Class Action Plaintiff Firm Indicted In California Becomes Target Of Lawsuits

Indiana Court Requires Class Action Firm Milberg Weiss and Its Class Representatives to Produce Financial Records Dating Back to 1998 David Cay Johnston of the New York Times reports today that an Indiana court has granted a motion by American United Life Insurance Class to compel class action plaintiff firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and four of the firm’s clients to produce financial records dating back to 1998. Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges in California against Milberg Weiss and two of its partners in mid-May 2006 alleging that the firm paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to clients to serve as plaintiffs; charges the firm and its partners deny.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Correy Stephenson’s Article Proves True For California – Class Action Defense Attorneys Again Face More Employment Law Class Action Cases Than Any Other Category

In an article published on July 17, 2006, Correy Stephenson – a staff writer for Lawyers USA – reports on the increase in employment law class actions, particularly under the federal FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). Her article and findings are certainly consistent with the court filings seen in California state and federal courts. To aid California class action defense attorneys in anticipating claims against which they may have to defend, we recently began to 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.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Hepting v. AT&T Corp.: California Federal Court Rejects Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Challenging Warrantless Surveillance Program

San Francisco Federal Court Denies Motion by Class Action Defense and Federal Government to Dismiss Lawsuit on Grounds of “State Secrets” Privilege and Immunity, But Certifies Order for Interlocutory Appeal

After the federal government’s warrantless surveillance program was revealed in the press, and after AT&T and President Bush admitted the existence of the program, a putative class action was filed in San Francisco federal court against AT&T alleging that its participation in the program violated numerous constitutional and federal laws, as well as California’s unfair competition law (UCL), California Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq. AT&T moved to dismiss the class action complaint on grounds of standing, failure to plead that AT&T did not have a government certification, and immunity; the federal government intervened and moved for dismissal or summary judgment based on the state secrets privilege. Yesterday, the California district court denied the defense motions, but certified its order for immediate appeal. Hepting v. AT&T Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2006). The court’s order is exceptionally detailed; we provide but a brief summary of it below. The entire opinion may be downloaded from the link at the end of this article.

The district court first addressed the federal government’s “state secrets” defense. “‘The state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary rule that protects information from discovery when disclosure would be inimical to the national security.'” Slip Opn., at 5 (citation omitted). Importantly, an inquiry into the state secrets privilege does not turn on “a balancing of ultimate interests at stake in the litigation,” Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Rather, the question is whether the harm that may result from the disclosure at issue requires that the information be withheld as a matter of “absolute right,” id. The district court in Hepting applied the standard set forth in the Ninth Circuit’s “definitive opinion on the state secrets privilege,” Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1998). Slip Opn., at 12. The federal government asserted that Kasza required dismissal because “(1) the very subject matter of this case is a state secret, (2) plaintiffs cannot make a prima facie case for their claims without classified evidence and (3) the privilege effectively deprives AT&T of information necessary to raise valid defenses.” Slip Opn., at 15 . The court rejected each of these arguments.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Indicted Class Action Firm And Lawyers Enter Not Guilty Pleas In California Federal Court

Class action plaintiff firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and two of the firm’s top partners, David Bershad and Steven Schulman – indicted in mid-May 2006 for paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to clients to serve as plaintiffs – entered pleas of not guilty in a California federal court yesterday. As explained by Molly Selvin of the Los Angeles Times, “Prosecutors said the ‘paid plaintiffs’ were recruited to buy stocks in anticipation that they would fall in value, positioning themselves and Milberg Weiss to take the lead in securities-fraud cases and collect extra fees.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Australian Antitrust Class Action Nears Settlement

“Vitamins Class Action” Defense Attorneys and Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Present Proposed $30.5 Settlement to Court On July 17, 2006, the parties involved in Amsterdam’s first cartel class action appeared in court to seek approval of a $30.5 million settlement after a 7-year legal battle. The “vitamins class action’ named Roche, BASF and Aventis and alleged unfair competition price fixing from 1989-1999 for vitamins A, B2, B5, C, E, and beta carotene. Reportedly the Australian Federal Court permitted the case to proceed as a class action in 2002.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Federal Court Sets Bail For Indicted Class Action Plaintiff Lawyers At First Defense Appearance In Court

Separate articles summarize news reports and the criminal complaint involving the federal indictment of class action law firm Milberg Weiss, Bershad & Schulman and two of its partners for allegedly paying people $11 million in kickbacks to serve as class representatives in shareholder lawsuits. According to Friday’s edition of the San Jose Mercury news, “Prosecutors allege that the secret kickback arrangement often allowed the firm to be among the first to file lawsuits against major corporations on behalf of shareholders.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Tien v. Superior Court (Tenet Healthcare): Class Action Defense Prohibited From Discovering Names Of Putative Class Members in Employment Law Case Who Contacted Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Due To Class Members’ Privacy Rights California Court Holds

Identities of Putative Class Members in Wage and Hour/Overtime Pay Class Action Who Contact Plaintiffs’ Lawyer in Response to Precertification Letter Protected from Disclosure to Class Action Defense Attorneys by Right to Privacy

On May 15, 2006, a California appellate court addressed a discovery issue arising out of a putative class action filed against Tenet Healthcare on behalf of hourly employees alleging failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to pay overtime. Tien v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 528 (Cal.App. 2006). During the precertification discovery proceedings, plaintiffs’ lawyer asked for the identity and contact information of every class member in the putative class action. In response to obvious privacy concerns, the parties eventually agreed to a procedure whereby a neutral letter was sent to a randomly selected group of approximately 6% of the class members, advising them of the lawsuit and inviting them to contact plaintiffs’ lawyer if they wanted more information. Id., at 532-334. The letter expressly stated, “You are not required to call anyone regarding this lawsuit unless you personally wish to do so. If you do elect to call, please be assured that doing so will not have any negative effect on your employment with any Tenet-related facility.” Id., at 533 (bold in original). Tenet’s class action defense attorneys later sought to discover the names of the people who contacted plaintiffs’ lawyer in response to the letter; plaintiffs sought a protective order on several grounds, including the class members’ right to privacy. The trial court ordered the information provided to defense attorneys concluding that the privacy rights “were outweighed by Tenet’s right to the discovery.” Id., at 534.

Eventually, the matter ended up before the California Court of Appeal on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that the information sought by Tenet was relevant, Tien, at 535-36, and that it was not protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine, id., at 536, or the attorney-client privilege, id., at 536-38. The Court held, however, that disclosure of the identities of the class members who contacted plaintiffs’ lawyer would violate their right to privacy. Id., at 539.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

In Advance Of Potential Class Action Trials, Merck’s Vioxx Defense Team Secures Another Victory

On July 13, 2006, Merck’s defense team convinced a New Jersey jury that it was not responsible for the 68-year-old plaintiff’s heart attack – securing an important victory in advance of potential trials in the class action cases that have been filed in Vioxx cases. By our count, Merck has taken 6 Vioxx cases to trial (all against individuals): it has prevailed in three (3), it has lost two (2), and it “split” the sixth (the case involved two plaintiffs; Merck won as to one of the plaintiffs and lost as to the other).

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Court Certifies Class Action Against State of New York Arising From Recreational Water Illnesses Suffered At Water Park: Class Action Defense Cases

The State of New York must mount a class action defense to a lawsuit seeking damages for illnesses caused by contaminated water at a water park run by New York’s Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historical Preservation. New York’s Seneca Lake Park’s Sprayground was closed in August 2005 after tests revealed that its water tanks were contaminated with cryptosporidiosis, one of many types of recreational water illnesses. The tests were run after the Health Department received more than 100 complaints from people who fell ill after visiting the water park.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

California Court Certifies Employment Law Class Action Against Brinker International

Restaurants’ Class Action Defense Fails to Prevent Class Certification in Meal and Rest Breaks Lawsuit The Los Angeles Times reports today that a California court has certified a class action against the operator of restaurant chains Chili’s and Romano’s Macaroni Grill alleging failure to provide employee meal and rest periods required by California state law. According to the report, Judge Patricia Cowett of the San Diego Superior Court certified the class action on behalf of both current and former employees.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized