August | 2010 | CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW

August 25, 2010

Treble Recovery Under Civil Code § 3345 Not Limited to CLRA; But It Does Not Apply to an Award of Restitution Under the UCL

: Image via Wikipedia

In Clark v. Superior Court, 235 P.3d 171, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 876 (Cal. Aug. 9, 2010), senior citizens brought an action against an annuity seller for unfair competition pursuant to BPC 17200, seeking treble recovery. The Los Angeles Superior Court granted judgment on the pleadings for the annuity seller’s on the treble recovery claim, without leave to amend. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 25, 2010

MDL Panel Transfers Google Street View Litigation to Northern District of California

: Image by Olaf_S via Flickr

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred In re Google, Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, — F. Supp. 2d —-, 2010 WL 3303204 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. Aug. 17, 2010) to the Northern District of California, assigned to Hon. James Ware. The cases involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that Google intentionally intercepted electronic communications sent or received over class members’ open, non-secured wireless networks.

Plaintiffs in one District of District of Columbia action moved for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in the other District of District of Columbia action and a potentially-related action supported the motion. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 24, 2010

MDL Panel Denies Centralization in In re Diversified Lending Group, Inc., Securities Litigation

: Image via Wikipedia

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied centralization in In re Diversified Lending Group, Inc., Securities Litigation, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 3270231 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. Aug. 17, 2010). Common defendant Jackson National Life Insurance Company moved for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation consists of five actions pending in three districts: three actions in the Central District of California and one action each in the Middle District of Florida and the Western District of Michigan.

The Panel concluded that common questions of fact predominated “as all actions arise out of an alleged fraud perpetrated by Diversified Lending Group.” Id. *1. But only one of the actions contained a demand for class certification and it is already pending in the Central District of California. “Consequently, the Panel sees virtually no possibility for inconsistent pretrial class certification rulings.” Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 24, 2010

Judge William Alsup of Northern District Rejects Preemption Argument in Federal Flood Insurance for Home-Equity Line Class Action

: Image by Getty Images via @daylife

In Hofstetter v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, No. C 10-01313 WHA, 2010 WL 3259773 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2010) (slip. op.), a putative class action involving federal flood insurance requirements for home-equity lines of credit, defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC moved to dismiss all federal and state claims alleged.

Defendants argued that they were required under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (“NFIA”) to purchase $175,000 worth of flood insurance in connection with plaintiff Sheila Hofstetter’s home-equity line of credit, resulting in plaintiff being billed $1,575 in insurance premiums. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 23, 2010

Toyota Hybrid Brake Litigation Transferred to Central District of California by MDL Panel

: Image via Wikipedia

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Toyota hybrid brake litigation to the Central District of California. In re Toyota Motor Corp. Hybrid Brake Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 3270115 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. Aug. 17, 2010). The litigation consists of eight actions listed pending in the Central District of California, the Middle District of Alabama, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the District of Maryland, and the Northern District of Texas. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 22, 2010

Central District Certifies ERISA Class

: Image by scottwills via Flickr

Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California certified an ERISA class in Tibble, et al. v. Edison International, et al., No. CV 07-5359 SVW (AGRx), 2009 WL 6764541 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2009). Plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(2) & (3) to recover for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties with respect to the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”).

Plaintiffs allege that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by (1) engaging in prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA § 406; (2) breach of the duty of loyalty in violation of ERISA § 404(a)(1) (A); (3) breach of the duty of prudence in violation of ERISA § 404(a)(1)(B); and (4) violation of the terms of the Plan documents in violation of ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D). (SAC ¶ 105.)

Plaintiffs sought certification of the following class: Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 21, 2010

Ninth Circuit Holds That Incomplete Disclosures About Sales Force Performance Are Not Material Omissions

: Image via Wikipedia

In In re Cutera Securities Litigation, 610 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010), a fraud-on-the-market class action suit, plaintiff investors appealed the dismissal of their securities fraud class action against Cutera, Inc., its chief executive officer, Kevin Connors, and its chief financial officer, Robert J. Santilli, under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The investors alleged that Cutera provided false and misleading revenue projections and failed to disclose material information about the shortcomings of Cutera’s sales staff.

Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice for failure to state claim. Investors appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Cutera’s alleged incomplete disclosures about its sales force are not material omissions made in violation of the securities laws, and that Cutera’s earnings projections fall within the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking projections under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA“), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 21, 2010

Blog Notice: In Trial, So Will Post Shorter Updates This Week

: Image by Getty Images via @daylife

I’m in trial the week of August 22, 2010. I’ll continue updating the latest case law developments and jury verdicts, but the updates will be more abbreviated.

Best,

Charles

Leave a comment

August 19, 2010

Ninth Circuit Holds That Deadline for Objection to Class Action Fee Award Must Be Set for Date After Plaintiff’s Counsel Files Fee Motion

: Image by Butte-Silver Bow Public Library via Flickr

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday clarified the timing of objections to class counsel’s fee requests under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23(h), holding that objectors must be given a deadline to object after plaintiff’s fee application is submitted. The litigation in In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-17372, — F.3d —-, 2010 WL 3239460 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2010), which involved stock option backdating, settled early on, at the motion to dismiss stage.

A settlement class was certified, the settlement of $117.5 million in cash was approved, and attorneys’ fees of 25% ($29.375 million) were awarded pursuant to the settlement agreement. No objections were made to the settlement itself, but two objections were made to the proposed attorneys’ fees. Id. *2. The court described lead counsel’s fee application as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 19, 2010

MDL Panel Centralizes BP Securities Litigation in Southern District of Texas to Judge Keith P. Ellison

: Image by DVIDSHUB via Flickr

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize certain securities litigation related to BP in the Western District of Louisiana. In re BP P.L.C. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2185, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 3238321 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. Aug. 10, 2010). The actions all involve alleged violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78a, et seq., and share allegations that BP and its executives misled the investing public concerning the company’s safety measures and commitment to conducting safe operations. The Panel transferred the proceedings to the Southern District of Texas, to Judge Keith P. Ellison. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Month: August, 2010