Class Action Defense Strategy Blog : Class Action Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Antitrust, Securities, Wage & Hour, Consumer Fraud

By Neil A.F. Popović and Lai Lam Yip

If a defendant in a putative class action settles with the class representative prior to class certification, does the defendant nonetheless have to respond to pre-settlement discovery requests to identify absent class members? According to the California Court of Appeal in Pirjada v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 6144930, Case No. B234813 (Cal. App. Dec. 12, 2011), the answer is no, although the appellate court left open the possibility that the trial court could require some form of notice to protect the interests of absent class members.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Thomas Kaufman and Travis Anderson

In Sky Sports, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2nd Dist., Div. 3, Dec. 15, 2011) Case No. B233820, the California Court of Appeal held that a defendant does not waive its right to compel arbitration of a class action by waiting to file a motion to compel arbitration until the class has been certified, where some of the class members, but not the class representative, signed arbitration agreements with defendant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Judy Suwatanapongched

In American Honda Motor Company, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1367 (2011), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District clarified that, under California law, a party moving for class certification in a breach of warranty action must provide “substantial evidence of a defect that is substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product.” American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 199 Cal. App. 4th at 1375.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Alona G. Metz

Last year, the Ninth Circuit curtailed the use of Rule 12(f) motions to strike in a case of first impression called Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010). The narrow holding of Whittlestone is that "Rule 12(f) does not authorize district courts to strike claims for damages on the ground that such claims are precluded as a matter of law." Id. at 974-975. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a district court "may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." "The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . ." Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (overruled on other grounds in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994)).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 5027488 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Oct. 24, 2011), the California Court of Appeal attempts an end run around the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011). In Concepcion, the Supreme Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA") preempts state efforts to invalidate or re-write arbitration agreements by applying rules that would not result in the invalidation of other contracts. "The principal purpose of the FAA is to ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms." Id. at 1748. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FAA preempts state law restrictions on class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Ted Max and Valentina Shenderovich

In Feder v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey joined the New Jersey Superior Court in weighing in on the issue of whether a retailer violates consumer privacy state law by requesting a customer's zip code at the point of purchase.  Feder was brought by the same plaintiff’s lawyers and with claims similar to those in the state court case Imbert v. Harmon Stores, Inc.(Bed, Bath & Beyond). Imbert was decided last month, but without any written decision, and permitted that case to proceed past the pleading stage. The District Court in Feder, however, issued the first written opinion under the New Jersey statutes, finding that allegations that a zip code was verbally requested could not support a claim under New Jersey law.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Craig Cardon

A New Jersey state trial court has initially weighed in on the issue of whether a retailer violates state law by requesting a customer’s zip code at the point of purchase.  In a case fashioned after the California Supreme Court's decision in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, 51 Cal.4th 524 (Feb. 10, 2011), New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephan Hansbury has denied a motion to dismiss brought by Harmon Stores, Inc. (Bed, Bath & Beyond), finding that the plaintiff Robert Imbert adequately pled a claim for violation of New Jersey's Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:11-17 (“TCCWNA”).   The Court's ruling allows plaintiff to proceed beyond this initial stage, but no liability has been found.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On July 12, 2011, California's Second Appellate District Court of Appeal issued a decision in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the employment context that limit employees' rights to assert class and representative actions. This was the first published state court decision in California regarding employment arbitration agreements since the United States Supreme Court's groundbreaking decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepción ("AT&T Mobility"), where the Supreme Court held that California case law invalidating class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").  (For a detailed analysis of the AT&T decision, please visit Sheppard Mullin's labor and employment blog dated April 27, 2011.)
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By David Snyder and Shannon Petersen

Knapp v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (Case No. G043744, May 20, 2011) __Cal.App.4th__, is the latest in a line of recent class action cases limiting the scope of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298. In Tobacco II, the California Supreme Court held that a named plaintiff in a putative class action must have suffered injury-in-fact to bring a claim for violation under the fraud prong of California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), but that the named plaintiff need not show actual injury to unnamed class members. The court in Knapp held that Tobacco II applies only to standing, and not commonality, which requires a separate analysis. For this reason, the Fourth Appellate District upheld the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification, finding that because AT&T Wireless did not make uniform representations to proposed class members, common issues of law did not predominate over individual issues and a class should not be certified under the UCL.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link