Source: http://www.uclpractitioner.com/class_actions_general/
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 14:17:11
Document Index: 253770124

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 1750', '§ 17500', '§ 17200']

The UCL Practitioner: Class actions - general The UCL Practitioner
In Luckey v. Superior Court (Cotton On USA, Inc.), ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (July 22, 2014), the parties stipulated to appointment of a temporary judge to rule on the motions for preliminary and final approval of a class action settlement. (The proposed temporary judge was the mediator retained to assist in negotiating the settlement.) The trial court refused to approve the stipulation. The plaintiff challenged this ruling by filing a writ petition. Slip op. at 2, 8.
The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) declined to disturb the trial court's ruling, holding that until a class is certified, the named plaintiff "has no authority to consent to a temporary judge on behalf of the putative class." Id. at 2. The Court reasoned that the absent class members were not "parties litigant" within the meaning of the provision of the California Constitution authorizing stipulations to temporary judges:
[W]hile Luckey and [defendant] Cotton On were the only “parties litigant” at the time of the stipulation to the temporary judge, they were also the only parties who could be bound by such a stipulation. As the conceded purpose of the stipulation was to bind all putative class members to the stipulation, and they could not be bound until they had been given notice and an opportunity to appear, the stipulation was ineffective. The state Constitution provides that, for a stipulation to a temporary judge to be effective, that stipulation must be made by the parties litigant. In a pre-certification class action, the parties litigant have not yet been identified; thus, no such stipulation can be effectively made.
Slip op. at 22-23 (footnotes omitted).
On a personal note, I completed my office move at the end of June and my new physical and mailing address is as follows:
The Kralowec Law Group180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415-546-6800
I am sharing office space with Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, which has been great so far. Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 04:00 AM in Class actions - general, Class actions - settlements | Permalink
Off topic: Save the San Francisco Law Library: public hearing next Wednesday
There will be a public hearing next Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. at San Francisco City Hall to discuss whether the City will provide adequate space for the San Francisco Law Library. A couple of weeks ago, the library filed suit against the City over this problem. I'm quoting the library's press release in full below. This is very important; if you are in San Francisco please consider participating. The library director, Marcia Bell, asks that we all RSVP to her if we can attend. See below for details.
March 27 at 10 a.m. in room 250, the Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance
Committee is scheduled to consider a proposal to lease only 20,000 square-feet
of space at 1200 Van Ness Avenue. The City is proposing to move the Library
here eventually after the Veterans Building closes in May.
The Law Library had proposed leasing 30,000 square-feet as the absolute minimum
the Library needs to function, house its collection, and effectively serve the
public. The City proposal is grossly inadequate.
Please come on March 27 to City Hall
to speak for a minute or two in support of the Library and explain why it needs
appropriate funding and space to preserve public access to legal resources. The hearing will be held in Room
250, starting at 10 a.m.
This is the first ever public hearing about the Law Library’s space. Given the lack of understanding and interest on the part of the city up until
this point, this hearing could make all the
difference. The supervisors really need to hear from the people who need and
care about the library.
If you or anyone else is interested
in attending this meeting, please email the Law Library director, Marcia Bell,
at marcia.bell @ sfgov.org so we can
put you on the list and provide further details. We will reconfirm the
time and location. We are anxious to get the word out to as many people
as possible—please pass the info along to any
one you can. For additional information about the
Law Library's fight for sufficient space and pending litigation against the
City, please visit the Library’s homepage at www.sflawlibrary.org.
Questions? Please call us at 415-554-6821.
Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 03:35 PM in Class actions - general | Permalink
Oregon Supreme Court affirms consumer fraud class action judgment: Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co.
In another decision of interest from May, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for compensatory damages (but reversed the punitive damages award) following a jury verdict in a common-law consumer fraud class action. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., ___ P.3d ___, 2011 WL 1886283 (Or. May 19, 2011).
The opinion's discussion of classwide reliance in a common-law fraud case is of particular interest. Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 05:00 AM in Class actions - general | Permalink
UPDATE: Legal Blog Watch has a post on Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the Visa Check and IPO cases. Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 06:00 AM in Class actions - general | Permalink
Recent Fifth Circuit American Pipe tolling decision: Taylor v. United Parcel Service
Class action junkies, take note. The Fifth Circuit handed down a new opinion on American Pipe tolling just before the end of the year. Taylor v. United Parcel Service, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Dec. 30, 2009). [Via Wage Law.]
Other countries have class actions, too: International Justice
An interesting new new web page, International Justice, introduces us to class action laws around the globe: More than 30 countries have now adopted systems of group litigation, and other countries are actively debating enactment of such procedures. In some of the countries, the United States for example, class action practice has been active for many decades. In many other countries, such laws are new or merely a few years old. From the site's home page: Welcome to International Justice, an informational resource for human rights. Included are discussions of significant United States human rights statutes, international courts, listings of prominent human rights organizations, and information on the growth of class action/ group litigation laws worldwide. Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 06:00 AM in Class actions - general | Permalink
Court of Appeal mentions defendant classes: Farwell v. Sunset Mesa Property Owners Association, Inc.
In Farwell v. Sunset Mesa Property Owners Association, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jun. 18, 2008), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight), penned this paragraph on defendant class actions: We note here that the adequacy of the representation of a defendant class is not a novel problem and has engaged the attention of the courts and text writers. (See cases and materials collected in 2 Conte & Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions (4th ed. 2002) § 4:60, pp. 375-384.) It is by no means an insurmountable task to identify persons who can serve as representatives of a defendant class, although the dynamics of such a class are different from that of a plaintiff class. (Id., § 4.46, pp. 336- 339.) Indeed, defendant classes have a long history, dating back to 1853. (Id., § 4.46, p. 338, citing Smith v. Swormstedt (1853) 57 U.S. 288.) California has also long recognized defendant classes. (E.g., Wheelock v. First Presb. Church (1897) 119 Cal. 477, 481-482; Rosicrucian Fellow. v. Rosicrucian Etc. Ch. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 121, 139-140.)Slip op. at 6 (emphasis in original). The opinion says nothing more about defendant classes. Instead, it addresses whether an order sustaining a demurrer to the defendant class allegations with leave to amend was an appealable order (it wasn't). Id. at 6-9.
Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 12:30 PM in Class actions - general | Permalink
New Ninth Circuit decision on insurance coverage for UCL and CLRA claims: Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co.
In Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. July 15, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant's "professional liability" and "general liability" policies did not obligate the insurers to indemnify or defend against a UCL and CLRA class action alleging: that the PlayStation 2s suffered from an “inherent” or “fundamental” design defect that rendered them unable to play DVDs and certain game discs. The complaints set forth causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, bad faith, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.), false advertising (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.), and unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.). The assertions in the false advertising and negligent misrepresentation claims primarily revolved around Sony’s statements in press releases, advertising, product packaging, and instruction manuals that the PlayStation 2 would function as a DVD player as well as a game player.Slip op. at 8756. Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 06:00 AM in Class actions - general | Permalink
In Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008), the Ninth Circuit invalidated a district court order that would have prohibited the defendant from settling similar class actions pending in other jurisdictions without the participation of plaintiff's co-lead counsel in the certified nationwide class action case before it. The concluding paragraphs of the opinion read: The district court was troubled by the fact that settlements in other courts might draw the fangs from at least a portion of the class action case that it was then considering. Perhaps they will. But in this instance it was improper for the district court to react by issuing an injunction against other federal and state court proceedings. Rather, the district court must live with the vicissitudes and consequences of our elegantly messy federal system. The restrictions inherent in the All Writs Act and explicit in the Anti-Injunction Act have helped to concinnate the elements of our national polity; this is not the time to disrupt the harmony.Slip op. at 4594. There's no "harmony" when someone else files on top of you and then tries to settle your case out from under you — especially if the district court can do nothing to prevent it. However, the Ninth Circuit was concerned about a different kind of "harmony." This morning's Daily Journal reports that "Panel Finds Judge's Order Went Too Far" (subscription). [Vocabulary word of the day: Concinnate. Verb, tr. "To place fitly together; to adapt; to clear."]
Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 06:00 AM in Class actions - general, Class actions - settlements | Permalink
A blog called Disgusted Beyond Belief has an interesting post refuting the criticisms often levied against class action cases generally and the class action bar in particular. An excerpt: Dealing with the [class action attorney's] fees [and] whether they are "deserved" - I say that they clearly are. Were it not for those fees, as noted above, the poor could be trod upon with impunity (as it is, they still often are, but it would be much much worse without [class action cases]). Putting together a class action suit is hard work that requires specialized lawyers with years of experience and also requires spending a lot of cash upfront on the part of the law firm. Only a large, rich law firm can handle class action suits for that reason. Veteran lawyers with highly specialized skills are needed. They don't come cheap, for good reason. They work hard, working long hours, sometimes for years, and all with the chance that in the end, they will get nothing. So the winning cases not only have to pay them for their time for those cases, they also have to cover all of the money spent on losing cases or on cases that, despite winning, still did not cover the cost of their actual time spent. In short, they deserve every penny - they work hard for it. Thank you. I don't necessarily think that only a "rich, large law firm" can handle a class action case, but you definitely have to be persistent and very hard-working to succeed in this area of practice.