Source: https://www.uclpractitioner.com/class_actions_choice_of_law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:13:05+00:00

Document:
Posts categorized "Class actions - choice of law"
The April 2012 issue of California Lawyer has an article by Pamela MacLean on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012).
As I mentioned in this blog post, rehearing was denied in Mazza on March 16, 2012.
Defendants' argument fails because Mazza is not a material change in the law, given that: (1) Mazza did not and could not change state substantive law articulated by the California Supreme Court; (2) Mazza did not and could not overrule Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting state law; and (3) Defendants' interpretation of Mazza contradicts the express purpose of the Class Action Fairness Act. Alternatively, Mazza is distinguishable from the present case because Defendants' briefing in the prior motion differs from that of the defendants in Mazza and the facts of this case differ from those in Mazza.
Id. at *15 (emphasis in original). In short, Judge Carter recognized what many commentators have also perceived: Mazza misapplied California choice-of-law rules. The complete order is worth a careful read.
In this proceeding we address, at the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, questions about the applicability of California law to nonresident employees who work both here and in other states for a California-based employer. We conclude the Labor Code’s overtime provisions (id., §§ 510, 1194) do apply to plaintiffs’ claims for compensation for work performed in this state, and that the same claims can serve as predicates for claims under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). We also conclude that plaintiffs’ claims for overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; see id., § 207(a)) for work performed in other states cannot serve as predicates for UCL claims.
Slip op. at 1 (footnote omitted). Time permitting, I may have more on this opinion in a later post.
The order issued after the defendant filed petitions for rehearing and en banc rehearing. It is unclear from the order whether the panel opinion will be reinstated if the Supreme Court declines to accept the certified questions, but a second order indicates that the petitions have both been "dismissed as moot." My original blog post on the panel opinion is here.
In Ramkissoon v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2009), the Ninth Circuit refused to enforce a contract provision selecting Virginia state courts as the forum for all claims against AOL. California's interest in enforcing its broad consumer protection statutes outweighed any interest of Virginia. Virginia has no procedure for consumer class actions; by contrast, the CLRA expressly prohibits waiver of the rights conferred. Civ. Code §1781. Hence, the majority concluded that the choice-of-law clause was unenforceable as well. One judge believed further development of the record was needed to confirm that the plaintiffs were California consumers to whom the CLRA would apply in the first place.
UPDATE: I was reading this opinion again and noticed that in his concurrence, Judge Bea cited a law blog -- The Wall Street Journal Law Blog. 552 F.3d at 1088 n.3.
New federal nationwide class certification decision: Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.
The court (Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank) granted nationwide class certification of UCL and CLRA claims in an auto defect action, Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., ___ F.R.D. ___, 2008 WL 5256432 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2008). Many thanks to the blog reader who forwarded the order.
[T]he parties concede that Illinois and California laws conflict and this conflict may have an outcome-determinative difference. In short, plaintiffs need not prove actual deception of the named plaintiffs under California law as found in California’s Unfair Competition Law, as they would under Illinois law as found in the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Compare 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 2002); Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517, 525 (2005) (“deceptive advertising cannot be the proximate cause of damages under the Act unless it actually deceives the plaintiff”); with Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 (Deering 2007); Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 1288, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 190, 193 (2002) (individualized proof of deception and reliance is not required under the Unfair Competition Law). Stated differently, specific class members proceeding under California law need prove only an inference of “common reliance” on the part of the class as opposed to actual reliance on any particular deception. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 97 Cal. App. 4th at 1293, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 198. Because California and Illinois law conflict, we next look to the conflicts law of our forum state, Illinois. Esser v. McIntyre, 169 Ill. 2d 292, 297 (1996); Nelson v. Hix, 122 Ill. 2d 343 (1988); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §122 (1971).
[A]s to the policies and interests of California, it is undoubtedly true that California has an interest in regulating Intel, as its principal place of business is located there. Further, it is also true that California has a consumer-friendly consumer protection law–as a suit may be brought alleging “common reliance” rather than “actual deception”–which may inure to the benefit of plaintiffs. However, neither California consumers, nor the interests of California in regulating Intel, will necessarily suffer if Illinois law is applied in the instant matter. California has no interest in extending its laws to noncitizens and to actions that occurred outside of California borders. Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior Court, 72 Cal. App. 4th 214, 222, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18, 23 (1999). Moreover, the courts of California will likely have the opportunity to decide this issue under its own law. The record reveals another putative nationwide class action with allegations similar to those advanced in this case. This class action seeks a nationwide application of California’s consumer protection statutes and is currently pending in California state court. Skold v. Intel Corp., Case No. RG 04 145635 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County).
Slip op. at 12, 14-15. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to apply Illinois law and to limit the class to Illinois residents, but then determined that class certification was not appropriate. The opinion does not mention Proposition 64 or the two pending California Supreme Court cases, Tobacco and Pfizer, in which the "reliance" question is expected to be addressed.

References: v. 
 § 17200
 § 201
 § 207
 v. 
 §1781
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §17200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §122
 v. 
 v.