Source: http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/2007/06/
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 22:58:55
Document Index: 391821750

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1407', '§ 1407', '§ 43', '§ 1125', '§ 43', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 1407', '§ 2721', '§ 1407']

June 2007 :: Class Action Defense Blog
Posted On: June 30, 2007
More Than 60% Of New Class Action Cases Involve Employment-Related Claims In Weekly Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts
As a resource to defense attorneys who defend against class action claims 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. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from June 22 – June 28, 2007, and during that time 34 new class action lawsuits were filed in these courts. Labor law class action lawsuits usually lead the list of new class action filings, often by a wide margin, but never before, during the period for which we have been providing these statistics, by as wide a margin as this past week. Out of these 34 new class action lawsuits, 21 involved employment-related claims, representing almost 62% of the total number of new class actions for the relevant time period. Unfair competition law (UCL) class action cases, which include false advertising cases, represented the only other category of class actions to break the 10% threshold, with six (6) new class action filings (18%).
Posted In: Class Actions In The News Posted On: June 29, 2007
Class Action Defense Cases-In re Motor Fuel: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Lawsuits But Selects District of Kansas As Transferee Court
Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 but Rejects Defense Request to Transfer Class Actions to District of New Jersey Twelve putative class action lawsuits were filed in seven federal district courts (four in Missouri, two in Kansas and Oklahoma, and one in California, Kentucky, New Jersey and Tennessee) against more than 100 oil companies, distributors and retailers “relating to the sale of motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit.” In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Prac. Litig., 493 F.Supp.2d 1365, 2007 WL 1806043, *1 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2007). Defense attorneys for three oil companies filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of New Jersey. All plaintiff lawyers agreed that pretrial coordination was appropriate, as did dozens of additional defense attorneys, but they could not agree upon the appropriate transferee court, “variously support[ing] selection of the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Florida, the District of Kansas, the Western District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the Western District of Oklahoma or the Middle District of Tennessee as transferee district.” Id. Defense attorneys for two oil companies opposed centralization at all, but alternatively argued that the class actions should be transferred to the District of New Jersey, id. The Judicial Panel granted the defense motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, rejecting “the arguments of the two opposing defendants that the lack of identity among the defendants in these actions warrants a different result.” In re Motor Fuel, at *1. However, the Panel selected the District of Kansas because “no district stands out as the geographic focal point for this nationwide docket” and, accordingly, the Judicial Panel selected “a transferee judge with the time and experience to steer this litigation on a prudent course and sitting in a district with the capacity to handle this litigation.” Id., at *2.Download PDF file In re Motor Fuel Transfer Order
Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 28, 2007
Lanham Act Class Action Defense Cases-Phoenix v. McDonald's: District Court Properly Granted Defense Motion To Dismiss Lanham Act Class Action For Lack Of Prudential Standing Eleventh Circuit Holds
As Matter of First Impression in the Circuit, Eleventh Circuit Holds that Fast Food Franchisee Lacked Prudential Standing to Prosecute Lanham Act False Advertising Class Action Against McDonald’s and Affirms Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint Plaintiff, a Burger King fast food franchisee, filed a putative class action lawsuit against McDonald’s alleging false advertising in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), arising out of McDonald’s claims in connection with various promotional games (such as Monopoly) that each customer had an equal chance of winning. Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 2007 WL 1791886, *1 (11th Cir. 2007). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked prudential standing to prosecute the putative class action; the district court agreed with the defense and dismissed the class action. Id. On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, the issue on appeal concerned “the proper test for determining whether a party has prudential standing to bring a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act,” id.; ultimately, the Circuit Court adopted the Third Circuit test set forth in Conte Bros. Automotive, Inc. v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc., 165 F.3d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 1998), and affirmed the dismissal of the class action complaint. The McDonald’s promotional games at issue ran from 1995 through 2001, and generally allowed customers to win the $1 million grand prize “by obtaining one of the rare $1 million, instant-winner game pieces or by collecting and matching a combination of certain other game pieces.” Phoenix of Broward, at *1. McDonald’s represented that each customer had an equal chance of winning, and “also represented the specific odds of winning certain prizes, including the high-value prizes.” Id. Beginning in April 2000, however, the FBI began investigating these promotional games and “informed McDonald's that there were problems with the random distribution of its game pieces,” id. Nonetheless, McDonald's continued to represent that each customer had an equal chance of winning its promotional games, id. Continue reading "Lanham Act Class Action Defense Cases-Phoenix v. McDonald's: District Court Properly Granted Defense Motion To Dismiss Lanham Act Class Action For Lack Of Prudential Standing Eleventh Circuit Holds" »
Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 27, 2007
Class Action Defense Cases-Bendzak v. Midland: Iowa District Circuit Consolidates Class Action Lawsuits Sua Sponte Finding Class Actions Satisfied Requirements Of FRCP Rule 42
Class Action Complaints Warranted Sua Sponte Consolidation under Rule 42 Iowa Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed two putative class action lawsuits in Iowa federal court, one against Midland National Life Insurance and the other against American Equity Investment Life Insurance, alleging violations of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), conspiracy and unjust enrichment in that they “knowingly used licensed agents that engaged in unfair, improper, and unlawful sales practices in connection with the solicitation, offering, and sale of deferred annuity products to senior citizens.” Bendzak v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 240 F.R.D. 449, 450 (S.D. Iowa 2007). The district court sua sponte ordered the two class actions consolidated, holding that the requirements of FRCP Rule 42 were satisfied, id., but invited defense and plaintiff’s counsel to advise the court if they believed consolidation “would lead to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party,” id., at 451. The district court held that consolidation was warranted because the two class actions involved common issues of law and fact, explaining at page 450: Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Bendzak v. Midland: Iowa District Circuit Consolidates Class Action Lawsuits Sua Sponte Finding Class Actions Satisfied Requirements Of FRCP Rule 42" »
Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 26, 2007
Class Action Defense Cases--Du Bouse v. Bayer: Illinois Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal From Class Action Certification Order For Lack Of Jurisdiction Because Defense Failure To Monitor Court Docket Did Not Expand Jurisdictional Appeal Period
30-Day Time Period for Appealing Court Orders Granting or Denying Class Action Treatment is Jurisdictional and Cannot be Evaded by Trial Court Nunc Pro Tunc Order Deeming Order Entered on a Later Date Illinois State Appellate Court Holds Plaintiff filed a consumer fraud class action in Illinois state court against Bayer AG and others alleging common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. De Bouse v. Bayer AG, ___ N.E.2d __ (June 11, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 1]. After granting plaintiff’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action, defense attorneys moved for summary judgment, id. The trial court denied the motion but certified three questions for appellate review, id. Defense attorneys then sought leave to appeal the class certification order, and the appellate court consolidated the two appeals, id., at 1-2. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, id., at 2; the appellate court granted the motion. The appellate court explained that the class certification hearing was held in July 2005 and taken under submission. On September 1, 2005, the court granted class action status, and the order was filed the following day. Du Bouse, at 2. “There is no indication that the order was served personally or by mail on counsel of record.” Id. The parties appeared in court on September 27 and December 29, 2005, in connection with the summary judgment motion, and on January 11, 2006 for purposes of a status conference, id., at 2-3. It was not until January 25, 2006, that defense attorneys moved “to vacate or amend the class certification order nunc pro tunc on the grounds that they had not received notice of the entry of the order granting class certification, that the circuit court clerk failed to serve a copy of the order on all parties and failed to note any service in the file…, and that they made diligent efforts to monitor the court file once the motion had been taken under advisement by the court.” Id., at 3. Defense attorneys argued that they had been monitoring the court file but first learned of the class certification order on January 11, 2006, and that the failure to serve notice of the order "severely prejudiced" defendants’ right to appeal. Id. The trial court agreed and granted motion, ordering the class certification order be deemed filed as of January 11, 2006, id., at 3-4. Defendants sought leave to appeal the class certification order on February 10, 2006, id., at 4. Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases--Du Bouse v. Bayer: Illinois Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal From Class Action Certification Order For Lack Of Jurisdiction Because Defense Failure To Monitor Court Docket Did Not Expand Jurisdictional Appeal Period" »
Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 25, 2007
TILA Class Action Defense Cases-Andrews v. Chevy Chase: Wisconsin Federal Court Certifies Lawsuit As Class Action And Holds Lender Violated TILA And That Class Action Complaint May Seek Rescission And Attorney Fees
Class Action Requirements of FRCP Rule 23 Satisfied in Class Action Complaint Allegation Violations of federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Bank’s TILA-Mandated Disclosure Statements Failed Adequately to Inform Borrowers of Loan Payment Schedule and Interest Rate, and Class Action Plaintiffs may seek Rescission and Attorney Fees, but not Statutory Damages, Wisconsin Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Chevy Chase Bank for violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., in that the Bank allegedly failed to make the requisite disclosures in connection with adjustable rate mortgage loans. Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 240 F.R.D. 612, 614 (E.D. Wis. 2007). Defense and plaintiffs’ counsel filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and plaintiffs moved the court to certify the litigation as a class action; the district court granted in part and denied in part each of the summary judgment motions, and granted class action status to the TILA complaint. Plaintiffs secured a loan from Chevy Chase bank in June 2004 to refinance their Wisconsin home. Andrews, at 614. The Bank’s initial disclosures included a handbook on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), an ARM disclosure and a preliminary disclosure statement as required by TILA, id., at 615. Additional disclosures were provided at closing, including an Adjustable Rate Note (ARN), a Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement (TILDS) and an Adjustable Rate Rider (ARR), id. The class action complaint alleged that plaintiffs’ believed the interest rate and payments “were fixed for five years and became variable thereafter”; in fact, the payment was fixed but the interest rate was not. Id. As the district court explained at page 615, “The loan carried a discounted or ‘teaser’ interest rate of 1.950 percent, but that rate applied only to the first monthly payment, after which the interest rate increased every month according to a formula. As the interest rate increased, an ever increasing portion of the minimum monthly payment of $701.21 was needed to cover interest, and the minimum payment itself soon became insufficient to cover accrued interest.” The class action complaint alleged that the Bank’s disclosures failed to comply with TILA. Continue reading "TILA Class Action Defense Cases-Andrews v. Chevy Chase: Wisconsin Federal Court Certifies Lawsuit As Class Action And Holds Lender Violated TILA And That Class Action Complaint May Seek Rescission And Attorney Fees" »
Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions, RESPA/TILA Class Actions Posted On: June 24, 2007
15 U.S.C. § 78aa—Jurisdiction Over Offenses And Suits Under The Federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)
As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against securities class action litigation, we provide the text of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Congress provided for jurisdiction over offenses and lawsuits of private securities class action litigation in 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, which provides as follows: § 78aa. Jurisdiction of offenses and suits The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter or rules and regulations thereunder, or to enjoin any violation of such chapter or rules and regulations, may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 1254, 1291, 1292, and 1294 of title 28. No costs shall be assessed for or against the Commission in any proceeding under this chapter brought by or against it in the Supreme Court or such other courts.
Posted In: Statutes & Rules Posted On: June 23, 2007
Removal Class Action Defense Cases- Levitanksy v. FIA: Ohio Federal Court Holds That Putative Class Action Stated Breach Of Contract Claim Warranting Remand Of Class Action Complaint To State Court
Class Action Complaint Alleging Fees Charged were in Excess of Contractually Agreed Amount did not Constitute Challenge to Interest Rate and so National Bank Act did not Completely Preempt Claims in Putative Class Action Ohio Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Ohio state court against credit card company FIA Card Services alleging that it collected cash advance fees in excess of the maximum allowed under its cash advance agreements. Levitanksy v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 492 F.Supp.2d 758, 760 (N.D. Ohio 2007). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court on the basis of National Bank Act, alleging that the class action complaint challenged the interest rate charged to customers and that usury claims are completely preempted under the NBA, id., at 760-61; plaintiff filed a motion to remand the class action to state court on the ground that the class action alleged only state-law breach of contract claims, id., at 759. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that the National Bank Act did not completely preempt the claims set forth in the class action complaint. Plaintiff’s class action seeks to represent all individuals who entered into cash advance agreements with FIA, setting forth as common class allegations that FIA “extended one or more promotional offers for balance transfers and cash advance checks where the transaction fees would be limited to 3% of each advance” and that the FIA contracts “stipulated that the maximum allowable transaction fee was $75,” but that FIA charged cash advance fees in excess of that agreed amount. Levitansky, at 760. Defense attorneys removed the class action complaint to federal court under the National Bank Act; plaintiff filed a motion to remand the class action on the ground that the complaint set forth a state-law breach of contract claim. Id. Continue reading "Removal Class Action Defense Cases- Levitanksy v. FIA: Ohio Federal Court Holds That Putative Class Action Stated Breach Of Contract Claim Warranting Remand Of Class Action Complaint To State Court" »
Posted In: Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 23, 2007
In order to assist California class action defense attorneys anticipate the claims against which they may have to defend, 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. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. This report covers the time period from June 15 – June 21, 2007, and during that time 36 new class action lawsuits were filed in these courts. Class actions alleging employment law claims typically lead the list of new filings, and this past week was no exception. In all, sixteen (16) new labor law class action cases were filed in these state and federal courts, representing approximately 44% of the total number of new class actions for the relevant time period. Unfair competition law (UCL) class action cases, which include false advertising cases, dropped from the first-place ranking it had last week to second, with 6 new class action filings (17%). The only other category to meet the 10% threshold involved new securities laws claims, with 4 new cases (11%). Posted In: Class Actions In The News Posted On: June 22, 2007
Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 21, 2007
Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 20, 2007
Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions, PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Posted On: June 19, 2007
Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FCRA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 18, 2007
Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FCRA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 17, 2007
Posted In: Statutes & Rules Posted On: June 16, 2007
Posted In: Class Actions In The News Posted On: June 14, 2007
Posted In: Arbitration, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 13, 2007
Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 12, 2007
Posted In: Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 12, 2007
Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 11, 2007
Posted In: Arbitration, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 10, 2007
Posted In: Statutes & Rules Posted On: June 9, 2007
Posted In: Class Actions In The News Posted On: June 8, 2007
Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 7, 2007
Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 6, 2007
Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 5, 2007
Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 4, 2007
Posted In: Arbitration, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: June 3, 2007
In order to assist class action defense attorneys who defends against securities class action litigation, we provide the text of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Congress provided for public availability of information in 15 U.S.C. § 78x, which provides as follows: § 78x. Public availability of information (a) “Records” defined For purposes of section 552 of title 5 the term “records” includes all applications, statements, reports, contracts, correspondence, notices, and other documents filed with or otherwise obtained by the Commission pursuant to this chapter or otherwise. (b) Disclosure or personal use It shall be unlawful for any member, officer, or employee of the Commission to disclose to any person other than a member, officer, or employee of the Commission, or to use for personal benefit, any information contained in any application, statement, report, contract, correspondence, notice, or other document filed with or otherwise obtained by the Commission (1) in contravention of the rules and regulations of the Commission under section 552 of title 5, or (2) in circumstances where the Commission has determined pursuant to such rules to accord confidential treatment to such information. Continue reading "15 U.S.C. § 78x—Public Availability Of Information Pursuant To The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)" »
Posted In: Statutes & Rules Posted On: June 2, 2007
California class action defense attorneys will face a substantial number of new class action claims based the latest court filings this past week. To allow the class action defense lawyer to anticipate claims against which she or he 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. This report covers the time period from May 25 – May 31, 2007, and while labor law class action cases have been logging an impressive streak of heading up the list of new class action filings, this past week ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) class actions claimed the top spot. We include only those categories that include 10% or more of the class action filings during the relevant timeframe. Approximately 50 class action lawsuits were filed in these California state and federal courts during that time period, of which 17 (34%) new class action suits involve ADA claims. Employment law class action lawsuits came in a close second, with 16 new filings (32%). The third place category consists of six (6) new unfair business practice class action lawsuits, which include claims of false advertising.
Posted In: Class Actions In The News Posted On: June 1, 2007
Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 but Agrees with Plaintiffs’ Request to Transfer Class Actions to Middle District of Florida Eight nationwide and statewide class action lawsuits were filed against Imagitas arising out of “the propriety of Imagitas’s performance of certain contracts involving the departments of motor vehicles of six states” alleging that the company violated the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721 et seq. In re Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litig., 486 F.Supp.2d 1371 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. May 8, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio; while some class action plaintiffs favored centralization and others opposed it, all responding plaintiffs argued that if the motion was granted then the class action should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida. Id., at 1. The Judicial Panel rejected objections to coordination of the class actions, explaining that the lawsuits involve “competing class allegations and involve allegations that could spawn challenging procedural questions and pose the risk of inconsistent and/or conflicting rulings.” Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel granted the defense motion to centralize the class actions, but rejected the proposed transferee court; rather, the Panel agreed with the class action plaintiffs that the Middle District of Florida was the appropriate court because “it “was the first action filed, [and] is relatively more procedurally advanced than the other actions." Id.Download PDF file of In re Imagitas Transfer Order
Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions Browse