, and Tom Kaufman of Sheppard Mullin.
Scott expects this to be a regular series, complete with CLE credit for listening. Congratulations to him on this new venture. It sounds like it will be very interesting.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.