Ford Class Action Defense Cases–Cuesta v. Ford Motor: Oklahoma Supreme Court Reinstates Class Action Certification Order Holding Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Certifying Class Action

Products Liability Class Action Properly Certified as Class Action with Respect to Breach of Warranty Claim and Appellate Court Erred in Reversing Class Action Certification Order Oklahoma Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Ford Motor and Williams Control for product liability; the class action complaint asserted claims based on “design and/or manufacturing defects in the fixed, non-adjustable accelerator pedal, i.e., the ‘electronic throttle control’, or ‘ETC’, which is designed and manufactured by Williams and installed in certain trucks manufactured by Ford.” Cuesta v. Ford Motor Co., ___ P.3d ___, 2009 OK 24, ¶ 2 (Okla. April 21, 2009) (footnotes omitted). According to the allegations underlying the class action, “the pedals, which were modified twice, failed Ford’s ‘overload’ tests and engineering specifications.” _Id._ Specifically, “when forcible pressure is applied to the pedals that they cause the vehicles to shift to idle instead of accelerating and, therefore, are defective and unreasonably dangerous.” _Id._ The class action complaint alleged causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action; the trial court granted the motion, agreeing with plaintiffs that the following questions of law and fact are common: “(1) whether the accelerator pedals at issue are defective; (2) whether the pedals are unreasonably dangerous; (3) whether the pedals reduce the value of the vehicles; and (4) whether the sale of the vehicles containing these pedals to members of the class constitutes a breach of any express or implied warranty by Defendants Ford and WCI?” _Id._ The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the class action certification order, _id._, at ¶ 1. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and vacated the appellate court’s opinion, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting class action treatment.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court began by noting that it was determining “only whether class certification is appropriate to determine a breach of warranty theory under the facts presented.” Cuesta, at ¶ 2. The Court noted also that “[a] trial court’s order certifying a class action is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Id., at ¶ 7 (citation omitted). It began its legal analysis by discussing the applicable choice of law, see id., at ¶¶ 8 et seq. We do not summarize the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis of this issue, noting simply that the Court concluded that the law of Michigan governed the class action’s breach of warranty claims, id., at ¶¶ 15-16.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Starbucks Class Action Defense Cases–Reed v. Starbucks: Florida Federal Court Grants Conditional Class Action Treatment To Labor Law Class Action Against Starbucks Alleging Misclassification Of Store Managers And Failure To Pay Overtime

Class Action Complaint Alleging Violations of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) based on Misclassification of Store Managers and Consequent Failure to Pay Overtime Satisfied First-Tier’s “Lenient Standard” for Conditional Class Action Certification Florida Federal Court Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against Starbucks alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the class action complaint asserted that Starbucks misclassified him (and other store managers) as exempt and failed to pay him overtime.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Asset Acceptance v. Hanson: California State Court Affirms Dismissal Of FDCPA Class Action Claims Holding Debt Collector Not Obligated To Inform Debtors That Debts Were Time-Barred

As a Matter of First Impression, Credit Card Debtor’s Class Action Cross-Complaint Alleging Violations of California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) Properly Dismissed on Demurrer for Failure to Define an Ascertainable Class and because Debt Collector was not Obligated to Disclose to Debtors that Debts Sought to be Collected were Time-Barred California State Court Holds

Plaintiff Asset Acceptance filed a lawsuit against debtor Lilia Hanson to collect on a $1300 credit card debt; the debtor filed a putative class action cross-complaint against Asset alleging that it violated California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“the Rosenthal Act”), which incorporates the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Hanson, (Cal.App., Case No. B208548, April 1, 2009) (unpublished) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The class action claims were premised on the allegation that Asset systematically and fraudulently sought to collect on debts that were time-barred. Id. The central allegation underlying the class action cross-complaint is that Asset purchased credit card debts “for pennies on the dollar and tricks debtors into making payments, which has the legal effect of reviving the debt.” This is because, under California law, “If a debtor acknowledges a debt in writing after the statute of limitations has run, ‘a new obligation is created, for which the original barred debt is said to be “consideration.” The cause of action is on the new obligation, and a new statutory period starts running as on any other written promise.’” Id., at 2 (citations omitted). Asset demurred to the third amended class action cross-complaint; the trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the class action sought to represent a class that lacked a “well-defined community of interest.” Id., at 1. In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Rosenthal Act “prohibits debt collectors from using threats, physical force, obscene language, annoying telephone calls, false representations, or falsely simulating a legal action.” Asset Acceptance, at 2 (citations omitted). In part, the statute prohibits a debt collector from obtaining “an affirmation from a debtor who has been adjudicated a bankrupt of a consumer debt which has been discharged in such bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, at the time such affirmation is sought, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation,” id. (citation omitted). The appellate court observed, however, that “The Rosenthal Act is silent on whether a debt collector must give a similar warning when attempting to collect a time-barred debt that has not been discharged in bankruptcy.” Id. This was the central issue on appeal, because the class action alleged that Asset failed to disclose to the putative class members that the debts it was seeking to collect were time barred when it contacted them demanding about payment on the credit card debts. Id., at 3. Further, not only was this a matter of first impression under California case law, but federal courts considering the issue under the FDCPA have reached different conclusions. Id., at 2-3.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Martis v. Grinnell Mutual: Illinois State Court Reverses Class Action Certification And Orders Class Action Complaint Dismissed Because Medical Provider Not Third Party Beneficiary Of Insurance Policy

As Matter of First Impression, Class Action Complaint Against Insurance Company Alleging Breach of Contract for Paying Discounted PPO Rate to Medical Providers Without a PPO Contract with Insurer did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Class Action Failed as a Matter of Law as Medical Providers are not Third Party Beneficiaries of Workers’ Compensation Policies and no Exception Applied Illinois State Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiff, a chiropractor, filed a class action in Illinois state court against Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and breach of contract; the class action complaint arose out of defendant’s decision to pay plaintiff a discounted amount for his treatment of a patient. Martis v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ill.App. March 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The class action sought to represent “a class of Illinois health care providers who submitted bills to defendant under workers’ compensation insurance and had bills reduced because of a PPO discount even though the providers did not have a PPO contract with defendant.” _Id._, at 2. The class action complaint originally contained seven causes of action, but the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims except the breach of contract claim, _id._, at 2-3. Plaintiff’s moved the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action, and the court granted plaintiff’s motion. _Id._, at 3. Defense attorneys sought and received leave to appeal the class action certification order, _id._, at 3-4. The appellate court reversed, concluding that plaintiff could not state a claim for breach of contract.

Defense attorneys argued that the trial court erred in certifying the litigation as a class action because “plaintiff’s class action [is] based on his breach of contract claim … [but] plaintiff is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the workers’ compensation policy.” Martis, at 4. The Court of Appeal noted that the legal effect of a contract is a question of law, id., and then discussed at length Illinois law governing enforcement of contracts by third parties, see id., at 4-6. The appellate court explained at page 6, “The issue we must decide in this case, whether a medical provider is a third-party beneficiary of a workers’ compensation policy, is one of first impression in this state.” The Court therefore examined the law of sister jurisdictions, see id., at 6-9, and summarized those cases as holding that “medical providers are generally not third party beneficiaries of insurance policies, particularly workers’ compensation policies,” id., at 9. The issue became, then, whether an exception to this general rule applied.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Beer v. XTO Energy: Oklahoma Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To Class Action Against Defendant Improperly Calculated Royalty Payments

Class Action Complaint Challenging Defendant’s Calculation of Royalty Payments based on Inter-Company Sale of Gas to Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Warranted Class Action Treatment Oklahoma Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs, royalty owners, filed a class action in state court against XTO Energy seeking an accounting of gas produced by certain wells in Texas County, Oklahoma; the class action complaint requested “the legal right to receive a royalty calculated by [XTO]…regarding production from a well in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma or Texas.” Beer v. XTO Energy, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Okla. March 20, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the class action, defendant systematically underpaid royalty owners, _id._, at 2. After defense attorneys learned that plaintiffs were seeking more than $27 million in damages, they removed the class action to federal court. _Id._ Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._ The class action certification motion defined two subclasses: a Kansas subclass consisting of individuals “who receive royalties from at least one well located in Kansas,” and an Oklahoma subclass consisting of individuals “who receive royalties from at least one well located in Oklahoma.” _Id._, at 2-3. Defendant operates the wells at issue in the class action, and “sells the gas produced from the individual wells to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Timberland Gathering and Processing,” _id._, at 3. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment. The district court determined that class action certification was warranted and granted plaintiffs’ motion.

The district court explained that whether class action treatment is warranted “is an intensely fact-based question that is fraught with practical considerations.” XTO Energy, at 4 (citation omitted). After summarizing the well settled rules governing class action certification under Rule 23, see id., at 4-6, the court stated that it was originally concerned with whether plaintiffs were adequate class representatives, id., at 6. Plaintiffs responded by filing supplemental materials, and the district court turned to the merits of the motion, id. The numerosity prong was not at issue, as defendant conceded that plaintiffs could establish it. Id., at 7. The commonality test also was satisfied because defendant’s own employees conceded that differences in lease language did not affect the royalty payments, id., at 9; the federal court therefore agreed that a common question existed as to whether defendant was permitted to base its royalty payments on an inter-company sale, id., at 8-9. And the typicality test was met because plaintiffs had standing to assert claims on behalf of the class; “defendant’s officers and its expert witness conceded that all royalty owners, regardless of well location, are treated identically by defendant for purposes of royalty payments.” Id., at 10. And finally, the court found that plaintiffs and their counsel would adequately represent the interests of the class, id., at 11-12.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases–Akerman v. Arotech: New York Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Finding Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Materiality, Scienter And Particularity

Securities Fraud Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss because Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged that Defendants Failed to Timely Discover and/or Disclose Material Adverse Information New York Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Arotech Corporation, a defense contractor, and three of its officers alleging violations of federal securities laws; the class action complaint violations Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and seeking to hold the individual defendants liable as “control persons” under Section 20(a) of the Act. Akerman v. Arotech Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, defendants made materially false statements and withheld materials facts concerning Arotech’s financial condition, _id._ The class action centered on Arotech’s acquisition of Armour of America (AofA) in August 2004 for $19 million in cash “with additional possible earn-outs if AofA is awarded certain material contracts” up to a maximum of $40 million. _Id._, at 2-3. Arotech’s total revenue in 2003 was only $17.3 million, but its revenue in 2004 increased to $50.4 million, _id._, at 3-4. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint “principally on the grounds of materiality, scienter and particularity” as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). _Id._, at 1. The district court concluded that the class action complaint adequately alleged securities fraud.

The class action complaint cited various confidential witnesses who alleged that “Arotech’s pre-acquisition due diligence did not reveal all material information about AofA before the acquisition.” Akerman, at 4. In particular, the confidential witnesses cited the federal government’s cancellation of a substantial helicopter contract with AofA based on a “termination for default” (T4D), that is, the government’s belief that AofA had overstated the armor weight of the helicopters. Id., at 4-5. The T4D, together with stigma accompanying the T4D, created a “domino effect” at AofA that seriously impacted sales, id., at 5. The class action alleged that defendants had access to this information, despite the fact that AofA did not disclose it, id., at 5-6. Additionally details may be found in the district court opinion at pages 6 through 11.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Cintas Class Action Defense Cases–Serrano v. Cintas: Michigan Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment Of Labor Law Class Action Against Cintas Holding Commonality, Typicality And Adequacy Of Representation Elements Not Met

Labor Law Class Actions did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Hiring Process Involved too many Individual Questions to Meet Requirements for Class Action Certification under Rule 23 Michigan Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed two separate class actions against Cintas Corporation, a company that provides uniforms and other supplies to various businesses across the United States, alleging labor law violations; the class action complaints asserted that Cintas discriminated against employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Serrano v. Cintas Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (E.D. Mich. March 31, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying one class action (_Serrano_), Cintas discriminated against Michigan employees who applied for position of Service Sales Representative (SSR) on the basis of gender; according to the other class action (_Avalos_), Cintas discriminated against employees nationwide on the basis of race. _Id._, at 2. The two class actions were consolidated for pretrial purposes, _id._, at 1. Plaintiffs in the companion cases filed motions with the district court to certify each lawsuit as a class action. _Id._ The district court determined that class action treatment was not warranted in either lawsuit and therefore denied both plaintiffs’ class action certification motions.

Cintas SSRs perform a wide range of duties, and are used by the company as entry-level sales and customer service representatives. Serrano, at 2. Each SSR reports to a Service Manager, who in turn reports to a General Manager; and in addition to a “common corporate structure,” Cintas also “uses common orientation manuals and policy statements throughout its facilities” and “has standard courses and training sessions for managers and SSRs.” Id. Importantly, the class action complaints allege further that Cintas “has a standard system for hiring SSRs.” Id. The district court summarized the hiring process as including “an initial screening of the application, a series of interviews, a route ride with another SSR, standardized tests, an exchange of information among hiring managers, and a final hiring decision made by the General Manager of the Cintas facility.” Id., at 2-3. Finally, the federal court explained that “[t]he hiring process has both objective and subjective components,” and that some criteria are required while others are preferred. Id., at 3.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Cole v. Asarco: Oklahoma Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment Of Class Action Seeking Medical Monitoring And Finds Proposed Property Owner Class Did Not Define A Cognizable Class

Class Action Certification not Warranted where Putative Class Action Complaint Prayed for Medical Monitoring of Individuals who had “Disavowed” any Present Injury and where Proposed Definition of Property Owner Class was not Administratively Feasible Oklahoma Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various defendants, including Asarco Incorporated and Gold Fields Mining, alleging nuisance and praying for medical monitoring of individuals covered by the class action; the class action complaint asserted that defendants mined lead and zinc along a 40-square mile stretch of Tar Creek in Oklahoma, and that the byproducts caused by that mining activity “caused air, surface and ground water and soil contamination of [plaintiffs’] property, exposing residents to unsafe levels of lead, heavy metals and other toxins.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling: California Federal Court Certifies FDCPA Class Action Finding Attack On Practices Used To Collect On Bounced Checks Warranted Class Action Treatment

Class Action Alleging FDCPA Violations Arising from Collection Practices Utilized to Collect from Check Writers of Bounced Checks Satisfied Rule 23 Requirements for Class Action Treatment California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various defendants, including American Corrective Counseling Services (ACCS), alleging that they “engaged in a pattern of behavior in implementing the District Attorney Bad Check Diversion Program” that violated, inter alia, the California Constitution and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants “operated the Diversion Program unlawfully by using the names of local district attorneys, demanding fees, and using the threat of criminal prosecution to force bad check writers to comply with their payment demands.” Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. December 3, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1 (footnote omitted)]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, various retail merchants would refer bounced checks to the District Attorney, who in turn would decide whether to refer the check writer to the diversion program. If it is referred, then defendants “instruct the merchants not to communicate” with the check writers and send out letters “purporting to be from the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Bad Check Restitution Program or the Sonoma County District Attorney Bad Check Restitution Program” and explaining that they can “avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly violating California Penal Code 476(a) by enrolling in the optional Bad Check Programs, without any admissions of guilt.” _Id._, at 2-3. The letter would instruct the bad check writers to make new checks out to the Bad Check Program, and included in the total to be paid the amount of the bounced check, a $35 administration fee, and a diversion program fee. _Id._, at 3. Many check writers tendered less than the total amount listed in the letter, and never intended on participating in the Bad Checks Program and did not participate in the program, _id._ Defendants sent subsequent letters demanding payment of the balance of the sums owed. The class action followed, alleging _inter alia_ violations of the FDCPA and California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. _Id._ Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. _Id._, at 2. The district court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

With respect to Rule 23(a)’s requirements for class certification, the district court noted that defendants did not contest numerosity or commonality, but argued that plaintiffs’ claims were not typical and that they were not adequate representatives of the class. Del Campo, at 6. The federal court agreed that the numerosity and commonality tests had been met, see id., at 7-9. Turning to the typicality test, the court noted at page 9, “Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not met the typicality requirement because the collection letters sent by Defendants contained ‘significant differences’ on a county-by-county basis.” Plaintiffs countered that the class action allegations assert that each of the letters “contain representations that: (1) the letter is from the local District Attorney, who has reviewed a criminal complaint made by the recipient of a dishonored check; (2) check writers who do not choose ‘diversion’ face a real risk of prosecution; and (3) to avoid prosecution, the check writer must pay the check, plus enumerated fees, and attend a ‘Financial Accountability’ Class.””Id., at 9. The district court agreed with plaintiffs, and found that the typicality test had been met, id., at 10. Defendants also argued that the named plaintiffs were not adequate representatives of the class and that plaintiffs’ counsel had a conflict of interest in representing the class. Id., at 10. The basis for the attack on the plaintiffs was their dishonesty, as evidenced by the fact that they bounced checks; the district court readily concluded that an element of being in the class could not disqualify someone from serving as the class representative. Id., at 11. And the court rejected the idea that the lobbying efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel created a conflict of interest in representing the class. Id., at 12.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

TILA Class Action Defense Cases–Jordan v. Paul Financial: California Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment To TILA Law Class Action Holding Plaintiff Lacks Standing And His Claims Lack Typicality

Class Action Complaint Alleging Violations of Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Plaintiff Lacked Standing to Prosecute TILA Claim, Plaintiff was an Inadequate Representative because he could not Establish Traceability, and Plaintiff’s Claims were not Typical of the Putative Class Claims California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Paul Financial concerning option adjustable rate mortgages (Option ARMs); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Option ARMs are “deceptively devised” in that they “promise that the loan [will] have a low, fixed interest rate” when in fact the loan carries a much higher interest rate. The class action alleged further that defendant “disguised” the fact that the Option ARM “was designed to cause negative amortization.” Jordan v. Paul Financial, LLC, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. January 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The class action alleged, _inter alia_, violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), _id._, at 2, and amendments to the class action complaint added HSBC and Luminent Capital Mortgage as defendants, _id._, at 1. Plaintiff sought to represent two classes of borrowers who received Option ARM loans secured by their primary residences: (1) a nationwide class, and (2) a California statewide class, _id._, at 1-2. Plaintiff’s attorney moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. _Id._, at 1. The district court determined that class action treatment was not warranted and therefore denied plaintiff’s class action certification motion.

Paul Financial originated residential loans, and while it also serviced loans, Paul Financial sold 75% of its loans to third party investors and sold the servicing rights to other investors. Jordan, at 2. Defendant “sold the loans to about ten investors,” but does not have records of subsequent sales by those investors, id., at 2-3. Plaintiff’s loan, for example, was sold to defendant Luminent, and then pooled with other Option ARM loans into a mortgage-backed security pool; defendant HSBC was the trustee of the pool. Id., at 3. Defendant sold the servicing rights for plaintiff’s loan to yet another investor, Greenwich Capital, id. By December 2008, Paul Financial had less than $1000 and planned to cease operations on December 31, 2008. Id., at 2. After discussing the general rules regarding class action certification under Rule 23, see id., at 3-4, the district court turned to whether plaintiff had standing to represent the TILA class or the California class.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized