CLASSIFIED: Carlton Fields' Class Action Blog

Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company has been sued in a $200 million class action lawsuit by former financial representatives of the firm.  The plaintiffs claim that Northwestern Mutual denied them minimum wage and overtime pay. 

 

A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Dannon Co, Inc. which accuses the company of mounting a massive advertising campaign to convince consumers to pay more for yogurt containing probiotic bacteria because of the product’s health benefits.  The plaintiffs seek reimbursement for all purchases of Activia, Activia Light, and Dan Active, and the plaintiffs further demand that the company engage in a corrective advertising campaign.   

 

A group of five public pension funds have won the right to lead a class action lawsuit against Bank of America for its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.  Investors accuse Bank of America of misleading them regarding Merrill Lynch’s financial health prior to the deal even though it was clear that Merrill Lynch would suffer a $15.84 billion loss.

 

Stream Energy has been sued in a class action lawsuit accusing the company of running a pyramid scheme.  In the pyramid scheme, new participants pay money to the people who recruit them, then hope to recoup their investment by recruiting others.  The pyramid collapses when there are not enough new recruits.

Class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida against Florida developer Ginn.  The lawsuit alleges that the Ginn Development Company, LLC and Lubert-Adler Partners, LP created a false appearance of high demand for properties, artificially inflated the values of the properties, and misrepresented the amenities to be developed. 

 

California homeowners have filed a class action against KB Home, Countrywide Financial, and LandSafe Appraisal Services, claiming that the companies conspired to artificially rig home appraisal values and sale prices.  The plaintiffs claim that the defendants inflated home prices by $300 million in California alone.

The defendant in Thomas v. Bank of America Corp., No. 09-11143 (11th Cir. June 12, 2009), removed the case to federal court asserting that, according to the affidavit it provided, the elements of a mass action under CAFA were satisfied.

The plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that the evidence did not support federal jurisdiction under CAFA. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit agreed, noting that the plaintiff’s filings--the only evidence from which jurisdiction can be established--were insufficient to establish CAFA jurisdiction.

A subscriber to online dating service Match.com filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the company misled subscribers by keeping the profiles of cancelled members online.  The lawsuit alleges that the company put subscribers in the position of feeling humiliated after sending emails to cancelled members and receiving no response.

In In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that under the "rigorous analysis" required by Rule 23, "[f]actual determinations supporting Rule 23 findings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence." The court further held that "the court's obligation to consider all relevant evidence and arguments extends to expert testimony, whether offered by a party seeking class certification or by a party opposing it." Specifically, the court held that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether the expert theory proffered by the plaintiffs that a conspiracy to maintain prices could impact the entire class, despite a decrease in prices for some customers in parts of the class period, was "susceptible to proof at trial through available evidence common to the class."

Although the Eleventh Circuit has not weighed in on what evidentiary standard is required by the "rigorous analysis" under Rule 23, the Northern District of Alabama recently adopted the Third Circuit's preponderance of the evidence standard in a securities fraud class action case. In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., --- F.R.D. ----, 2009 WL 1040107 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2009). In doing so, the court stated, "[t]hough the court does not presume to impose this standard in the Eleventh Circuit, the court finds the preponderance of the evidence standard appropriate in this case." The court ultimately held that at least some plaintiffs met "their burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence the requisites for class certification." 
 

In a case of first impression in this circuit, the Southern District of Florida in Hicks v. Client Services, Inc., 2009 WL 1591111 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009), wrestled with the question of whether a class action is a superior method of adjudication where recovery under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would be de minimis on a class wide basis, and significant if brought on an individual basis.

In addressing this case for a third time, the Eleventh Circuit in Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., No. 08-13446 (11th Cir. May 28, 2009), held that the district court abused its discretion in denying class certification, primarily because the district court improperly analogized plaintiffs’ RICO claims to claims brought under Title VII.

In denying the plaintiffs’ motion for remand, the Southern District of Florida in Galstaldi v. Sunvest Communities USA, LLC, 256 F.R.D. 673 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2009), confirmed that the Class Action Fairness Act’s “event or occurrence” exception to federal jurisdiction for mass actions applies only where a single event or occurrence is at issue.

Zurich-based reinsurer Swiss Re thinks so.  In a recent report, Swiss Re concludes that "climate change-related liability will develop more quickly than asbestos-related claims" and "the frequency and sustainability of climate change-related litigation could become a significant issue within the next couple of years."  Swiss Re points out that although the first asbestos claims in the 1950's were not successful, later suits have been successful.  Swiss Re predicts that the same litigation cycle could occur with respect to climate change claims, which so far have not been successful, but which could be in the future, especially given the current political climate.

Swiss Re is not alone in comparing climate change lawsuits to mass tort litigation:  lawyers who filed a climate change suit last February on behalf of the Alaskan city of Kivalina plan to use the "same game plan" used by plaintiffs' lawyers in tobacco litigation to recover damages from oil, coal, and electric companies whose emissions have allegedly shortened the season during which the sea was frozen, causing severe coastal erosion.  Specifically, the lawyers plan to prove that the companies conspired to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, preventing measures that might have slowed the problem.

Read more to learn about the industries at risk due to these and other climate change legal theories and how the current political climate may impact this litigation risk.

Surgery centers filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Georgia against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia alleging that the insurer unfairly reimbursed out-of-network providers.

A Georgia appeals court reversed a trial court's decision dismissing a putative class action brought by consumers against Georgia Natural Gas alleging that the gas company overcharged them for the standard variable-rate plan.

After a class action lawsuit was filed against Liberty National Life Insurance alleging that the insurer discriminated against Haitian Americans, Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) began investigating the insurer.  After several months of investigation, the OIR has issued an order to the insurer asking it to provide proof that it did not violate state laws that prohibit discrimination. 

Two hospitals filed an antitrust class action lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania against two suppliers of blood reagents alleging that they have conspired since 2000 to increase the price for blood reagents by as much as 1,000 percent and have illegally allocated customers.

In Altamonte Springs Imaging, L.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Nos. 3D08-652, 3D07-3009, 2009 WL 1531610 (Fla. 3d DCA June 3, 2009), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) providers brought a class action lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging that the insurer failed to pay correct consumer price index (CPI) adjustments for MRI reimbursements in personal injury protection claims as required by section 637.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes.  The parties entered into a proposed class action settlement agreement, agreeing on the methodology for making the CPI adjustment.  This week, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the settlement, rejecting arguments by an intervenor objecting to the settlement.  Carlton Fields represented the appellees before the Third District.  Read more to learn about the court's reasoning.

On May 28, 2009, the Supreme Court of Florida announced the adoption of certain amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure that are intended to provide procedures to improve case management of complex civil litigation. The amendments were proposed by the Task Force on the Management of Cases Involving Complex Litigation, and were adopted by the Supreme Court with slight modifications.

Social Security recipients brought a class action against Bank of America alleging that the bank violated California state law by taking overdraft fees from accounts set up to receive Social Security benefits.  This week, the California Supreme Court overturned a jury verdict in favor of the class, holding that banks could properly collect overdraft fees from such accounts.  The attorney who represented the Social Security recipients says that some class members lost as much as 20% of their monthly income in a single day due to overdraft fees.

Nine lawsuits have been filed against a number of financial institutions and operators in Western Pennsylvania alleging that they violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by failing to post signs on or around ATMs notifying customers of fees. 

The United States Justice Department is investigating whether some technology companies violated antitrust laws by agreeing not to actively recruit employees from each other, according to an article published in the New York Times based on information from people with knowledge of the investigation.

The United States Supreme Court will decide whether Merck investors can maintain a securities class action against the company as a result of its disclosures regarding Vioxx.  A federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the statute of limitations had expired.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.  The Supreme Court will now decide when the statute of limitations began to run.

A federal district court judge in Colorado approved a $695 million settlement resolving a securities class action against Qwest Communications International, Inc.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will decide the proper venue for the Chinese drywall class action lawsuits.  Last Thursday, the MDL Panel heard arguments in favor of the following cities:  Miami, Tampa, Fort Meyers, New Orleans, and Columbus, Ohio.

Purchasers of units within the Trump International Hotel and Towers in Fort Lauderdale Beach, Florida filed a class action lawsuit this week alleging, among other things, that they were misled about the involvement of Donald Trump in the project.  The purchasers seek a refund of their deposits and punitive damages.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Air Tran Airways and Delta Air Lines, alleging that the two air carriers colluded to start charging customers an extra fee to check bags.

The California Supreme Court revived a class action suit against the tobacco industry, ruling that smokers could hold the tobacco companies accountable for deceptive advertising. 

 

A Massachusetts judge approved a $10.65 million settlement of a class action law suit filed against the U.S Smokeless Tobacco Company for price-fixing.

In Campbell v. State, -- So. 2d --, 2009 WL 886227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the First District resolved the appeal of an attorney against whom sanctions were imposed for pursuing "baseless litigation in a class action lawsuit against the State."  What happened?

The Florida Third and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have issued class certification opinions in the last two months.  Which way did they go?

In Edwards v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Slip Copy 2009 WL 1269511, Civil Action No. 07-0160-KD-C (May 4, 2009), the Alabama Southern District Court granted the motion to intervene in the class action matter in part, but limited the scope of the intervening plaintiffs’ complaint allegations to the claims, class definition, and legal theories for relief already before the court in the second amended complaint.  The interveners were not permitted to bring a complaint which according to the court would “greatly expand” the claims, class definition, and legal issues in the case because it would be prejudicial to the defendant.

A U.S. District Judge in New York has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit over Costco’s annual membership renewal practices.  The plaintiffs allege that Costco shortchanged them on membership benefits when Costco did not reset the renewal date after members renewed their membership. 

 

A federal appeals court has revived a Tampa class action lawsuit.  The suit seeks money for Florida shoppers whose credit and debit cards were swiped in a data breach that hit 109 Sweetbay supermarkets. 

 

A Vioxx class action lawsuit is rejected by a California judge.  The judge ruled that the patients and insurers could not sue as a group.  The judge found that the patients paid varying amounts for the drug and had too many other differences to sue jointly.