Law | CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW

August 18, 2010

Third District Finds Class Action Waiver Enforceable

Image by funadium via Flickr

In an important case regarding the enforceability of class action waivers, the Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of such a waiver. In Walnut Producers of California et al. v. Diamond Foods, Inc., No. C060346, — Cal. Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 3213613 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Aug. 16, 2010), plaintiff Walnut Producers of California (“Producers”) appealed the trial court’s order striking all class action allegations from their complaint. Plaintiffs claimed that a class action waiver in their arbitration agreements with Defendant Diamond Foods, Inc. (“Diamond Foods”), was unconscionable. The trial court disagreed. The Court of Appeal, affirmed. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 16, 2010

Morgan Stanley Wage and Hour Class Action Remanded to San Diego Superior Court for Failure to Show Diversity or Amount in Controversy

: Image via Wikipedia

Judge James Lorenz faced a remand motion in Martinez v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Civil No. 09cv2937-L(JMA), 2010 WL 3123175 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010). The court remanded, holding that Defendants did not meet their burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the matter in controversy for the class action exceeds $5 million or that Plaintiff’s individual claims exceed $75,000.

Defendants removed this wage and hour class action from state court based on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1441, or in the alternative, on the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand arguing that Defendants failed to establish the requisite diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional amount in controversy. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

August 14, 2010

Northern District Approves 28.9% Fee Award in Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement

: Image by IXQUICK via Flickr

Judge Jeffrey S. White approved a wage and hour class action settlement of a non-reversionary $1.8 million, inclusive of $520,000 in attorneys fees, in Ozga v. U.S. Remodelers, Inc., No. C 09-05112 JSW, 2010 WL 3186971 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).

Plaintiff filed a class action in the Alameda Superior Court on February 17, 2009, alleging that Defendant U.S. Remodelers Inc. violated the California Labor Code and violated California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by: (1) requiring its Installer employees to work substantial amounts of time without compensation; (2) regularly failing to provide Installers with meal and rest periods; and (3) refusing to reimburse expenses that Installers incurred in the performance of their work duties, including travel expenses and equipment costs.

Defendant removed the action to this Court, and Plaintiff subsequently moved to remand. But before the hearing on the motion to remand, the parties reached a settlement, which was facilitated, in part, by a mediation that occurred on October 1, 2009, before Michael Loeb. The parties also engaged in some discovery, and Class Counsel interviewed a number of Settlement Class members.

The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable. As noted, the settlement was reached after the parties engaged in discovery, conducted a meditation, and continued to engage in arms-length negotiations. The parties agreed to a Settlement payment of $1,800,000.00, none of which will revert to the Defendant. The overall reaction to the settlement has been positive. The Claims Administrator has received 156 claim forms from the 270 Class Members. (Id., ¶¶ 20-21.) Neither the Claims Administrator nor the Court received any objections to the Settlement. No Class Member appeared at the final approval hearing to object. According to the Claims Administrator, assuming the Court were to grant in full Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and service awards, approximately $1,108,917.72 would be available to distribute Class Members who submitted timely claim forms, for an average award of just over $7,000. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.)

The Court approved costs to be paid to the Claims Administrator of $10,000.00 from the Settlement Fund.

Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Service Awards

Plaintiff brought an unopposed fee application, seeking $600,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, $11,274.89 in costs, and $10,000.00 in service awards to him and to class member Boris Moskovich.

Plaintiff’s counsel sought an award of attorneys’ fees based on the percentage method, asking for 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund. The court agreed to depart from the 25% benchmark. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that 25% is benchmark and “usual” range of awards is 20-30%); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that 25% is benchmark). But the court would not vary from the benchmark to the degree requested by counsel.

The Court concludes that counsel did achieve an excellent result for the class, that the reaction to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive, and that Plaintiff faced significant risk in prosecuting this case given the uncertain state of California law in similar wage and hour cases. The Court also recognizes that other courts have awarded settlement fees of up to 33 1/3% in such cases. However, the parties reached this settlement quickly and did not engage in any motion practice. See, e.g., Navarro v. Servisair, 2010 WL 1729538 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2010) (finding that proposed award of 30% of settlement fund unjustifiably departed from benchmark based in part on speed with which parties reached a settlement). Moreover, the requested percentage would amount to award that is more than double the fees actually incurred by counsel. Compare Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (awarding 33 1/3% of settlement fund which was “significantly less” than asserted lodestar).

Thus the court found that an award of $520,000.00 was reasonable.

The court found counsels’ requests for costs in the amount of $11,274.89 reasonable.

The court also approved service awards in the amount of $10,000.00 for the lead plaintiff and for a class member.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 14, 2010

Fourth District Invalidates Class-Wide Arbitration Clause

: Image via Wikipedia

In this next case, Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 3192912 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 13, 2010), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District upheld the trial court’s denial of a petition to compel arbitration.

Defendant DCH Temecula Imports LLC (DCH) appealed the denial of its petition to compel arbitration. The trial court found that an arbitration clause in a retail installment sales contract (RISC) for the sale of a car to plaintiff Amberlee Fisher, which included a waiver of the right to bring a class action lawsuit or request classwide arbitration, was unenforceable. Fisher opposed enforcement of the arbitration clause, arguing that it required her to waive an unwaivable statutory right to bring a class action lawsuit under the California Legal Remedies Act (the CLRA) and that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Claims and Class Definition

Fisher filed her complaint for injunctive relief, restitution, rescission, and damages both on her own behalf and as a class action lawsuit. The class definition was:

those who purchased a vehicle from DCH from July 28, 2003, to then present, and (1) after signing an RISC, DCH rescinded the original RISC and had the consumer sign a subsequent RISC for the same vehicle, but the new contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%, and/or (2) who executed an RISC for the purchase of a vehicle for personal use where registration and licensing fees were not properly disclosed on a separate line in the contract as required.

The six causes of action for the class were violation of the CLRA and Civil Code sections 1750 and 1780, subdivision (a)(2) for backdating contracts; violation of the CLRA and Civil Code sections 1750, subdivision (a) and 1770, subdivision (a) for improperly designating license and registration fees; violation of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (the ASFA) and Civil Code section 2981 for backdating the second sales contract; violation of the ASFA and Civil Code section 2981 for improperly designating license and registration fees; commission of unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 for backdating the second sales contracts; and commission of unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 for failing to properly designate license and registration fees.

Petition to Compel Arbitration

On December 1, 2008, DCH filed its notice of petition and petition for orders compelling binding contractual arbitration, severing injunctive relief claims if inarbitrable, staying or dismissing proceedings pending arbitration, and staying injunctive relief claims pending arbitration if inarbitrable (petition to compel arbitration). According to the petition to compel arbitration, DCH had demanded that Fisher enter into binding arbitration prior to filing the complaint, but she had refused.

The binding arbitration clause appeared in a box on the back of the agreement in both the first and second RISC that Fisher signed.

The page on which it appeared was neither signed nor initialed. In bold letters it stated, “ARBITRATION CLAUSE PLEASE REVIEW–IMPORTANT–AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.” It stated: “Either you or we may choose to have any dispute between us decided by arbitration and not in court or by jury trial.” (Capitalization omitted.) It also stated, “If a dispute is arbitrated, you will give up your right to participate as a class representative or class member on any class claim you may have against us including any right to class arbitration or any consolidation of individual arbitrations.” (Capitalization omitted.) It further stated, “You expressly waive any right you may have to arbitrate a class action.” Finally, it included language that, if the waiver of class action lawsuits or classwide arbitration was found unenforceable, the entire arbitration clause was unenforceable.

The court faced the issue of whether the waiver of a state statutory right (CLRA) constitutes a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The court held that the “right to bring a class action lawsuit, an unwaivable statutory right under the CLRA, is ‘a separate, generally available contract defense not preempted by the FAA.'” Id. *11 (quoting Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal. App. 4th 77, 95 (2003)).

The manner in which the contract was written in this case gives the appearance that the class action waiver was included in the arbitration agreement in order to force Fisher to waive her statutory rights, and DCH could be protected by arguing that the FAA preempted the CLRA because the waiver was included in the arbitration agreement. This is the type of arbitration agreement criticized in Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1079 for hiding these types of waivers of unwaivable rights.

Our hands are tied as to ordering arbitration of any of Fisher’s individual claims in the agreement. It was DCH who chose to put the classwide arbitration and class action lawsuit waiver in the arbitration agreement and then included the “poison pill” provision that invalidated the remainder of the arbitration agreement if the classwide arbitration waiver was unenforceable. We cannot sever the offending class action waiver, as we are bound by the language of the contract. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling denying DCH’s petition to compel arbitration.

Id. *12.

Judges and Attorneys

Justice Betty Ann Richli wrote the opinion for the court. Justices Hollenhorts and McKinster concurred.

The appeal was taken from the Superior Court of Riverside County, Hon. Mac R. Fisher.

Defendant and Appellant was represented by Christian J. Scali and Wade R. Kackstetter of Manning, Leaver, Bruder & Berberich.

Jonathan Morrison submitted an amicus brief for California New Car Dealers Association on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff and Respondent was represented by Hallen D. Rosner and Christopher P. Barry of Rosner, Barry & Babbitt.

The Complex Litigator and The UCL Practioner also discuss this case.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 13, 2010

Central District Remands Wage and Hour Class Action Based on Local Controversy Exception to CAFA

: Image via Wikipedia

In Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., No. CV 10-2242 ABC (AJWx), — F. Supp. 2d —-, 2010 WL 3156850 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2010) a wage and hour plaintiff brought a motion to remand, after the case was removed pursuant to CAFA. The Court granted Plaintiff’s remand motion.

While Defendants have demonstrated that more than $5,000,000 is in controversy under CAFA, Plaintiff has demonstrated that CAFA’s Local Controversy exception applies in this case. Therefore, the Court must decline to exercise jurisdiction. See Serrano, 478 F .3d at 1022. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court.

Judges and Attorneys

The judge is Hon. Audrey B. Collins.

Plaintiffs were represented by Mark P. Estrella, Miriam L. Schimmel, Robert E. Byrnes, Sue Jin Kim of Initiative Legal Group APC and Payam Shahian of Strategic Legal Practices APC.

Defendants were represented by David L. Terry, David L. Woodard of Poyner Spruill LLP and Sarah N. Drechsler and Timothy M. Freudenberger of Carlton Disante & Freudenberger LLP.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 13, 2010

Northern District Approves $4.5 Million Settlement Against RadioShack, With $1.5 Million in Fees, and $5,000 Incentive Payments to Each Lead Plaintiff

: Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen (whose confirmation to the Northern District of California bench has unfortunately been stalled for far too long) approved the class settlement and attorney fee application in Stuart v. RadioShack Corp., 2010 WL 3155645, No. C-07-4499 EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).

This class action was initiated in state court in June 2007, alleging that RadioShack had improperly failed to reimburse its employees for expenses they incurred in using their personal vehicles to perform inter-company transfers (“ICSTs”). Plaintiffs claimed for reimbursement pursuant to California Labor Code § 2802 and for a violation of California Business & Professions Code. Subsequently Plaintiffs added a claim for recovery of penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The case was removed in August 2007. And in February 2009, Judge Chen granted the motion for class certification, certifying a class consisting of “all persons employed by RadioShack within the State of California, at any time from June 3, 2003, to the present, who drove their personal vehicles to and from RadioShack stores to carry out ICSTs and who were not reimbursed for mileage.” On October 1, 2009–nine days before trial was scheduled to begin–the parties reached a settlement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, RadioShack will pay a total of $4.5 million for the release by the class, as an all-inclusive sum (proceeds to be distributed to the class, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, costs of claim administration, incentive payments to the class representatives, and the PAGA award to the state), without reversion of any of the $4.5 million to RadioShack.

After attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, costs of claim administration, incentive payments, and the PAGA award to the state have been deducted from the $4.5 million, the remainder for distribution to the class members and/or donation to charity is $2,796,563.31.

Each class member’s award “depends on the number of weeks that the class member worked.”

The Court found that, importantly, “the amount available to the class after deductions for, e.g., fees and costs–i.e., $2,796,563.31–is not far off what the class might be awarded if it were to prevail on the merits after a trial.” Id. *4.

Plaintiffs’ counsel asked for an award of $1.5 million (i.e., one-third of the total settlement amount), plus litigation expenses which total $78,436.69.

The Court has reviewed the expenses and determined that they are reasonable. The Court notes that the sum is not excessive given that this litigation has been ongoing for more than three years.

Attorneys Fees Application

The attorneys presented a fee application claiming $1.5 million as a lodestar for fees–excluding work performed in preparing for final approval and any post-judgment work that may be needed. The $1.5 million sum represents 2,116.69 hours of work over a period of more than three years, at hourly rates of the billing attorneys ranging from $600 to $1,000.

After reviewing the billing records submitted by counsel as well as the declarations regarding the hourly rates of counsel, the court found that the number of hours was reasonable given the length of the lawsuit and the vigorous disputes over the course of the litigation (e.g., regarding RadioShack’s defense that it had no duty to reimburse until an employee made a request for reimbursement).

The court did express some “concerns about the $1,000 hourly rate” claimed by one of the attorneys. “Based on the Court’s experience, this is an inordinately large hourly rate, even if the Court were to assume that [the attorney] has fifty years of experience.” But the Court concluded that “given the 2,116.69 hours incurred, the average hourly rate for a fee award of $1.5 million total is $708, an amount that the Court deems appropriate, particularly when no multiplier is being sought on top of the lodestar.”

Compared to the percentage of the fund, the court noted that “the total settlement amount to be paid by RadioShack (with no possibility of reversion), the fee award represents one-third of the settlement amount.” The court found that this was “well within the range of percentages which courts have upheld as reasonable in other class action lawsuits.”

The court also approved an incentive award of $5,000 for each of the two class representatives, for a total of $10,000. The Court concluded that the incentive payments were appropriate and reasonable. “Although the class representatives did not enter this litigation until late in the proceedings, due consideration must be given to the fact that they were willing and ready to go to trial.” The court noted that if the “class representatives had asked for a larger sum, the Court might well have reached a different conclusion, but the $5,000 sought for each representative was viewed as “relatively modest.”

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 13, 2010

Southern District of California Denies Remand in Wage & Hour Case Asserting CAFA Jurisdiction

: Image via Wikipedia

In Johnson v. U.S. Vision, Inc., No. 10-CV-0690 BEN (CAB), 2010 WL 3154847 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010) the Southern District of California faced a remand motion in a wage and hour case that had been removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1453.

Judge Roger T. Benitez denied the motion to remand. Defendant presented a calculation of damages, supporting its calcualtions with declaration from, among other people, the Assistant Controller, Operations, for U.S. Vision, Inc., responsible for enforcing Defendants’ payroll policies and procedures. The declaration set forth Plaintiff’s most recent hourly rate of pay, as well as the specific number of optical managers and optechs employed during the Class Period, average hourly rates of pay for managers and optechs, number of employees who separated their employment with Defendants, and number of possible wage statements for each employee per year.

Plaintiff argued that Defendants miscalculated the amount in controversy because:

Defendants erroneously assumed “each class member was damaged to the same extent that Plaintiff Johnson was, and that every putative class member, among other things, worked off the clock and incurred a break violation every single day of the entire class period.” Mot. 6. Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendants have access to more specific figures to calculate the amount in controversy and that “each [class] member can be identified using information contained in Defendants’ payroll, scheduling and personnel records.” Compl. ¶ 39.

But the Court held that absent a “persuasive argument that Defendants are required to prove actual damages in order to remove this action, however, the Court must consider the amount put in controversy by the Complaint, not the ultimate or provable amount of damages.” (citing Rippee v. Boston Market Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005).) The Court found that, having based their calculations on allegations provided in the Complaint, Defendants proved with a legal certainty that CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold is satisfied.

Despite Plaintiff’s attempt to provide supplemental information in the motion to remand, Defendants were entitled to, and did, use the factual allegations in the Complaint to calculate the amount in controversy. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that defendant must use specific factual allegations or provisions in the complaint to support its argument of proper removal). The Court finds that Defendants provided detailed and competent evidence supporting their calculations and showing, to a legal certainty, that the jurisdictional threshold under CAFA is met. To the extent subsequent events show that jurisdiction would not be proper, the Court can address remand at that time. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 13, 2010

Ninth Circuit Holds That No Private Right of Action Exists to Enforce the Provisions of § 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940

: Image via Wikipedia

In a shareholder class action, Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments, et al., 2010 WL 3169400 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2010), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether there is a private cause of action to enforce the provisions of § 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA” or “1940 Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-13(a). That section generally requires an investment company to obtain shareholder approval before deviating from the investment policies contained in the company’s registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

The Court held that “nothing in § 13(a) as originally enacted or as subsequently amended either creates a private cause of action or recognizes one exists with the clarity and specificity required under Supreme Court precedent.”

Marc J. Gross argued for plaintiff-appellee Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc.

Darryl P. Rains argued for defendants-appellants Schwab Investments, et al.

The case was argued before Circuit Judges Mary M. Schroeder N. Randy Smith and Hon. James Maxwell Moody, the Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arkansas, who was sitting by designation. Circuit Judge Schroeder wrote the opinion of the Court.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 12, 2010

Sketchers Sued Over “Shape-Ups” Brand Shoes

: Image by gorgeoux via Flickr

Sketchers faces two class action suits over claims made related to its popular “Shape-ups” brand of shoes. You can read more here.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

August 10, 2010

One Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Waiting Time Penalty Claim Where Wages Not Sought

: Image by adulau via Flickr

Hon. Howard R. Lloyd today issued an unpublished opinion today confirming that a one year statute of limitations pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a) applies to a plaintiff’s claim for waiting time penalties. Pinheiro v. ACXIOM Information Security Services, Inc., 2010 WL 3058081 (N.D. Cal. August 03, 2010) (Slip Op.)

Plaintiff argued that a three year statute of limiations applied, citing Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 999 P.2d 706, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 (2000), in which the plaintiff sought both unpaid wages and waiting time penalties. The court rejected this argument and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim without leave to amend.

Plaintiff Carla Pinheiro was an employee of defendant Aerotek, Inc. (Aerotek), an employment agency. She alleges that she was assigned to work as a temporary customer service representative for defendant Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (Quest). The gravamen of Pinheiro’s complaint as to Aerotek is that Aerotek wrongfully terminated her employment (Sixth Claim for Relief) and failed to timely pay her final wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203 (Seventh Claim for Relief). Plaintiff also asserts a claim against Aerotek under California Bus. & Prof.Code section 17200 (Eighth Claim for Relief) based upon the alleged failure to timely pay her final wages.

Aerotek moved to dismiss Pinheiro’s seventh and eighth claims for relief concerning the alleged failure to timely pay her final wages.

The Court found that, based upon the law as it currently stands, plaintiff’s seventh and eighth claims for relief as to Aerotek should be dismissed.

Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203 COA

At issue was whether Pinheiro’s claim for waiting time penalties is subject to a one-year statute of limitations (Aerotek’s view) or to a three-year limitations period (Pinheiro’s position). The court held that the one-year statute of limitations under Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a) applies, and plaintiff’s seventh claim for relief therefore is time-barred. See McCoy v.Super. Ct., 157 Cal.App.4th 225, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 (2008) (holding that in action seeking only waiting time penalties, and not wages, the one-year statute of limitations under Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a) applies). Cf. Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, Case No. C07-02951 SI, 2008 WL 4447713 *4 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2008) (concluding that the three-year statute of limitations period under Cal. Labor Code § 203 applied where plaintiff sought unpaid wages, as well as waiting time penalties). Plaintiff’s cited authority, Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 999 P.2d 706, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 (2000), in which the plaintiff sought both unpaid wages and waiting time penalties, but the Court held that this “does not compel a contrary conclusion.”

Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 COA

The court held that remedies under California Labor Code § 203 are penalties, and not restitution, and therefore cannot be recovered under the UCL. In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F.Supp.2d 609, 619 (N.D. Cal.2007); Tomlinson v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B., 359 F.Supp.2d 891, 895 (C.D. Cal.2005). The court dismissed the 17200 claim as to Aerotek without leave to amend.

Alison Marie Miceli, Michael James Grace, and Graham Stephen Paul Hollis for Plaintiff.

Jonathan Morris Brenner, Caroline McIntyre, and Alison P. Danaceau for Defendants.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Leave a comment

Tag: Law