Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Class Action Fairness Act’ Category

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first class-action-related decision of the 2013-14 term today, or more precisely, its first non-mass-action-related decision of the term.  In Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), the Court held that a parens patriae action brought by the Mississippi attorney general on behalf of Missouri citizens was not a “mass action” subject to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  My partner Casie Collignon has a more detailed write-up on the decision at the BakerHostetler blog Class Action Lawsuit Defense.

Read Full Post »

One question that defense practitioners often face when preparing a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is whether they must attach affidavits or other proof of the facts submitted in support of removal at the time the removal notice is filed, or whether the submission of proof can wait until removal jurisdiction is challenged by the plaintiff.

A removal notice is a pleading that requires factual allegations but should not require verification or proof of the facts alleged, and this is how most federal courts interpret the removal statute.  See, e.g.Meridian Security Insurance Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 539-40 (7th Cir. 2006) (“If [the] allegations [by the party asserting jurisdiction] of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof.”) (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)).  However, some district courts have ordered remand due to a defendant’s failure to attach affidavits or other support for those allegations to the removal notice itself.  Recently, in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant review of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas remanding a class action for this reason.  No. 13-603 (10th Cir. Sept. 17, 2013) (refusing to grant review of Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, No. 12-4157-JAR (D. Kan. May 21, 2013)).  Because the votes on whether to accept review were evenly divided, the petition for review was denied.

Judge Hartz wrote a sharp dissent to the order denying review, stating “I think it is important that this court inform the district courts and the bar of this circuit that a defendant seeking removal under CAFA need only allege the jurisdictional amount in its notice of removal and must prove that amount only if the plaintiff challenges the allegation.”  Nonetheless, he recognized the reality that:

After today’s decision any diligent attorney (and one can assume that an attorney representing a defendant in a case involving at least $5 million—the threshold for removal under CAFA—would have substantial incentive to be diligent) would submit to the evidentiary burden rather than take a chance on remand to state court; if so, the issue will not arise again.

Judge Hartz went on to admonish other members of the court for not being more willing to take on issues relating to CAFA removal jurisdiction, stating that

I would add a few words about our discretionary jurisdiction to review removals under CAFA. CAFA is a newcomer to the scene and its intricacies are unfamiliar to many of us.  It will always be tempting for very busy judges to deny review of a knotty matter that requires a decision in short order.  But we have an obligation to provide clarity in this important area of the law.

Sadly, just as it is tempting for busy appellate judges to avoid having to deal with the intricacies of CAFA jurisdiction, it is tempting for many federal trial judges to look for any excuse to help clear their civil dockets by remanding removed cases.  This is of course not true of all federal trial judges, but it happens enough that the appellate courts need to step in from time to time to avoid the law from developing in a way that thwarts CAFA’s legislative purpose of expanding the availability of a federal forum to class action defendants.  However, until the appellate courts decide to heed Judge Hartz’s plea to take on more of these issues, the state of the law is likely to continue to be slanted in favor of remand whenever there is the slighest doubt.

In the meantime, as Judge Hartz points out, a diligent defense attorney in the Tenth Circuit will need to submit evidentiary support along with a removal notice.  The same is true of any other Circuit where the issue has not been resolved definitively by the Court of Appeals.  If the law of the Circuit is clear that factual information need not be attached to the removal notice, then there can be strategic and cost-saving advantages to not attaching the information.  However, if the law is not clear, then as the Dart Cherokee Basin case illustrates, a “diligent” attorney should take the safe approach and attach supporting affidavits to the removal notice.

Read Full Post »

Editor’s Note: The following guest post was authored by Sara Collins, contributor to the consumer finance website, NerdWallet.  The views expressed in Sara’s article are her own.  Although those of us who tend to represent defendants in consumer class actions may not agree with all of Sara’s views on the benefits of class actions, we can certainly learn something from reading a consumer advocate’s views on the subject.  The article also provides an easy-to-follow primer on how class actions work.  Many thanks to Sara for her contribution. 

Class Actions – Do They Actually Help Consumers? 

By Sara Collins

Consumers in the United States are sometimes victims of bad business behavior. These behaviors cover a huge range of bad acts, particularly in the field of securities. Class actions allow consumers to band together and fight against bad business. As such, they have a number of benefits for consumers and are quite helpful in evening the corporation versus consumer playing field.

What are Consumer Class Actions?

A consumer class action is simply a lawsuit which takes place in a federal or state court. The case is brought by one or a small handful of individuals, acting as representatives for a larger group of consumers, known as the class. Typically the case is seeking damages on behalf of the named individuals in addition to the entire class.

Why is a Consumer Class Action Necessary?

Traditionally, class actions are used to combine small-dollar claims for a large number of people. One small claim is generally too small for a cost-effective suit. Consumer class actions offer a helpful alternative, justifying the litigation expenses and immensely improving the consumer’s odds of success, particularly when it comes to larger corporations.

How do Consumer Class Actions Work?

When a class action is first brought, the court initially decides whether it is a proper class action. This is a process known as class certification. The parties then work towards a trial, though settlement negotiations can take place at any point.  If the parties decide to settle the case, the court must approve the settlement and then order notice given to class action members.

Do Class Actions Work?

They definitely do. Billions of dollars are given back to the public every year which come from consumer class actions. In most cases, the money is given directly to the victims of the suit, rather than going into the hands of the government, lawyers or other non-consumers.

What Long-Term Effects do Consumer Class Actions Cause?

Class actions help to make bad business practices unprofitable. Class actions aggregate the power of isolated consumers, allowing class actions to compete against corporate behemoths. It levels the playing field, forcing businesses to operate in honest and trustworthy ways.  Markets in other countries where class actions are not allowed often suffer from corporate abuses like stock manipulation, insider trading and other problems.

Do Lawyers Benefit Excessively From Consumer Class Actions?

One argument used by businesses to protest the prevalence of consumer class actions is to claim that the lawyers benefit excessively from the cases. In fact, attorney fees in class action cases average just between 20 and 30 percent of the amount recovered. In stark comparison, personal injury lawyers typically reap 35 to 50 percent of their case winnings. Clearly businesses are using false arguments in an attempt to eliminate class actions and thus damages sought against them.

What is the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005?

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was enacted by Congress in order to curb abuse of class action suits in state courts. Evidence showed that many class actions were being filed which benefited the counsel, rather than the consumers. Additionally, many cases were filed in courts which showed prejudice against business defendants, a problematic issue.

CAFA was enacted to extend federal jurisdiction to these state courts in order to diminish such abuses. CAFA has had a mild success and while most benefits are for businesses, some benefits are extended to consumers. Primarily, the legislation limits the monetary benefits for the attorneys. This ensures that money won in settlements goes to the members of the class, rather than the plaintiff counsel.

Consumer class actions are needed to ensure the financial safety of consumers, particularly in the realm of securities. Class actions allow consumers to band together, combining resources in order to sue a corporation as a singular entity. In turn, all consumers reap the benefits of the settlement, helping to prevent future bad behavior from the corporation in question. Class actions undoubtedly have a positive effect on the world of consumers and it is vital they stay legal for the foreseeable future.

Sara Collins is a writer for NerdWallet, a personal finance site dedicated to helping consumers learn about new ways to save money.

Read Full Post »

The Supreme Court issued its first-ever decision interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) today, and its holding strengthens defendants’ right to a federal forum in class actions. 

The question presented in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, slip op. (U.S., Mar. 19, 2012) was a simple one: can a plaintiff avoid federal jurisdiction under CAFA by stipulating to less than $5 million in damages on behalf of the putative class?  The Court’s unanimous answer was no, and its reasoning is also simple:

Stipulations must be binding . . . [and] a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.

Slip op. at 3-4.  

Does Standard Fire mean the end of any debate about the federal courts as a forum for class actions?  Probably not.  Justice Breyer’s well-reasoned opinion makes the issue sound like a no-brainer, but this is an issue that had been far from settled in the lower courts.  The fact that the Supreme Court had to intervene on this issue is in part a symptom of a lingering antagonism by many lower federal court judges toward diversity jurisdiction.  The ruling is unlikely to change the predisposition of some federal judges to look for ways to clear their dockets by remanding diversity cases to the state courts.  Although the effectiveness of this particular method for avoiding CAFA jurisdiction is now settled in defendants’ favor, that is not to say that other tactics for avoiding federal jurisdiction in class actions won’t succeed in the future.

Read Full Post »

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument Monday in the case of Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles.  At issue is whether a plaintiff can avoid federal removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) by stipulating to a recovery of less than $5 million on behalf of  a would-be class.  Debra Lyn Bassett has a good preview of the argument over at SCOTUSblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/01/argument-preview-avoiding-removal-by-limiting-damages/

Read Full Post »

Having been focused on several other speaking and writing projects recently (in addition to my day job), it’s taken longer than I had hoped to comment on several recent class-action-related decisions by the federal circuit courts of appeals.  Here’s a brief summary of three recent decisions of note:

Washington State v. Chimei Innolux Corp., No. 11-16862 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011) – joining the Fourth Circuit in holding that a parens patriae action brought by state attorneys general or other state officials for the benefit of the state’s citizens is not a “class action” for the purposes of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., No. 10-20305 (5th Cir., Sept 27, 2011) – holding in the absence of an express provision in the settlement agreement to the contrary that unclaimed funds should be distributed pro rata to class members who participated in the settlement as opposed to being given to charity as a cy pres distribution.  Take note of the concurrence by Judge Edith H. Jones, which makes a strong argument that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary or express waiver of the right to recover unclaimed funds, the equities favor returning those funds to the defendant rather than paying them to the class or distributing them to charity.

Esurance Ins. Co. v. Keeling, No. 11-8018 (7th Cir., Sept. 26, 2011) – holding that when punitive damages are at issue, the correct standard is whether it would be “legally impossible” for the plaintiff to recover an amount of punitive damages that, when combined with the amount of compensatory damages sought, would exceed the $5 million amount in controversy threshold under CAFA, but concluding that it was not legally impossible under Illinois law, even though it was unlikely, that $4.4 million in punitive damages could be awarded in a case where the compensatory damages were slightly more than $600,000.

A great resource for more timely commentary and analysis on recent class action decision in the federal courts of appeals is Alison Frankel’s blog On the Case.

Read Full Post »

Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued its third of four class action-related decisions for the October 2010 term.  In Smith v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-1205, the Court held that a federal court exceeded its authority when it issued an injunction preventing a state court from considering whether to certify a class on claims in which the federal court had previously denied class certification. 

Justice Kagan’s opinion involves a fairly straightforward academic analysis of the “re-litigation exception” to the federal Anti-injunction Act and principles of issue and claim preclusion: where a state court applies a different class certification standard than the standard applicable under FRCP 23, the issue decided in the federal action on class certification is not the same as the one to be decided in the state court proceeding.

However, the practical impact of the decision is that a plaintiffs’ lawyer who is unsuccessful in seeking class certification in federal court can try again in a state that applies a different class certification standard.  Of course, the successive class action is potentially subject to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but if one of the exceptions to CAFA applies, such as the home state or local controversy exception, the Court’s decision paves the way for multiple bites at the class certification apple.

Read Full Post »

One of the more significant issues relating to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) that has percolating through the federal courts over the past few years is whether parens patriae actions brought by state attorneys’ general seeking to recover damages for their citizens are “class actions” that can be removed to federal court.  On Friday, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision holding that parens patriae actions are not class actions subject to removal under CAFA.  West Virginia v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 11-1251 (4th Cir. May 20, 2011) (to be published).

CAFA Law Blog has been covering this issue extensively in recent months, and I expect they will have an entertaining post about the case in the coming days.  For CAFA Law Blog posts on the topic, see this link.

Read Full Post »

United States District Court Judge Janet C. Hall issued an order today rejecting the proposed settlement in Wilson v. DirectBuy, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-590 (JCH) (D. Conn. May 16, 2011) (Here is a link to the slip opinion).  The controversial settlement had been opposed by 39 attorneys general, a nonprofit consumer rights organization, and had been singled out by commentators for criticism as a model for class action abuse. 

Judge Hall’s order found fault with many aspects of the settlement, including both the proposed settlement’s procedural and substantive fairness.  Procedurally, Judge Hall was concerned with the nascent stage of the record at the time of the settlement and the lack of discovery performed before the settlement.  Among the court’s substantive concerns were that the in-kind benefits provided under the agreement were similar to a coupon settlement, that the parties had overstated the risks to class members of litigating the case to trial, and that the maximum value of the settlement was too low in comparison to the best possible recovery in order for the settlement to be within the range of reasonableness. 

The court’s opinion expressly does not rule on, although it does discuss, several of the other issues raised by objectors, including the sufficiency of the email notice given to class members and an order by the magistrate judge enjoining a similar lawsuit filed by the State of West Virginia.

It is important to note that the court’s opinion does not at all portend a win for the class at trial.  In fact, pointing to the potential for statewide class actions under individual state consumer protection laws and enforcement actions by individual state attorneys’ general:

[t]he court notes that these state consumer protection statutes may not be suitable for litigation on a nationwide class action basis. . . . However, it appears to the court that they may be well suited for statewide class actions, especially within the states with broadly written consumer protection statutes.  This attempt is already being made in California and Missouri. . . . Further, investigations by state attorneys general are under way in at least a couple states, and, in some states, consumer protection actions can be brought on behalf of consumers. . . .

Therefore, in light of these statutes and the evidence that public and private attorneys are prepared to enforce them, class members appear to have substantially stronger claims than the RICO claims alleged in this case. Because the parties seek to release these state claims via the Settlement Agreement, the strength of these claims must be accounted for in this court’s analysis of the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the Agreement. . . .

Slip op. at 26 (internal citations omitted).

Read Full Post »

As 2010 winds down, it’s time to review the key developments in class action law.  It was an especially busy year for the federal courts, and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court, on issues impacting class action practice.  Here, in chronological order, are 10 key developments from the year that was:

  1. January 5 – In In re Baycol Products Litigation, the Eighth Circuit follows the Seventh Circuit’s lead in upholding the right of a federal court to enjoin a putative statewide class action from proceeding where a federal court had already denied class certification in a case involving substantially similar claims.  (See CAB entries dated January 7 and January 12).
  2. February 23 – In a decision that will impact many class actions removed under the Class Action Fairness Act, the Supreme Court adopts the “nerve center test” as the standard for determining corporate citizenship, in Hertz Corp. v. Friend.  (See CAB entry dated March 2)
  3. March 31 – The Supreme Court holds that states may not regulate the types of claims that may be filed as class actions in the federal courts, in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.  (See CAB entry dated April 8)
  4. April 7 – In American Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, the Seventh Circuit holds that a trial court must rule on challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony relevant to class certification before deciding whether a class may be certified.  (See CAB entry dated May 4)
  5. April 26 – The Ninth Circuit issues its decision in Dukes v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., adopting rigorous class certification standards similar to those previously adopted by the Second Circuit in In re IPO Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), but nonetheless certifying under FRCP 23(b)(2), what has been called the largest employment discrimination class action in history.
  6. April 27 – The Supreme Court seemingly puts an end, for all practical purposes, to the concept of class arbitration by holding that a defendant could not be compelled to defend an arbitration on a class basis where the arbitration clause did not expressly provide for class arbitration, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp.  (See CAB entry dated May 11).
  7. June 24 – In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the Supreme Court deals a fatal blow to “foreign-cubed” class actions, holding that § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 does not allow for fraud claims involving transactions on foreign exchanges that occurred outside the United States. (See case summary at SCOTUS blog).
  8. July 19, October 20 – An Eleventh Circuit panel issues a controversial decision in Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., severely restricting CAFA removal jurisdiction to cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 with respect to at least one class member, but later reverses itself in an October 15 opinion.  (See Guest Post from Eric Jon Taylor and Jon Chally at CAFA Law Blog for more on the first decision and this October 20 CAB entry on the second decision).
  9. November 9 – Supreme Court hears oral argument in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, in which the Court considers whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law holding a class arbitration waiver unconscionable.  (See CAB fsummary of oral argument dated November 17).
  10. December 6 – Supreme Court grants certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, to decide the issue of whether a claim for monetary relief can be certified under FRCP 23(b)(2).  (See CAB entry dated December 7).

Just considering the cases still awaiting ruling before the Supreme Court, 2011 promises to be another exciting year in the world of class actions.  Happy New Year to all!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »