October 16, 2009 9:53 AM | Posted by Christian, Kathryn | Alabama District Courts | Link
In In re HealthSouth Corporation Securities Litigation, Nos. CV-03-BE-1500-S, CV-03-BE-1501-S, CV-03-BE-1502-S, 2009 WL 3152226 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2009), the Northern District of Alabama certified a class of HealthSouth bond purchasers, finding that the bondholders' claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act represented a "prototypical securities class action," although the court excluded from the class definition for the Section 11 claim bondholders whose purchases were made before the registration statement at issue was filed. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the bondholders were not entitled to a presumption of reliance and therefore could not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
|
June 11, 2009 2:39 PM | Posted by Christian, Kathryn | Alabama District Courts, Analysis
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."
|
May 14, 2009 5:34 PM | Posted by Huhta, Blaise | Alabama District Courts
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.
|
March 14, 2009 10:42 AM | Posted by Huhta, Blaise | Alabama District Courts
This matter, Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Walters, 2009 WL 562854 (M.D. ALA. March 5, 2009), came before the Middle District of Alabama on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Plaintiff Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. originally brought this action in state court. The three defendants, Michael Walters, Jennifer Walter and Chester Driskell, removed the action invoking the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Id. at *1.
The Court first explained that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Generally three types of jurisdiction exist: federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). This act expanded federal jurisdiction to include interstate class actions. It gave federal courts diversity jurisdiction over class actions where at least one member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a different state from any defendant, and the total amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Id. For the proposes of CAFA the term “class action” is defined as “any civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure...” Id.
|
November 24, 2008 7:39 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
In Matthews v. Town of Autaugaville, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (M.D. Ala. 2008), the plaintiff brought a class action against the mayor of Autaugaville, Alabama as well as several police officers, alleging that his traffic citations violated his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Police standards required that police officers making an arrest either be certified or be supervised by a certified officer. The plaintiff was arrested by provisionally appointed uncertified officers. The plaintiff argued that his arrest violated his fundamental right to liberty and that the fine arising from the arrest violated his fundamental right to property. He also argued that he was denied equal protection because he was treated differently than other citizens of Alabama. The court rejected all of these arguments and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. To learn more about the court's reasoning, read more.
|
June 23, 2008 7:59 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
In Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. TDI Managed Care Services, Inc., No. 2:05-CV-293-MEF, 2008 WL 2428214 (M.D. Ala. June 17, 2008), the Middle District of Alabama granted a motion for class certification filed by pharmacies claiming that they were entitled to be reimbursed at a higher rate pursuant to their contracts with a pharmacy benefits manager.
|
June 23, 2008 6:43 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
In Grimes v. Rave Motion Pictures Birmingham, L.L.C., No. 07-AR-1397-S, 2008 WL 2338131 (N.D. Ala. May 28, 2008), the Northern District of Alabama declared that the damages provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
FACTA prohibits vendors from printing more than the last five digits of a customer's credit card number on a receipt. If the vendor fails to comply with FACTA, the customer is automatically entitled to "damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000" and is also entitled to recover punitive damages.
The defendants argued that they would go out of business if they had to pay the statutory damages under FACTA to all class members and that FACTA therefore deprived them of their property without due process of law. The court stated that, under FACTA, it could see "no honest way to avoid certifying a class" and "no honest way to approve a settlement that awards less than $100 to each class member." The court concluded that it "must follow Congress, even if it means bankruptcy for every business in the country, that is, of course, unless this Congressional enactment is invalid, as the court thinks it is." Read more about the court's reasoning by clicking the link below.
|
May 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Posted by Joanna Garcia | Alabama District Courts, Alabama State Courts
According to the Middle District of Alabama, the answer is a resounding "NO." In Siniard v. Ford Motor Co., --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2008 WL 2132078 (M.D. Ala. 2008), a product liability non-class action case, Chief Judge Fuller recently confirmed that "it is quite plain from the text of Lowery that the holdings of the case are not limited solely to cases removed under CAFA."
|
March 20, 2008 6:43 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
In Charest v. Williams, No. 2:07cv984-MHT, 2008 WL 686621 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 7, 2008), a pro se inmate challenging the constitutionality of policies and procedures associated with parole eligibility, parole suitability, and parole consideration requested certification of a class of inmates. The court held that the inmate was not an adquate representative of the class, noting that "[w]hile a pro se litigant may bring his own claims to federal court, he may not litigate the claims of others."
|
March 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
In Burnett v. Alabama Pardons & Paroles, No. 2:08-CV-22-WKW, 2008 WL 544920 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2008), the Middle District of Alabama held that a state inmate's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging policies and procedures related to parole eligibility, parole suitability, and parole consideration could not be certified as a class action. Adopting the magistrate's recommendation, the court reasoned that the plantiff would not be able to fairly represent the class and that the common questions of fact did not predominate over questions affecting individual class members.
|
February 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
In Taylor v. XC Satellite Radio, Inc., No. CV-07-BE-0958-S, 2007 WL 4911184 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2007), XM Satellite Radio Inc. ("XM") radio service subscribers brought a class action against XM after they suffered a loss of radio reception when an operating satellite lost its signal. XM offered to pay subscribers credits amounting to more than twice the value of each subscriber's potential loss. The court held that the class action was moot because the entire class, i.e. all XM subscribers, had already been offered compensation amounting to more than what was requested--or even could be requested--as damages in the class action. The court's comments about the named plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief gently encouraged them to consider what type of relief they were really seeking. What did the court say?
|
February 24, 2008 4:01 PM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts, Arbitration
Forgot to include an arbitration clause in your contract? No problem: according to the Northern District of Alabama, all you have to do is simply mail out a notice along with an arbitration clause, and you've got your arbitration agreement. In Milligan v. Comcast Corp., No. 7:06-CV-00809-UWC, 2007 WL 4885492 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2007), the Northern District of Alabama determined that an arbitration agreement mailed to cable service subscribers along with their monthly cable bill was binding and that the subscribers were therefore required to arbitrate their dispute with their cable service provider. How did the court reach this conclusion?
|
February 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Alabama District Courts
The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") permits removal of class action cases to federal court if, among other things, the case was "commenced" on or after February 18, 2005. In May's Distributing Co. Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 523 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (M.D. Ala. 2007), the Middle District of Alabama adopted what it described as the "majority approach," holding that an amendment to a complaint does not "commence" a new action under CAFA if the amended complaint "relates back" to the original complaint under state law. What did the court ultimately decide?
|
December 7, 2007 3:40 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
No, according to a federal district court judge in the Middle District of Alabama.
|
December 7, 2007 3:24 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
Citing the twelve factors from Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), a federal district court in Alabama awarded plaintiffs’ counsel fees in the amount of $1,697,058.00, which was 30% of the fund.
|
October 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
A recent Alabama district court decision shows the continued effect of the Eleventh Circuit’s Lowery decision on the removal of class actions to federal court.
|
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?
|
August 23, 2007 10:05 AM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
In Eslava v. Gulf Telephone Co., __ F. Supp. __, Case No. 04-00297-KD-B, 2007 WL 2298222 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2007), the Court said no.
|
August 23, 2007 10:01 AM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
According to a federal district judge in the Southern District of Alabama, the answer is no.
|
August 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
According to a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, the answer is no.
|
July 16, 2007 12:13 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts | Link
In Constant v. International House of Pancakes, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (S.D. Ala. 2007), the district court remanded a slip-and-fall case to state court due to the defendant’s failure to establish the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence. In noting the significance of its decision, the Court stated: “If this court turns out to be right when, by separate order, it grants the motion to remand filed by plaintiff, . . . the court will have come close to proving that the day of the knee-jerk removal of diversity tort cases from state to federal court within the three states comprising the Eleventh Circuit came to an end on April 11, 2007, when Lowery v. Alabama Power Company, 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) [a class action case], was decided.” Id. at 1308-09.
|
June 25, 2007 10:08 AM | Posted by Amanda Sansone | Alabama District Courts
According to a federal judge in the Southern District of Alabama, the answer is no.
|
June 20, 2007 4:27 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
A United States District Court Judge in the Middle District of Alabama declined to certify the class of juvenile inmates because the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement was not met.
|
June 19, 2007 5:30 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
Although not a class action case, a recent Alabama district court decision shows the effect of the Eleventh Circuit’s Lowery decision on the removal of actions to federal court.
|
June 19, 2007 5:23 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
An Alabama federal court concludes that a litigant’s pro se status renders him ill-suited to fairly and adequately represent the interests of a class.
|
June 19, 2007 4:37 PM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts, Arbitration
According to a district court in the Southern District of Alabama, the answer is no.
|
May 7, 2007 9:02 AM | Posted by Amanda Arnold Sansone | Alabama District Courts
In a short order, a District Judge adopted a Magistrate Judge's ruling that an Alabama inmate could not fairly represent a proposed class, and, therefore, denied class certification.
|
April 9, 2007 3:42 PM | Posted by Amanda Sansone | Alabama District Courts
A state inmate in Alabama unsuccessfully sought to certify a class of all inmates transferred from the Alabama prison system to private correctional facilities. In his one page order, which was later adopted by the district judge, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody concluded that Mr. Grice could not fairly represent the class, and a class action was therefore improper.
|
January 1, 2007 11:18 AM | Posted by Amanda Sansone | Alabama District Courts
After two bench trials, two remedial decrees, numerous annual reports, and over twenty-five years of litigation, an Alabama federal court approves the parties' proposed settlement of desegregation lawsuit involving the public universities of the State of Alabama.
|