CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW

Tag: BARBARA S. JONES

MDL Panel Centralizes Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation

English: Half a dozen home-made cookies. Ingre...

Image via Wikipedia

Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California moved to centralize litigation consisting of eleven actions pending in ten districts in the Northern District of California.  In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2012 WL 432607 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. Feb. 8, 2012).  The MDL Panel transferred ten actions to the Northern District of California and, assigned to the Judge Edward J. Davila for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Id.

 

Background

No party opposed centralization.  Id.  The Panel found that six actions shared factual allegations that “Facebook improperly tracked users’ internet activity after users had logged out of their Facebook accounts.” Id. Plaintiffs in all actions brought claims under the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2511. Additional claims include violation of the Stored Electronic Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2701, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1030, as well as common law claims for intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and trespass to chattels.  Id.

The Panel concluded that “Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.”  Id.

Judges

Before John G. Heyburn II, Chairman, Kathryn H. Vratil, Barbara S. Jones, Paul J. Barbadoro, Marjorie O. Rendell, and Charles R. Breyer.

By CHARLES JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

MDL Panel Centralizes Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA Omega 3 Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation in the Southern District of Florida

Horizon organic milk

Horizon organic milk (Photo credit: Nicole Lee)

Defendants Dean Foods Co. and WhiteWave Foods Co. sought centralization of five actions based in Arkansas, California, Illinois and Florida.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1407, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to the Southern District of Florida and assigned them to Hon. Joan A. Lenard for centralized pretrial proceedings.  In re Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA Omega 3 Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2012 WL 432621, MDL No. 2324 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. Feb. 9, 2012).

Background

No party opposed centralization.  Plaintiffs in the Western District of Arkansas, Middle District of Florida and Southern District of Florida actions supported centralization in the Southern District of Florida.  Plaintiffs in the Southern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois actions supported centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.

The MDL Panel found that the actions shared factual questions arising out of allegations that defendants’ representations regarding certain milk products fortified with DHA Omega-3 FN1 under the brand name “Horizon Organic Milk” FN2 were misleading insofar as they claimed that the milk supports “brain health” in children and adults.

The Panel decided to order centralization in the Southern District of Florida because several plaintiffs supported centralization there, and that district “is presiding over fewer MDL dockets than other proposed districts.” Id.

Judges

Before John G. Heyburn, II, Chairman, Barbara S. Jones, Paul J. Barbadoro, Marjorie O. Rendell, Charles R. Breyer.

Enhanced by Zemanta

MDL Panel Denies Unopposed Motion to Centralize 2 Nissan Dashboard Class Actions

2009 Infiniti FX35 photographed in Washington,...
Image via Wikipedia

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to centralize pretrial proceedings in the In Re: Nissan North America, Inc., Infiniti Fx Dashboard Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2164, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (June 3, 2010).  Nissan North America, Inc.  (Nissan) moved for centralized pretrial proceedings in two putative class actions, pending in two districts, alleging that the dashboards in two of its vehicle models were prone to unsightly bubbling.  Id. 1355.  The litigation consists of one action pending in the Western District of Missouri (Hope) and one action pending in the Eastern District of Texas.  Id. Plaintiffs in both actions supported Nissan’s motion. Id.

The Panel denied Nissan’s motions, finding a lack of overlapping classes and noting that the same attorneys represent plaintiffs in both actions:

There are only two actions in this docket. Although both are putative class actions, the Hope plaintiffs seek certification of a Missouri-wide class, while the Aaron plaintiff seeks certification of a Texas-wide class.  Thus, there are no overlapping classes.  In addition, the same attorneys represent plaintiffs in both actions.  While the actions do share some questions of fact regarding whether the dashboards of Infiniti FX35 and FX45 crossover vehicles are prone to unsightly bubbling, the parties have not convinced us that those questions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time.  Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.  See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978);  see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, s 20.14 (2004).

Id. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Nürnberg Google Street View
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 »