Source: http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/index.html?page=70
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 18:30:43
Document Index: 236563959

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 2702', '§ 2702', '§ 1407', '§ 1407']

Published By Michael J. Hassen of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Home Michael J. Hassen Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Contact Us Posted On: September 25, 2006
Schwab v. Phillip Morris-Class Action Defense Cases: New York Federal Court Certifies Class Action Against Tobacco Companies For Selling "Light" Cigarettes
Smokers Duped Into Believing that “Light” Cigarettes were Less Harmful New York Court Holds As anticipated, Judge Jack Weinstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued his ruling this morning on the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action against Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Ligget Group, American Tobacco Co., Altria Group, and British American Tobacco, in a case that alleged the tobacco companies duped smokers into believing that “light” cigarettes were less harmful to them. Schwab v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 992 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). The court summarized the theory of the case at page 1018 as follows: Continue reading "Schwab v. Phillip Morris-Class Action Defense Cases: New York Federal Court Certifies Class Action Against Tobacco Companies For Selling "Light" Cigarettes" »
Speculation Mounts as to Whether Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer William Lerach Also will be Indicted As the class action plaintiff firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman and two of its partners, David Bershad and Steven Schulman, moves forward, Molly Selvin of the Los Angeles Times reports that the setting of a trial date has been postponed because of the prospect of additional indictments. The federal court reportedly expressed frustration that the government’s 7-year investigation remains ongoing. Selvin also reports that “many observers believe [the additional indictments] could involve William S. Lerach.” The federal court is expected to set a trial date on November 27. Molly Selvin’s article, entitled “Judge Delays Trial Date for Milberg Weiss Case,” may be found in the Business Section of the September 21, 2006 edition of the Los Angeles Times.
Class action defense attorneys in California will be confronting a new wave of public accommodation/ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) cases, supplanting new labor law class actions by a substantial margin. In an effort to assist class action defense attorneys in anticipating the claims against which they may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for new class actions 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. Employment law cases routinely lead the list, but this past week showed a startling increase in the overall number of class action filings and the number of class actions alleging public accommodation/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. This report covers the time period from September 15 - September 21, 2006. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. Approximately 71 class action lawsuits were filed in these California state and federal courts during that time period, of which 42 – almost 60% – involved public accommodation/ADA claims. The second place category consists of 14 new employment law class action filings (20%).
15 U.S.C. § 1681u – Disclosures to FBI for Counterintelligence Purposes: Statutory Provisions for the Class Action Defense Lawyer Who Defends Class Actions Brought Under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against class actions brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. Congress enacted special rules governing the disclosure of consumer information to the FBI for purposes of counterintelligence, as set forth in Section 1681u which provides: § 1681u. Disclosures to FBI for counterintelligence purposes (a) Identity of financial institutions. Notwithstanding section 1681b of this title or any other provision of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall furnish to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the names and addresses of all financial institutions (as that term is defined in section 3401 of Title 12) at which a consumer maintains or has maintained an account, to the extent that information is in the files of the agency, when presented with a written request for that information, signed by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Director' s designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the Director, which certifies compliance with this section. The Director or the Director's designee may make such a certification only if the Director or the Director's designee has determined in writing, that such information is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (b) Identifying information. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1681b of this title or any other provision of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall furnish identifying information respecting a consumer, limited to name, address, former addresses, places of employment, or former places of employment, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when presented with a written request, signed by the Director or the Director's designee, which certifies compliance with this subsection. The Director or the Director' s designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the Director may make such a certification only if the Director or the Director' s designee has determined in writing that such information is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Continue reading "15 U.S.C. § 1681u – Disclosures to FBI for Counterintelligence Purposes: Statutory Provisions for the Class Action Defense Lawyer Who Defends Class Actions Brought Under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) " »
Maine Federal Court Denies Joint Motion for “Preliminary Approval” of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Finding that it Lacked Authority Under Rule 23 to Grant the Motion or to Make a “Preliminary Fairness Determination” In connection with class action lawsuits against General Motors, Toyota, and other car companies, transferred to the District of Maine by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for pretrial purposes, the defense and plaintiff attorneys in the Toyota lawsuit requested that the federal court preliminarily approve a proposed settlement of the class action. In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., 236 F.R.D. 53, 55 (D. Maine 2006). The district court denied the request, holding that “Rule 23 does not provide for ‘preliminary approval’ or a ‘preliminary fairness determination.’” Id. The court acknowledged that the Complex Litigation Manual uses that phrase to describe “what a court does in deciding to order notice to the class of a settlement,” but explained that while “it makes sense for a judge to say that a particular settlement has no chance of approval . . . there is criticism of calling this ‘preliminary approval.’” Id., at 55-56 (citations omitted). Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-In re New Motor Vehicles: Federal Court Lacks Authority To Give “Preliminary Approval” To Proposed Settlement Of Class Action Maine District Court Holds" »
Carrier’s Contract Limited Liability for Late Package Deliveries to Another Free Delivery Justify Trial Court Order Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment in Putative Class Action Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Airborne Express for failing to deliver packages on time, and sought as damages the difference between the value of the service he requested and the value of the service he received. Hicks v. Airborne Express, Inc., ___ N.E.2d ___, 2006 WL 2105657 (Ill.App. July 25, 2006). The defense moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the contract limited the customers’ damages for the carrier’s breach of its promise to deliver a package on time to another delivery free of charge, and that Airborne had provided plaintiff with that remedy. Slip Opn., at 2-3. The trial court agreed with the defense, “finding that the parties had agreed to an exclusive remedy, i.e., another Flight-Ready envelope, for Airborne’s breach of the contract to deliver [plaintiff’s] package by noon the next day.” Id., at 3. The appellate court affirmed. Continue reading "Airborne Express Class Action Defense Case-Hicks v. Airborne Express: Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In Breach Of Contract Class Action" »
Intel Class Action Defense Case-Barbara's Sales v. Intel: California Law Applies To Unfair Business Practice Class Action Against Intel And Nationwide Class Should Have Been Certified Illinois Court Holds
After Trial Court Held that Illinois Law Applies to Unfair Business Practice Class Action Against Intel and Certified Only a Statewide Class. Appellate Court Reversed and Held California Law Applies and Nationwide Class Should Have Been Certified Purchasers of computers run by Intel’s Pentium 4 processors filed a nationwide class action in Illinois state court alleging claims for unfair business practices under California law and Illinois law based on the allegation that, contrary to its billion dollar marketing campaign, the Pentium 4 performed no better than the Pentium III. Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., __ N.E.2d __ (Ill.App. July 25, 2006). Defense attorneys opposed class certification in part on the grounds that Illinois law applied thus barring the two claims based on California law - one under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and one under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The trial court agreed that Illinois law applied and denied class certification on the California-law claims. The trial court also found that Illinois law “could not be applied to a nationwide class action” and so certified only a statewide class under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim. Slip Opn., at 4-5. The appellate court reversed, rejecting defense arguments that California law should not be applied. Continue reading "Intel Class Action Defense Case-Barbara's Sales v. Intel: California Law Applies To Unfair Business Practice Class Action Against Intel And Nationwide Class Should Have Been Certified Illinois Court Holds" »
California class action defense attorneys once again confront more public accommodation lawsuits than employment law claims. In an effort to assist class action defense attorneys to anticipate claims against which they may have to defend, we provide weekly, unofficial summaries of the legal categories for class actions 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. Thus far, employment law cases have led the list each week since we began making these reports. This week, however, class action complaints involving public accommodation/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cases lead the list. This report covers the time period from September 8 - September 14, 2006. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. Approximately 47 class action lawsuits were filed in these California state and federal courts during that time period, of which 15 involved public accommodation/ADA claims (32%). The second place category consists of 14 new employment law class action filings (30%). Posted In: Class Actions In The News
Resolving Issue of First Impression, Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss ECPA Class Action Alleging “Secondary Liability” Claims Under Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act DirecTV filed suit against an individual in Canada to enjoin the pirating of its satellite digital television signal and, in the course of that litigation, obtained a court order permitting it to seize evidence related to piracy activities that was accessed, recorded and processed by a third party, ICG. The order provided for the information “to be held in the ‘custody of [DirecTV’s] solicitors pending the trial” and for the appointment of an “independent solicitor”; DirecTV instructed, however, that all information was to be held by the independent solicitor rather than its own lawyers. After the Canadian action was completed, DirecTV filed suit in the United States against Lawrence Freeman, alleging that he engaged in “the distribution of illegal signal theft devices.” After the parties entered into a settlement and release of that lawsuit, Freeman filed a putative class action against DirecTV and ICG for allegedly violating the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702 and 2707. Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1002-03 (9th Cir. 2006). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the action on three grounds; the federal district court granted the motion on the ground that “that 18 U.S.C. § 2702 does not provide a basis for asserting conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims.” Id., at 1004. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, summarizing at page 1009: Continue reading "Freeman v. DirecTV-Class Action Defense Cases: Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) Does Not Provide Private Right Of Action For Secondary Liability Claims Ninth Circuit Holds" »
Unopposed Defense Motion to Centralization of Individual and Class Action Lawsuits Based on Book “A Million Little Pieces” Granted Following the disclosure of false information in James Frey’s book A Million Little Pieces¸ and the filing of at least a dozen individual and class action lawsuits alleging “various state statutory and common law claims, such as negligence, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment,” defense attorneys for Random House and Doubleday moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for an order centralizing for pretrial purposes all pending and tag-along lawsuits in the Southern District of New York. In re “A Million Little Pieces” Litig., 435 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1337-38 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Centralization was unopposed, though the plaintiffs did not agree on the appropriate transferee court. The Judicial Panel granted the motion, noting that the lawsuits “share allegations” including “that the book contained material fabrications” and “that advertisements and marketing concerning the book were false and misleading, inasmuch as the book was marketed as a work on nonfiction.” Id., at 1337-38. The Panel agreed with defense attorneys that the Southern District of New York was an appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1338. NOTE: We summarize this order for the purpose of noting that soon after the actions were centralized the parties reached a proposed settlement for resolution of the litigation. The author believes that this is one of the main benefits of centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 - the defense is far more likely to agree to a settlement when it will dispose of all pending litigation rather than trying to reach piecemeal resolutions in various lawsuits, particularly when the settlement reached in one lawsuit may be used as a floor for settlement discussions by plaintiffs’ attorneys in the other lawsuits. Download PDF file of In re "A Million Little Pieces" Litigation
Melanie Warner and Colin Moynihan report a New York federal court is considering whether to certify as a class action a federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit that alleges tobacco companies “deceived smokers for years about the safety of light cigarettes” by making smokers think that they were “safer or less addicting.” Defense attorneys strenuously opposed the motion, reportedly arguing differences in the reasons people smoke - such as “that many people smoked light cigarettes because they liked the taste, not for health reasons or as part of an attempt to quit smoking” - and differences in the ways people smoked rendered the case unsuitable for treatment as a class action. Warner and Moynihan state that the federal court questioned plaintiffs’ attorneys about the size of the class (which plaintiffs’ lawyers estimate to be in the tens of millions given that the sale of light cigarettes accounts for 45% of the market) and the method by which they estimated damages to be in excess of $20 billion. While many similar cases have proved unsuccessful, the New York federal judge will be considering the motion in the wake of the detailed 1,600-page opinion last month by District of Columbia federal judge Gladys Kessler, “who found that cigarette companies engaged in decades of fraud and racketeering, including misleading smokers and concealing information about the health risks of light cigarettes.” The article describes Judge Kessler’s opinion as “a searing indictment of conduct by tobacco companies over the last 40 years.” The article by Melanie Warner and Colin Moynihan, entitled “Judge Weighs New Trial Against Tobacco Companies,” may be found in Section C of the September 14, 2006 edition of the New York Times.
Allstate Katrina Class Action Defense Case-Vaz v. Allstate: Mississippi Federal Court Denies Motion For Certification Of Class Action Against Allstate Based On Hurricane Katrina Claims
Becky Yerak of the Chicago Tribune reports that a federal district court has denied a request to certify a class action of Mississippi policyholders against Allstate Insurance Company arising out of the handling of Hurricane Katrina claims, agreeing with defense attorneys that "each contract is a separate transaction" and that "[t]he storm was vastly different in its effect depending on the specific geographic location of each particular home." Yerak notes that less than a month ago another Mississippi federal court denies a motion for class-action certification in a lawsuit against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company by its policyholders arising out of the Hurricane Katrina claims. Plaintiffs' lawyer in the Allstate case told Yerak that he will seek rehearing of the ruling and then file an appeal. Becky Yerak's article, entitled "Katrina ruling favors Allstate: No class-action status for Mississippi claims," may be found in the Business section of the September 12, 2006 edition of the Chicago Tribune.