Source: http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/2007/02/
Timestamp: 2014-04-21 09:37:57
Document Index: 412844349

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2301', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 1407']

February 2007 :: Class Action Defense Blog
Class Action Against Car Manufacturer was a Catalyst Behind Recall Program thus Entitling Plaintiffs to Attorney Fee Award as "Prevailing Party" under California law New Jersey Federal Court Holds In March 1994, following consumer complaints, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into whether the Bendix 10 ABS had a safety-related defect warranting a recall. In October 1995 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against DaimlerChrysler for, inter alia, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, alleging that Chrysler vehicles equipped with Bendix 10 ABS were defective. And in April 1996, Chrysler voluntarily recalled vehicles equipped with Bendix 10 ABS, thereby ending the NHTSA's investigation. Chin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 461 F.Supp.2d 279, 281 (D. N.J. 2006). But in March 1996, plaintiffs had amended their class action complaint to allege that Chrysler vehicles equipped with Bendix 9 ABS also were defective, as the product was "largely interchangeable [with the Bendix 10] and suffer[ed] from virtually identical defects." Id. The NHTSA informed Chrysler in September 1996 that it would begin investigating customer complaints involving the Bendix 9 ABS, and soon thereafter the company voluntarily recalled vehicles equipped with Bendix 9 thereby ending the NHTSA investigation. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, but the district court denied the motion in March 1997 and the following month Chrysler publicly announced its recall of vehicles with Bendix 9 ABS. Chin, at 281. However, defense attorneys successfully defeated plaintiffs' effort to certify the lawsuit as a class action: in September 1998, the district court denied plaintiffs motion for class certification on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that common questions of law would predominate over individual issues, as required by Rule 23(b)(3), because the court would be required to apply the laws of 52 jurisdictions if a nationwide class were certified. Id., at 281-82. As the district court observed, "[f]or nearly all intents and purposes, Plaintiffs' class-action came to an end" with the denial of the motion to certify a class action. Id., at 281. Continue reading "DaimlerChrysler Class Action Defense Case- Chin v. DaimlerChrysler: New Jersey Federal Court Holds California Law Applies And Class Action Materially Influenced Automobile Recall Decision Justifying Award Of Attorney Fees" »
Posted In: Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: February 27, 2007
Entity that Employed Significant Number of Putative Class Members was an Indispensable Party under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and could not be Joined in Class Action Without Destroying Federal Court Diversity Jurisdiction thus Necessitating Dismissal of Class Action Complaint New York Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Clear Channel Communications and Clear Channel Broadcasting for violations of New York's labor laws, alleging that defendants "made and continue to make unauthorized deductions from the wages of sales representatives for the New York radio stations that Defendants own and operate." Mattera v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 70, 71-72 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiff invoked federal court jurisdiction solely on the basis of diversity, id., at 72. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, id.; the thrust of the defense motion was that the class action failed to name Capstar Radio Operating Company (the owner of the two radio stations where plaintiff worked) as a defendant, and that joinder of Capstar would eliminate diversity jurisdiction thereby compelling dismissal of the action, id., at 73. The district court agreed with the defense and dismissed the class action. Plaintiff was a sales representative, selling advertising spots or on-air time for two of the 1200+ radio stations defendants own and operate. Mattera, at 72. Sales representatives were received biweekly draws against commissions earned on each sale. The commissions were to be "paid one month after the contract for a sale is executed and the advertising spot purchased is aired,." But if the customer failed to pay for the service within 120 days then there would be a "charge back," with the entire amount of the commission deducted from the employee's next paycheck. According to the allegations in the class action complaint, the customer, "typically an advertising agency or corporation with a longstanding relationship with Defendants," would pay the bill more than 120 days after service, but in such instances defendants would not reverse the charge back. Id. Continue reading "CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Mattera v. Clear Channel: New York Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Labor Law Class Action For Failure To Join Indispensable Party" »
Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Employment Law Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: February 26, 2007
Voluntary Payment Doctrine did not Apply where Plaintiff Could only get Copies of Hospital Records through Service Company and Plaintiff is an Adequate Class Representative if her Agent Requests and Pays for Hospital Records Illinois Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Smart Corporation, a company which contracted with hospitals to place its own employees on site to retrieve and copy hospital medical records for patients, alleging that it overcharged hospital patients for such services in violation of common law, Illinois' Inspection of Hospital Records Act and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and claiming also unjust enrichment. Ramirez v. Smart Corp., ___ Ill.App.3d ___ (Ill.App. February 16, 2007). Plaintiff's lawyer sought class certification, and defense attorneys moved for summary judgment. Slip Opn., at 1-2. The trial court granted the defense motion and denied class certification. Plaintiff had suffered an injury and received treatment at a hospital. As part of her workers compensation claim, plaintiff's lawyer sought her hospital records. Smart retrieved and copied the records - consisting of 6 pages - and sent a bill for $34.78 itemized as follows: a basic fee of $15 and a $1 per page copy fee bringing the total photocopy charge to $21, a retrieval/search fee of $10, and shipping/handling fee of $3.78. Ramirez, at 2. Plaintiff's law firm paid the bill before plaintiff reviewed it. Id., at 3. The trial court denied class certification and granted the defense motion for summary judgment. The court refused to certify a class action because it found plaintiff to be an inadequate class representative in that her lawyer had reviewed and paid the bill, not the plaintiff. Id., at 4. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defense holding that plaintiff's claims were barred by the voluntary payment doctrine, and additionally finding that the charges were not deceptive or unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Fraud Act and that plaintiff could not seek damages under the Hospital Records Act because that statute allows a patient to compel production of hospital records. Id. Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Ramirez v. Smart Corp.: Illinois State Court Affirms In Part And Reverses In Part Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In Class Action Against Hospital Record Retrieval/Copy Service" »
Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions Posted On: February 25, 2007
Labor Law Class Action Lawsuits Regain Top Spot In Weekly Class Action Filings In California State And Federal Courts With Public Accommodation/ADA And Antirust Class Action Lawsuits Close Behind
Posted In: Class Actions In The News Posted On: February 25, 2007
As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of Regulation X. Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate regulations for RESPA, and the regulations are set forth in 24 CFR § 3500.1 et seq. The regulations provide for the preparation of a special information booklet to be given to borrowers at time of a loan application in § 3500.6, which provides: § 3500.6. Special information booklet at time of loan application (a) Lender to provide special information booklet. Subject to the exceptions set forth in this paragraph, the lender shall provide a copy of the special information booklet to a person from whom the lender receives, or for whom the lender prepares, a written application for a federally related mortgage loan. When two or more persons apply together for a loan, the lender is in compliance if the lender provides a copy of the booklet to one of the persons applying. (1) The lender shall provide the special information booklet by delivering it or placing it in the mail to the applicant not later than three business days (as that term is defined in § 3500.2) after the application is received or prepared. However, if the lender denies the borrower's application for credit before the end of the three-business-day period, then the lender need not provide the booklet to the borrower. If a borrower uses a mortgage broker, the mortgage broker shall distribute the special information booklet and the lender need not do so. The intent of this provision is that the applicant receive the special information booklet at the earliest possible date. Continue reading "24 CFR § 3500.6—Special Information Booklet At Time Of Loan Application Under Regulation X (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act-RESPA)" »
Posted In: Statutes & Rules Posted On: February 24, 2007
24 CFR § 3500.5—Coverage Of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Under Regulation X As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of Regulation X. Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate regulations for RESPA, and the regulations are set forth in 24 CFR § 3500.1 et seq. The regulations provide for coverage of RESPA in § 3500.5, which provides: § 3500.5. Coverage of RESPA (a) Applicability. RESPA and this part apply to all federally related mortgage loans, except for the exemptions provided in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Exemptions. (1) A loan on property of 25 acres or more. (2) Business purpose loans. An extension of credit primarily for a business, commercial, or agricultural purpose, as defined by Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226.3(a)(1). Persons may rely on Regulation Z in determining whether the exemption applies. (3) Temporary financing. Temporary financing, such as a construction loan. The exemption for temporary financing does not apply to a loan made to finance construction of 1- to 4-family residential property if the loan is used as, or may be converted to, permanent financing by the same lender or is used to finance transfer of title to the first user. If a lender issues a commitment for permanent financing, with or without conditions, the loan is covered by this part. Any construction loan for new or rehabilitated 1- to 4-family residential property, other than a loan to a bona fide builder (a person who regularly constructs 1- to 4-family residential structures for sale or lease), is subject to this part if its term is for two years or more. A "bridge loan" or "swing loan" in which a lender takes a security interest in otherwise covered 1- to 4-family residential property is not covered by RESPA and this part. Continue reading "24 CFR § 3500.5—Coverage Of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Under Regulation X " »
Posted In: Statutes & Rules Posted On: February 23, 2007
Judicial Panel Grants Unopposed Request for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 but Agrees with Defense Attorneys and Non-Moving Plaintiffs that Class Actions Should be Centralized in Southern District of California Six class action lawsuits were filed against Morgan Stanley in Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas federal courts alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying certain employees as exempt from overtime pay and/or by assessing improper deductions against employee compensation. In re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Overtime Pay Litig. (No. II), 471 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1353-54 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Pursuant to 28 U