August 6, 2010 10:11 AM | Posted by Garcia, Joanna | Eleventh Circuit, Georgia District Courts
In Loadholt v. Parrish, 2010 WL 2892693 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2010), Magistrate Judge W. Leon Barfield recommended that a Macon State Prison inmate’s motion for class certification be denied for failure to satisfy either the adequacy of representation or the numerosity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that various Defendant physicians associated with Georgia's prison system had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to treat his hepatitis or failing to ensure that he received appropriate treatment for his disease. Plaintiff moved to certify a class of incarcerated Georgia state prisoners who were allegedly similarly not treated for hepatitis. Plaintiff also requested appointment of counsel to represent the class. The Court first noted that because Plaintiff’s motion was filed more than 90 days after he filed his complaint, the Court could simply recommend that it be denied as untimely under the Court’s local rules. Nonetheless, the Court analyzed the substance of Plaintiff’s motion and found that Plaintiff also failed to meet the numerosity and adequacy of representation requirements necessary to maintain a class action under Rule 23.
|
February 17, 2010 9:21 AM | Posted by Garcia, Joanna | Eleventh Circuit, Georgia District Courts
In Heng et al. v. Donald et al., 2010 WL 497347 (M.D.Ga.), Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of "all past and present inmates at the Valdosta State Prison and at other Georgia prisons who have been subjected to or may be subjected to excessive force, summary punishment, or premeditated violence by being beaten while restrained by CERT Team Officers at Valdosta State Prison and by CERT Team Officers at other Georgia prisons in violation of the United States Constitutions, laws and treaties, and the Georgia Constitution and laws." The Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, agreed that Plaintiffs did not meet the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a).
|
October 7, 2009 8:23 AM | Posted by Garcia, Joanna | Georgia District Courts
Are "preliminary" motions for class certification allowed? According to the the Middle District of George, the answer is "no". In Jones v. Bank of America Corporation, --- F.3d ---, 2009 WL 3161696 (M.D.Ga), the Court held that such a "preliminary" motion is procedurally improper and that the statute upon which Plaintiffs relied upon in their "preliminary" motion for class certification did "not even contain the word 'preliminary.'"
|
September 10, 2009 11:05 AM | Posted by Garcia, Joanna | Georgia District Courts
While determining whether to certify a class, the Southern District of Georgia recently sanctioned Defendants for spoliation of evidence and allowed a rebuttable adverse inference relating to documents destroyed by Defendants' agent. The Court, in Smith et al. v. Georgia Energy USA, LLC et al., --- F.R.D. ---, 2009 WL 2486896 (S.D.Ga. Aug. 10, 2009), agreed that Defendants should not be rewarded for destroying the evidence that would provide at least some of the answers to the allegedly individualized questions which Defendants claimed precluded class certification.
|
March 16, 2009 1:16 PM | Posted by Garcia, Joanna | Georgia District Courts
According to the Court in Ojeda-Sanchez, et al. v. Bland Farms, et al., 2009 WL 577602 (S.D. Ga. March 4, 2009), Defendants' communications to Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs can be limited by the Court where there is clear evidence that a potentially abusive situation exists sufficient to warrant a protective order.
|
August 22, 2008 11:36 AM | Posted by Joanna Garcia | Eleventh Circuit, Georgia District Courts
In In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation, 2008 WL 2885951 (N.D.Ga. July 22, 2008), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. rejected arguments by attorneys representing peanut butter consumers to create one class of consumers who purchased jars of peanut butter contaminated with salmonella bacterium and a second class of consumers who fell ill or died after eating it. Judge Thrash stated that, "Under the plaintiffs' trial plan, at least 6,000 individual trials on exposure, injury, causation, damages and other individual issues will have to be prosecuted whether or not a class is certified, presumably by the lawyers already retained by the personal injury claimants. This is not a case where class certification avoids clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly. ... If class certification is denied, these cases will go forward in essentially the same manner they would if a class were certified, only without an expensive, unnecessary, meaningless and largely uncontested 'common' issues trial."
|
May 29, 2008 6:00 PM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Georgia District Courts
In Massih v. Jim Morgan and Associates, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Ga. 2008), the Middle District of Georgia held that a class of insureds could not recover part of a one-time premium they paid for insurance covering any amounts they owed on their car loans after a total loss of their cars. The court granted the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Read more to discover the particular policy provision on which the court relied.
|
November 3, 2007 9:10 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Georgia District Courts
In Futch v. HSBC Bank, 2007 WL 3143715, No. CV407-109 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 24, 2007), the Southern District of Georgia held that 1) it lacked personal jurisdiction over a class action settlement claims administrator where the administrator's only contact with Georgia was mailing a claim form to the plaintiff's address in Georgia; and 2) the plaintiff's claims against the defendant bank were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.
|
October 3, 2007 3:07 PM | Posted by Robert Ciotti | Alabama District Courts, Alabama State Courts, Analysis, Arbitration, Eleventh Circuit, Florida State Courts, Georgia District Courts, Georgia State Courts, Insurance, Middle District of Florida, News, Northern District of Florida, Southern District of Florida
Can differing state laws on the conscionability of class action waivers in arbitration defeat class certification of nationwide classes?
|
September 7, 2007 1:47 PM | Posted by Joanna Garcia | Eleventh Circuit, Georgia District Courts
On August 24, 2007, the Middle District of Georgia held in Harp v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2007 WL 2417392 (M.D.Ga. 2007) that the thirty-day time period did not begin to run on November 30, 2006, the date Defendant received service of process, because the Plaintiff's complaint contained an unspecified damages claim and was therefore not removable. Rather, the thirty-day removal period began to run on May 1, 2007, the date of Plaintiff's deposition. "That is the date on which Defendant first received 'other paper' from the Plaintiff containing information relevant to the actual value of Plaintiff's claim." Id. at *2.
|
August 22, 2007 7:26 PM | Posted by Fentrice Driskell | Georgia District Courts
In Miller v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 2007 WL 2399184 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2002), the Court said yes.
|
August 19, 2007 7:33 PM | Posted by Fentrice Driskell | Georgia District Courts
In Fuller v. Home Depot Services, LLC, 2007 WL 2345257 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2007), the Court said yes.
|
July 16, 2007 12:23 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Georgia District Courts
At a hearing on Class Counsel’s attorney fee application, the Court expressed concerns “with the quality of the evidence supporting an attorneys fees award, including inconsistencies in the evidence submitted, the amount claimed for Plaintiffs’ relatively unsuccessful motion for class certification, and the very small response of the class settlement.” Campos v. Choicepoint Services, Inc., Case No. 1:03-cv-3577-WSD, 2007 WL 2001797, at *2 (N.D. Ga. July 5, 2007). Of the 10,760 notices sent to class members, only 515 members made valid claims. See id.
|
March 27, 2007 11:20 AM | Posted by Joanna Garcia | Georgia District Courts, Insurance
Insured brought putative class action on behalf of persons who were entitled to, but were denied refund of unearned premium on credit insurance coverage upon early termination of their automobile loans. Credit insurer moved for summary judgment on ground of mootness. The court denied the motion and held that insurer's tender of refund to named plaintiff before class could be certified did not under facts moot controversy.
|