Legal Information | CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW

August 25, 2011

Central District Holds in a “Pick-Off” Case That an Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot Plaintiff’s Claims or Class Claims

Image via Wikipedia

Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of California held that a Rule 68 offer that was not accepted by a lead plaintiff cannot moot either plaintiff’s claim or the putative class claim. Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Company, 2011 WL 3664354, No. CV 10-2007 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011).

Background

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that Defendant directed the mass transmission of wireless spam to the cellular telephones of consumers across the nation to advertise on behalf of the U.S. Navy. Id. *1. Plaintiff received several text messages regarding pursuing a career in the Navy and did not consent to receiving such text messages from the Defendant. Id. Plaintiff sought damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. Plaintiff also sought to certify a nationwide class of “all persons in the United States and its Territories who received one or more unauthorized text message advertisements from Defendant.” Id.

The Parties’ Stipulation

The parties stipulated that they agreed that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification would be extended until after the Defendant answered or otherwise responded to the complaint and conducted pre-certification discovery. Id. Defendant agreed that not waiting would be inefficient. Id. The Court approved the stipulation and extended the deadline until after all parties answered and a proposed discovery schedule was set forth to the Court. Id. *2. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

January 23, 2011

First District Affirms Dismissal of Qui Tam Action for Failure to Identify a “Liquidated and Certain Obligation”

: Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a qui tam action without leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to identify a “liquidated and certain obligation” owed by Bank of America. State of California ex rel. Joseph McCann v. Bank of America, N.A., No. A126494, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2011 WL 72177 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Jan. 11, 2011). Joseph McCann and Douglas Valdetero (Plaintiffs or Appellants) brought a qui tam action against Bank of America (BOA) in the name of the State of California under the California False Claims Act (CFCA; Govt. Code, s 12650 et seq.). Id. *1. Plaintiffs alleged that BOA defrauded the State by failing to pay over to the State amounts that they contend should escheat as abandoned or unclaimed property under the California Unclaimed Property Law (UPL; Code of Civ. Proc. s 1500 et seq.). Id. The trial court sustained BOA’s demurrer to Appellants’ first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend on the basis that it failed to plead a CFCA claim with the required specificity and failed to establish a violation of the UPL. Id.

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that as a check clearing bank, BOA diligently researched errors which could result in debits (i.e., money due) to BOA, but pursued errors which would result in credits (i.e., money payable) to the presenting banks “much less regularly.” Id. *2. They contended that, as a result of a policy decision by BOA not to research credits due at the end of each processing date to presenting banks, they became “unidentified credits” which could not be traced to their rightful owners. Id. They allege that BOA’s practice was to transfer these monies to a suspense account for a short period of time, and to then appropriate them into income. Id. Plaintiffs contended that these unidentified credits are subject to escheat to the State as unclaimed property subject to the UPL. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

January 1, 2011

Northern District Denies Certification of Wage & Hour Class Action

: Image via Wikipedia

The Northern District of California denied class certification of a meal and rest break class action in Washington v. Joe’s Crab Shack, No. C 08-5551 PJH, 2010 WL 5396041 (N.D. Cal Dec. 23, 2010.) (slip op.). Plaintiff Drew Garrett Washington asserted that defendant Crab Addison, Inc. (“Crab Addison”), a company that operates a number of Joe’s Crab Shack restaurants, failed to provide employees with meal and rest breaks, allowed its restaurant managers to manipulate employee time records to deprive employees of pay for all hours worked (including overtime and missed meal break pay), required employees to perform work “off the clock”; and required employees to pay for their own employer-mandated uniforms. Id. *1.

Class Definition

Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify a plaintiff class consisting of “all non-exempt restaurant employees employed by Crab Addison at Joe’s Crab Shack restaurants in California from January 1, 2007, through the present.”

Discussion

The court denied the certification motion. Id. *11. “Plaintiff’s position is that common questions predominate because the main issue is whether—notwithstanding Crab Addison’s written policies—Joe’s Crab Shack restaurants in California followed a common unwritten policy of denying meal and rest breaks, failing to pay employees who did not take breaks, failing to pay for overtime, requiring employees to purchase their own uniforms, and so forth.” Id. Plaintiff contended that the existence of a policy or practice that in effect contradicts Crab Addison’s written policies can be ascertained by an analysis of the data in Crab Addison’s computer systems. Id. “But since plaintiff has failed to adequately explain how that analysis works and exactly what the data shows, he has failed to adequately establish the existence of such a policy or practice.” Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

October 18, 2010

California Class Action Law on Holiday This Week

Image via Wikipedia

I am traveling this week, so California Class Action Law will be updated less frequently. I’ll resume daily updates next week, October 26, 2010.

Cheers!
Charles Jung

Leave a comment

October 15, 2010

Second District Finds Actual Controversy in Declaratory Judgment Action Between Two Former Co-Counsel Relating to Distribution of Attorneys Fees

: Image via Wikipedia

In a dispute over the distribution of attorneys fees between two former co-counsel in a class action lawsuit, the Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed a trial court’s denial of relief in a declaratory action. Leonard Carder, LLP v. Patten, Faith & Sandford, No. B221940, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 3961275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 12, 2010).

Plaintiff and appellant Leonard Carder, LLP filed a declaratory relief action against his former co-counsel Patten, Faith & Sandford (Patten) regarding the distribution of attorney fees awarded in a stipulated judgment in a class action lawsuit. Id. *1. The trial court entered a judgment denying all relief to Leonard Carder on the basis the complaint did not present a case or controversy and that jurisdiction had been reserved with the judge who approved the class action settlement. Id. The Second District reversed, holding that the complaint did articulate a justiciable case or controversy, and the class action court specifically declined to retain exclusive jurisdiction over the distribution of attorney fees. Id.

Background

Leonard Carder and Patten were appointed class counsel in an action tried in 2004 before the Honorable Howard J. Schwab, with the bulk of the work on behalf of the plaintiff class performed by Leonard Carder. Id. The plaintiff class was determined to be entitled to an award of approximately $14.4 million. A loadstar chart in support of the motion for attorneys fees showed 11,414 hours worked by Leonard Carder and 673 by Patten. Id. The loadstar chart justified total fees of $10,879,272 for Leonard Carder and $373,040 for Patten. Id. Judge Highberger signed the parties’ stipulation to reasonable attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $12,475,000 to be paid within 45 days to Leonard Carder “as trustees for distribution to all counsel in accordance with the approved stipulation.” Id. The final provision in the stipulated judgment was that “[t]his court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of this Stipulated Judgment.” Id. *2. Judge Highberger orally stated that if there were unresolved issues regarding distribution of the fees, “you’ll find some other forum to resolve them. They don’t automatically come to me as a matter of exclusive jurisdiction.” Id. All counsel expressed agreement with the court’s statement regarding exclusive jurisdiction. Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

October 15, 2010

Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu Approves Petition for Attorneys Fees of $287,589 From a $359,000 Total Settlement Fund

: Image by BrentDPayne via Flickr

United States Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the Northern District of California granted a petition for attorneys fees and costs in a FDCPA class action of up to $23,539.31 in costs and up to $287,589.25 in attorneys’ fees from a $359,000 total settlement fund. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services, No. C-05-04993 DMR, 2010 WL 3958726, *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2010) (slip op.).

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against Defendant Imperial Merchant Services, Inc., doing business as Check Recovery Systems (“IMS”), for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. section 1692 et seq. Id. *1. Plaintiffs claimed that IMS’ practice of demanding 10% interest, in addition to a statutory service charge for dishonored checks, was not permitted by California law and was unlawful under the FDCPA. Id.

Plaintiffs obtained class certification, and the parties reached a class-wide settlement, which generated a $359,000 total settlement fund. Id. Specifically, the settlement funds are to be used first to pay class notice costs incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel as well as expenses for administering the class settlement. Id. Next, the two class representatives will receive $2,000 each, and qualifying class members will be entitled to a pro rata share of the $100,000 Damages Class Fund, up to 100% of an individual class members’ damages. Id. The settlement funds are then be used to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses. Id. And any remaining settlement funds are to be distributed to designated cy pres recipients. Id. Subject to the terms of the above plan of distribution, the court granted the motion for reimbursement of up to $287,589.25 in attorneys’ fees. Id.

Legal Standard Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

October 7, 2010

Judge Lucy H. Koh Invalidates 38 “Opt-Out” Forms, Grants Curative Notice, and Orders Defendants to Show Cause Why They Should Not be Sanctioned Pursuant to Rule 11

: Image via Wikipedia

Issuing a robust opinion in a putative wage and hour class and FLSA collective action, Judge Lucy H. Koh invalidated opt-out forms solicited by defendants, granted plaintiff’s request for a curative notice at defendants’ expense, and ordered defendants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11. Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., No. 10-CV-01189-LHK, 2010 WL 3835596 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010). The court concluded that based on the record, it appeared likely that “the opt-out forms submitted by Defendants on September 7, 2010 were fraudulently created after the September 2, 2010 hearing on the underlying motions.” Id. *11. The court admonished that “Defendants will not be permitted to defraud this Court by submitting false testimony.” Id. *12.

Background

Named plaintiffs are former workers for A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., which owns and operates spas. Id. *1. Named plaintiffs describe themselves and the majority of the putative class as being native Chinese speakers, with limited English proficiency and little or no formal education. Id. Plaintiffs claim that they paid for a massage training course offered by an entity related to Perfect Day, the Minjian Hand Healing Institute. Id. Plaintiffs allege they paid for the course based on promises, contained in advertisements for the training program, that they would be employed by Perfect Day and would earn a minimum income once it was completed, but that these promises were not honored by Perfect Day, and that Perfect Day has miscategorized them as independent contractors rather than employees. Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

October 6, 2010

Northern District Grants Final Approval of $3.5 Million Class Action Settlement, Reducing Requested Attorneys Fees to 25% From Requested 30%, and Granting $20,000 Enhancement Awards to Each Representative Plaintiff

: Image by sporkwrapper via Flickr

The Northern District of California granted final approval of a settlement in a meal and rest break class action in Ross v. US Bank National Association, No. C 07-02951 SI, 2010 WL 3833922 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010). The complaint was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who worked at a California U.S. Bank in-store branch. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“MPA”) at 1. Plaintiffs alleged that they and other hourly paid employees have not been provided a legally compliant meal and rest period on Sundays and worked off the clock pre and post shift and during their meal breaks. Id. The parties settled the case, and the settlement agreement provides for the payment of compensation to each Participating Class Member based on his or her total workweeks in a Class position during a certain period. Ross, 2010 WL 3833922, *1. The court approved a non-reversionary settlement of $3,500,000 for approximately 3,300 settlement class members. MPA at 2.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs’ counsel sought an award of 30% of the settlement fund, $1,050,000.00, as attorneys’ fees. Ross, 2010 WL 3833922, *1. Plaintiffs estimate that the total time spent litigating this case, including time overseeing claims administration, will be approximately 2647.7 hours. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel listed hourly rates ranging from $185 an hour to $650 an hour. MPA at 14. The court reduced the award to 25%: Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

October 5, 2010

Fourth District Reverses Denial of Class Certification in Mail-In Rebate Case

: Image by blakespot via Flickr

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a denial of class certification in Kershenbaum v. Buy.com, Inc., No. G042303, 2010 WL 3800339 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Sept. 30, 2010). Plaintiff Richard M. Kershenbaum did not receive an advertised rebate on a product he purchased through Buy.com, Inc.’s Web site. Id. *1. Buy.com contended the rebate was offered by the product manufacturer, and it was therefore not responsible for compensating Kershenbaum. Id.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for class certification:

The different definitions of the proposed class contained in the memorandum of points and authorities and the proposed order did not warrant denial of the motion for lack of ascertainability. Any confusion caused by the different definitions could and should have been remedied by the trial court, either by correcting the proposed order, or by independently drafting a new order.

We further conclude the trial court erred in denying the motion on the ground that common questions of law did not predominate. The California choice-of-law provision in Buy.com’s terms of use agreement applies to the claims asserted by the class. Even if the choice-of-law provision did not apply, class certification was still appropriate because significant contacts with California have been shown to exist, and Buy.com cannot demonstrate that any foreign law, rather than California law, should apply to the class claims.

We also conclude the trial court erred in determining the claims asserted by the class were vague.

Finally, Kershenbaum had standing to assert a claim for misleading advertising; the trial court erred in determining otherwise. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

October 4, 2010

Second District Compels Arbitration of Individual Claims in a Class Action Where Arbitration Agreement Contained an Unenforceable Class Arbitration Waiver

: Image by 10ch via Flickr

The Second District compelled a class action plaintiff to arbitrate his individual claims in Maiorano v. Professional Community Management, Inc., No. B220127, 2010 WL 3786721 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 30, 2010). Defendant, Professional Community Management, Inc., appealed from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of a putative class action filed by plaintiff, Ray A. Maiorano. Id. *1. The Second District held that “based solely on the parties’ agreement, we conclude they cannot be compelled to arbitrate on a class basis”, but it directed the trial court to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims. Id. The court reasoned that the “presence of a provision limiting arbitration to individual rather than joined or representative claims did not present a basis upon which the trial court could conclude the present arbitration agreement was permeated by an unlawful purpose.” Id. *4.

Background

Plaintiff brought a class action complaint alleging violations of statutory meal and rest breaks, wage reporting and overtime requirements, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Id. *2. Plaintiff also asserted a cause of action for penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004–Labor Code sections 2698 and 2699. Id. Defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration. The trial court denied defendant’s petition, ruling that: Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Tag: Legal Information