CLASS ACTION DEFENSE BLOG
Welcome to Michael J. Hassen's Blog. Here you will find over 2,000 articles related to class actions.
New York Federal Court Converts Defense Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action to Motion for Summary Judgment, Grants Motion, and Awards Defense Attorney Fees and Costs Because Lawsuit was Filed for Purpose of Harassment
After debt collector sent plaintiff a letter demanding payment of a $492 debt, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it (1) demanded payment within 30 days and (2) that the letter’s request for “payment or notice of dispute” within 30 days “might” be interpreted as giving the debtor 30 days from the date of the letter rather than from its receipt. Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs, Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 133, 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). The defense was not amused; and judging from the ruling, neither was the federal court.
The federal court discussed the fact that FDCPA claims are subject to abuse:
Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized
Read more...
Peter Prengaman of The Associated Press last night reported that a lawsuit has been filed in California by a company, Global Horizons, claiming that another company, Munger Bros., breached an agreement to hire 600 blueberry pickers so that it could instead hire illegal immigrants from two competing temporary placement agencies, Ayala Agricultural Services and J & A Contractors. Prengaman reports that the complaint is premised on California’s unfair competition laws, and quotes the President of Global Horizon as stating that “[the] hiring of illegal immigrants is hurting our business badly.
Class Actions In The News Uncategorized
Read more...
Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court Order Granting Motion to Certify Class Action Against Car Manufacturer
On August 18, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court order certifying a nationwide class action against Ford Motor Company, arising out of an allegedly defective throttle body assembly in Mercury Villager minivans causing the accelerator to stick. Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. August 18, 2006). Plaintiff filed suit in state court on her own behalf because the accelerator in her 1999 Villager would get stuck even after Ford repairs to the throttle body assembly. Ford removed the action to federal court, and plaintiff’s lawyer sought certification of a nationwide class action, apparently under Rule 23(b)(2). The district court instead certified a statewide class under Rule 23(b)(3), because the class action complaint sought monetary rather than injunctive relief. Id., at 551-52. Defense attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order under FRCP Rule 23(f). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and rejecting defense arguments that “this is a case of ‘certify now, worry later.’” Id., at 552.
Defense attorneys argued that because it provided a “repair or replace” warranty to car purchasers, certain class members may never suffer the damage alleged in the complaint. The Sixth Circuit summarized Ford’s argument as follows: “because the class as a whole cannot recover, the district court abused its discretion by certifying a statewide express warranty class.” Id., at 552. Plaintiff countered that Ford was seeking a ruling “on the merits” and that ultimate success is not a proper basis for denying class certification. Id. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “[plaintiff] has the better of the arguments at this stage of the litigation.” Id.
Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized
Read more...
Massachusetts District Court Grants Joint Motion To Decertify Class And Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss New Hampshire State Law Class Action Overtime Claims
Salaried employees filed a putative class action alleging that they were misclassified as exempt and seeking overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and under New Hampshire state law. Trezvant v. Fidelity Employer Servs. Corp., 434 F.Supp.2d 40 (D. Mass. 2006). During the litigation, the Massachusetts federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to conditionally certify an FLSA class action, and a defense motion to dismiss the state law claims contained in the class action complaint. Later still, the district court granted a joint motion to decertify the class because only a few class members opted into the lawsuit. The court then issued a single memorandum discussing these rulings. Id., at 42.
Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized
Read more...
Federal District Court Grants Defense Motion for Judgment on Pleadings and Dismisses Class Action Because § 36(b) Claims under Investment Company Act Cannot Proceed as a Class Action But Rather Must be Brought Derivatively A putative class action alleging securities fraud was filed against investment advisors, distributors and directors of Dreyfus brand mutual funds (“Dreyfus”); the class action complaint asserted that “investment advisors and distributors of Dreyfus brand mutual funds, engaged in fraudulent fee arrangement schemes in violation of federal and state law.
Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized
Read more...
Judge Refuses to Assign Related Case to Judge Who Handled Prior Cases Because of Uncertainty Created by Appeal
An employee filed a putative class action against his employer alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA in that its Profit Sharing and Savings Plan imprudently invested in the employer’s securities and published misleading information about the safety of those securities. Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 567 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Class action defense attorneys agreed with the employee’s request that the class action be deemed “related” to two other cases against the employer. Defense attorneys then requested that the three cases be reassigned to a different judge (St. Eve) who handled a lawsuit against the employer alleging securities laws violations under PSLRA (Private Securities Litigation Reform Act). The district court denied the defense request.
Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized
Read more...
Fifth Circuit Holds that Defense Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Should have been Denied Because State Removed Class Action to Federal Court Disabled persons filed a putative class action against the State of Texas alleging that its fee-based parking placard program violated the federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA); the defense removed the action to federal court and then moved to dismiss the action on state sovereign immunity grounds.
Class Action Court Decisions Removal & Remand Uncategorized
Read more...
As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA.
§ 1681j. Charges for certain disclosures
(a) Free Annual Disclosure
(1) Nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies
(A) In general.
All consumer reporting agencies described in subsections (p) and (w) of section 1681a of this title shall make all disclosures pursuant to section 1681g of this title once during any 12-month period upon request of the consumer and without charge to the consumer.
(B) Centralized source.
Subparagraph (A) shall apply with respect to a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a(p) of this title only if the request from the consumer is made using the centralized source established for such purpose in accordance with section 211(c) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.
(C) Nationwide Specialty Consumer Reporting Agency
(i) In general.
The Commission shall prescribe regulations applicable to each consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a(w) of this title to require the establishment of a streamlined process for consumers to request consumer reports under subparagraph (A), which shall include, at a minimum, the establishment by each such agency of a toll-free telephone number for such requests.
(ii) Considerations.
In prescribing regulations under clause (i), the Commission shall consider–
(I) the significant demands that may be placed on consumer reporting agencies in providing such consumer reports;
(II) appropriate means to ensure that consumer reporting agencies can satisfactorily meet those demands, including the efficacy of a system of staggering the availability to consumers of such consumer reports; and
(III) the ease by which consumers should be able to contact consumer reporting agencies with respect to access to such consumer reports.
(iii) Date of issuance.
The Commission shall issue the regulations required by this subparagraph in final form not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.
(iv) Consideration of ability to comply.
The regulations of the Commission under this subparagraph shall establish an effective date by which each nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency (as defined in section 1681a(w) of this title) shall be required to comply with subsection (a), which effective date—
(I) shall be established after consideration of the ability of each nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency to comply with subsection (a); and
(II) shall be not later than 6 months after the date on which such regulations are issued in final form (or such additional period not to exceed 3 months, as the Commission determines appropriate).
FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized
Read more...
To aid California class action defense attorneys in anticipating 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.
Class Actions In The News Uncategorized
Read more...
As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., we provide the text of the FCRA. This article sets forth for the procedure to be followed if a consumer disputes the accuracy of the reported debt:
§ 1681i. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy
(a) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information
(1) Reinvestigation Required
(A) In general.
Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’ s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.
(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate.
Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.
(C) Limitations on extension of period to reinvestigate.
Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, during the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A), the information that is the subject of the reinvestigation is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency determines that the information cannot be verified.
(2) Prompt Notice of Dispute to Furnisher of Information
(A) In general.
Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer or a reseller in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer or reseller.
(B) Provision of other information.
The consumer reporting agency shall promptly provide to the person who provided the information in dispute all relevant information regarding the dispute that is received by the agency from the consumer or the reseller after the period referred to in subparagraph (A) and before the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Determination That Dispute Is Frivolous or Irrelevant
(A) In general.
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.
(B) Notice of determination.
Upon making any determination in accordance with subparagraph (A) that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 business days after making such determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency.
(C) Contents of notice.
A notice under subparagraph (B) shall include
(i) the reasons for the determination under subparagraph (A); and
(ii) identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.
FCRA Class Actions Statutes & Rules Uncategorized
Read more...