Tag: Complex Litigation

Superfund Recycling Equity Act (SREA) Fee Shifting: PRP Group Liable for Third-Party Defendants’ Attorneys' Fees

Recent Guest Blogger at the National Law Review   Thomas A. Barnard  of  Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP   explains a recent federal district court ruling that a PRP group seeking contribution under CERCLA must pay the attorneys’ fees incurred by a mining company targeted by the PRP group for contribution:  

The Superfund Recycling Equity Act (“SREA”) fee shifting provision puts PRP groups seeking contribution under CERCLA from generators of “recyclable material” at risk of paying the generators’ attorneys’ fees if the generator’s defense succeeds.  A federal district court recently ruled that a PRP group seeking contribution under CERCLA must pay the attorneys’ fees incurred by a mining company targeted by the PRP group for contribution.  Evansville Greenway and Remediation Trust v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., Inc.., No. 07-00066 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2011), Dkt. 917.

Previously, district courts have refrained from awarding defense fees under SREA on the grounds that it would result in “manifest injustice” because the retroactive application of SREA (enacted in 1999) would impose a fee-shifting component that did not exist when the contribution actions were initiated.  See, e.g., RSR Corp. v. Avanti Development Inc., 2000 WL 1449859 at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2000) (“The plaintiffs made their decisions about whom to sue at a time when CERCLA did not allow a prevailing party in a contribution action to obtain costs and fees from its burden.  To burden that decision now with the imposition of the attorney and expert fees of any defendant that prevails under the SREA seems inconsistent with the ‘familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations’ mentioned by the Supreme Court.”); see also U.S. v. Mountain Metal Co., 137 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1282 (N.D. Ala 2001).

In Evansville Greenway, the court determined that the third-party defendant, Solar Sources, Inc., qualified for an exemption to CERCLA liability established by SREA.  Specifically, the court found that Solar Sources had “arranged for recycling” because it sold scrap metal that met a “commercial specification grade for which a market existed,” and that a “substantial portion of the scrap was made available for use in the manufacture of a new product.  This satisfied the SREA requirements for scrap metal generators set forth in 42 U.S.C. 9627(d). 

Having determined that Solar Sources prevailed in its SREA defense, the court then awarded attorney and expert fees under the statute’s fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. 9627(j).  Without referring to the prior case law interpreting this section, the court matter-of-factly awarded the fees “as we are required to do under the statute.”  The third-party complaint against Solar Sources was filed by the PRP group in 1999, after SREA was enacted, but the court did not discuss this timing in awarding defense fees.

Accordingly, PRP groups must carefully consider the risk of liability for defense fees and expenses prior to filing contribution actions against generators of material that potentially falls within the scope of SREA’s exemption.

Copyright © 2011 Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. All rights reserved.

Today March 4th – Last Day for Significant Early Registration Discount(s) for 11th eDiscovery Summit April 27-29th in San Francisco, CA

As Electronically Stored Information continues to proliferate and courts and investigators demand more from businesses, pressure to cut costs are just not going away.

The 11th eDiscovery conference April 27-29th in San Francisco, CA will provide strategies for ediscovery professionals to minimize costs, risks and challenges with ediscovery, and include:

  • Organize an effective records program by tapping into existing resources
  • Determine judges’ priorities when eDiscovery conflicts arise
  • Align the interests of IT, in-house and outside counsel
  • Handle eDiscovery via social media sites and other new sources of ESI
  • Address the tension between preservation and effective data lifecycle management
  • Control the cost of review while maintaining defensibility
  • Save money by employing
  • Early Case Assessment tools and new technologies
  • Compare the Federal rules regarding ESI versus international laws and regulations
  • Explore how the states have emulated Federal rules and how they differ

Early Bird Discount – Register and pay by March 4th 2011 and save $400 to $1,247 off on conference registration(s). Click Here for More Information and to Register.

Seeking CAFA Clarity: A Summary of Recent Case Law Addressing Challenges to Jurisdiction Under the Class Action Fairness Act

Very comprehensive article explaining intracacies of  CAFA  – the Class Action Fairness Act recently posted at the National Law Review by James A. Comodeca and M. Gabrielle Hils of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. 

I.          The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”)

In 2005, CAFA was enacted to assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims, restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction, and benefit society by encouraging innovation and lowering consumer prices.  Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), LEXSEE 109 PL 2.

To achieve these stated purposes, 28 U.S.C. §1332 was amended to expand diversity jurisdiction in class action litigation.  Subsection (d)(2) of §1332 provides that in class action cases involving 100 or more class members:

(2)        The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which–

(A)        any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant;

(B)        any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or

(C)       any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.

CAFA eliminates some of the traditional procedural impediments to removal by no longer placing a 1 year limit on removal, allowing removal even if the defendant is a citizen of the state where the suit was initiated, and no longer requiring the removing defendant to obtain consent to removal from the co-defendants.  28 U.S.C. §1453(b).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(11), mass actions also may be removed to federal court.  A mass action is a civil action in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.  Jurisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action satisfy the $75,000 jurisdictional amount found in of §1332(a), and if the other requirements of CAFA removal are met, including minimal diversity and an aggregate amount in controversy in excess of $5 million.

Even thought CAFA expands diversity jurisdiction, the removing party still has the burden to establish the court’s jurisdiction by demonstrating that the requisite number of plaintiffs exist, that there is minimal diversity, and that the amount in controversy is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.

II.        Exceptions to CAFA Jurisdiction

Certain class actions are specifically excluded from CAFA’s reach.  The exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction are fertile territory for plaintiffs trying to keep their class actions cases in state court.  CAFA’s exceptions are found in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(3) through (5) and include the following:

 

·       the discretionary/interests of justice exception,

·       the local controversy exception,

·       the home state exception, and

·       the state action exception.

A.  Discretionary/Interests of Justice Exception – 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(3)

The discretionary/interests of justice exception allows a district court to decline jurisdiction in the interests of justice and looking a the totality of the circumstances if greater than one third but less than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.  In exercising this discretion the court must consider: whether the claims asserted involve matters of national or interstate interest; whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws of the State in which the action was originally filed or by the laws of other States; whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction; whether the action was brought in a forum with a distinct nexus with the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants; whether the number of citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other State, and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial number of States; and whether, during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, 1 or more other class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed.

B.         Local Controversy Exception – 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(A)

Under the local controversy exception, a district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action which meets the following three criteria.  First, greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.  Second at least one defendant is a defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class; whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed.  Third, during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons.

C.  Home State Exception – 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(B)

The home state exception applies when two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.

D. State Action Exception – 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(5)(A)

If the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief then the case falls within the state action exception to CAFA jurisdiction.

III.  Arguments raised to defeat CAFA jurisdiction

A. Is this case a class action?

CAFA applies to class actions and  a class action is defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332 (d)(1) (B) as an civil action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action.  But does CAFA apply if the complaint does not specifically define a proposed class?

In College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co.,585 F. 3d 33 (1st Cir. 2009) the First Circuit grappled with this issue.  The plaintiff, the College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico, brought suit on behalf of its members, consisting of licensed dentists in Puerto Rico, against multiple defendants claiming that the defendants’ claims handling practices were questionable, fraudulent and economically detrimental to the members.  Two defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to CAFA.  The district court remanded the case on the basis that the complaint did not sufficiently define the plaintiff class.  On appeal, the remand order was vacated.  The First Circuit noted that the complaint plausibly alleged claims for class-wide relief and consistently alleged harm to the members as a professional group.  The appellate court rejected the argument that remand was appropriate because the case could never be certified since an association cannot be a member of a certifiable class.  The Court found that the association met the standing requirements to sue on behalf of its members because the members had standing to sue in their own right, the interests the association sought to protect were germane to its purposes; and neither the claim asserted nor the declaratory relief requested required the participation of individual members in the suit.  More importantly, the Court stated that class composition was not the issue at the inception of a class action.  Review of the complaint alone typically is insufficient for determining if the class can be certified, so the district court’s ruling on the inadequacy of the class definition was premature.

B.  Is this case a mass action under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(11)?

In a series of cases brought in California, the plaintiffs were able to avoid CAFA jurisdiction by pleading around both the jurisdictional amount and the number of persons necessary to satisfy a mass action under §1332(d)(11).

In Tanoh v. Dow Chemical, Co, 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 187, 175 L. Ed. 2d 236 (2009) the defendant removed seven state court actions involving over 600 foreign nationals who claimed that they had been injured by exposure to the chemical DBCP while working on banana and pineapple plantations in the Ivory Coast.  In each case of the seven cases there were fewer than 100 plaintiffs.  The cases were removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the mass action provisions of CAFA.  Dow Chemical argued that the seven actions, taken together, constituted a mass action and that the cases had been filed separately just to frustrate the purposes of CAFA jurisdiction.

The district court disagreed and remanded the actions.  Specifically, the court looked at the language in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(11) which specifically states that a mass action shall not include claims that are joined upon the motion of a defendant.  It found that Dow Chemical’s attempt to aggregate the actions for purposes of CAFA, was tantamount to doing an end-run around this limitation in the statute.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld remand of the actions to state court.  It rejected Dow Chemical’s argument that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to structure the complaints in order to defeat CAFA jurisdiction.  The appellate court did not consider cases decided under provisions other than CAFA’s mass action provision to be persuasive.    See also, Venegas v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22885 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2009), where approximately 2500 plaintiffs, banana plantation workers, filed multiple lawsuits against the same defendants alleging damages from exposure to a chemical used in banana farming operations in Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala. The plaintiffs were divided into groups alphabetically and by country so that each case had less than 100 plaintiffs. Defendants removed the cases to federal court on CAFA jurisdictional grounds asserting that all the actions should be considered one action because the plaintiffs divided their claims solely for purposes of avoiding federal court jurisdiction.  The motion for remand was granted.  Remand was granted, in part, because nothing in CAFA suggests that the plaintiffs, as the masters of their own complaint, may not file multiple actions each with fewer than 100 plaintiffs.  The court also held that the defendant had not met its burden of demonstrating that amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 individually or $5 million in the aggregate.

C.  Is there minimal diversity?

1.  For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is considered a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1).  But what constitutes a corporation’s principal place of business?

In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the meaning of principal place of business (“PPB”) for diversity jurisdiction purposes.  Plaintiffs, California citizens sued their employer, Hertz, in state court alleging California wage and hour law violations.  They brought the suit on behalf of themselves and a class of California citizens suffering similar harms.  Hertz removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting that its PPB was in New Jersey.  The plaintiffs moved for remand alleging that Hertz’s PPB was in California.  Hertz submitted a declaration to establish that its PPB was in New Jersey.  In the declaration, Hertz stated that it had facilities in 44 states, that its corporate headquarters was in New Jersey, and that its core executive and administrative functions were carried out in New Jersey.  With respect to the state of California, Hertz stated that it had 273 of its 1606 car rental locations there, that about 2300 of its 11,230 full time employees were in California and that its business in California amounted to about $811 million of its $4.371 billion in annual revenue.  Based on these facts, the district court found that Hertz’s PPB was in California under the Ninth’s Circuit’s test which required the court to examine Hertz’s business on a state-by-state basis.  If the amount of activity in one state is significantly larger or substantially predominates, then that is the company’s PPB, but if there is no such state, then the PPB is the corporation’s nerve center, i.e., the place where the majority of its executive and administrative functions are performed.  After examining the plurality of Hertz’s business activity in various states, the district court found that its activity in California was significant and so Hertz’s PPB was in California.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the remand order and Hertz appealed.

The United States Supreme Court reversed.  Noting that there were many different ways in which the various circuit courts over the years had determined what constitutes a company’s PPB, the Supreme Court thought it necessary to find a single, more uniform interpretation of this statutory phrase. The Court adopted the nerve center test, holding that PPB is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.  In practice this should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters — provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the nerve center, and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings.

2. What if the plaintiffs sue a limited liability company instead of a corporation.  What is the citizenship of an LLC under CAFA?

In Ferrell v. Express Check Advance of SC LLC, 591 F. 3d 698, (4th Cir. 2010), the plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of South Carolina citizens against a payday lender for alleged violations of South Carolina law. The lender removed the case under CAFA.  Following a long line of case law holding that the citizenship of an unincorporated association is determined based upon the citizenship of each of the association’s members, the lender argued that there was diversity based on the citizenship of its sole member, a Missouri corporation with its PPB in Kansas.

Alternatively, the lender argued that if it was deemed an unincorporated association within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(10), it was a citizen of Tennessee, under whose laws it was organized, and of Kansas where it had its PPB.

The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the defendant’s PPB really was South Carolina, the place where it made all its loans and where all of its employees, but for its top four officers were located. The district court held that the defendant, a limited liability company, was an unincorporated association under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(10).  Consequently, it was a citizen of the state under whose laws it is organized and of the state where it has its PPB.  The district court found that the lender’s PPB was in South Carolina, not Kansas, and therefore the case should be remanded.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed.  It examined the citizenship language in 28 U.S.C. §1332.  Section 1332 (c)(1) provides that a corporation is a citizen of the state of its incorporation and the state of it PPB.  Section 1332(d)(10) provides that the citizenship of an unincorporated association is determined by the state under whose laws it is organized and the state where it has it PPB.  However, the court observed that the because the provisions relating to the citizenship of corporations and of unincorporated associations are found in different sections of the statute, the provision relating to unincorporated associations in §1332(d)(10) applies only to class actions covered by CAFA.  The court concluded that the term “unincorporated association” found in §1332(d)(10) refers to all non-corporate business entities.  The appellate court agreed with the district court’s analysis that the defendant’s PPB was in South Carolina so the case was remanded.

D.   Is the amount in controversy greater than $5 million?

1.    Has the plaintiff alleged any amount in controversy?

When a plaintiff does not allege an amount in controversy in the complaint, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA’s in excess of $5 million amount in controversy has been met.  As the following cases demonstrate, this is not always an easy task.

Berniard v. Dow Chemical Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16515 (5th Cir. 2010), involved the remand of seven class actions stemming from a single incident, the sudden accidental release of ethyl acrylate, a potentially noxious chemical.  The release resulted in the evacuation of residents and businesses with a 2 mile area east of the facility where the release had occurred.  On the day of the release, two class actions were filed in state court.  Eventually, three more state court class actions were filed and two class actions were filed in federal court.

The district court examined the allegations in the pleadings to determine if it had jurisdiction under CAFA.  It examined the geographical reach of the chemicals, the number of persons affected, the seriousness and extent of the injuries suffered, and the potential monetary value of the damages, including punitive damages.  Upon removal, defendants had a choice to either sustain removal by: (1) adducing summary judgment evidence of the amount in controversy; or (2) demonstrating that it is facially apparent from the pleadings alone that the amount in controversy has been met.  The defendants chose the latter approach.

To meet the amount in controversy requirement, the defendants offered census data of the geographical areas at issue, and compared the quantum recovery in previously reported cases involving similar incidents and injuries. This was held to be insufficient. The court noted that the defendants had improperly equated the geographic areas in which potential plaintiffs might reside with the population of the class itself.  The comparison to damage recoveries in similar cases was found to be speculative.  It did not matter that the plaintiffs were claiming compensatory damages, pain and suffering, psychological and long term future damages, and even punitive or exemplary damages.

In Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F. 3d 744, (11th Cir. 2010), the court addressed what types of evidence the defendant could present to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy.  The seven plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated depositors who had placed deposits on the purchase of luxury condominiums in the defendant’s development in West Palm Beach, Florida.  The complaint alleged breach of contract and violation of Florida’s Condominium Act, and sought rescission of the purchase contracts and return of the deposits, but did not state an amount in controversy.  Attached to the complaint were the plaintiffs purchase contracts showing an average deposit amount of roughly $105,000. The complaint stated that the class was believed to consist of over 300 members.

The defendant removed the case under CAFA.  In support of the removal, defendant attached a declaration of the CFO of its parent company indicating that the company had collected over $5 million in deposits from more than 100 prospective purchasers.  The plaintiffs moved for remand arguing that the court could not consider the CFO’s declaration because it was not a paper received from the plaintiffs. In its opposition brief, the defendant attached another declaration from its parent company’s closing manager who had reviewed the closing contracts.  She stated that those contracts showed that the defendant possessed purchase deposits totaling over $41 million.

The district court, relying on the 11th Circuit’s decision in a prior case, Lowery, held that it could not consider either the declaration evidence in support of the amount in controversy, or the contracts of other putative class members because such documents had not been supplied by the plaintiffs.  The district court also found that the first declaration impermissibly speculated as to the potential damage claim of all putative class members and the second declaration could not be considered because it had not been submitted with the notice of removal.  The district court remanded the case.

The defendant appealed, and the 11th Circuit held that district court had erred in rejecting the defendant’s evidence of the amount in controversy.  In reaching this conclusion, it distinguished its holding in Lowery, and disavowed any statements in the dicta of Lowery that could be considered contradictory to its holding inPretka.  The Circuit Court held that when a case is removed under the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), i.e., within 30 days of receipt of an initial pleading setting forth a claim for relief, that statutory language does not restrict the type of evidence that a defendant may use to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for removal.  This is in contrast, however, to removal under the second paragraph of 28 U.S.C. §1446(b) i.e., within 30 days of receipt of an amended pleading, motion or other paper, upon which it may first be ascertained that the case is removable. In the latter instance, the evidence to be considered is limited to reliance on receipt of an “other paper” due to a voluntary act of the plaintiff.

Contrary to the district court’s ruling, the appellate court recognized that documents generated by a defendant do not necessarily involve impermissible speculation.  In the instant case, the CFO’s declaration contained non-speculative knowledge of the amount of every putative class member’s claim which could be considered, since the claims of the individual class members could be aggregated to determine the amount in controversy.  The court stated that evidence added post-removal also could be considered by the court.  Consequently, upon consideration of all of the defendant’s amount in controversy evidence, the remand order was rescinded.

In McGee v. Sentinel Offender Services LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126842 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2010), the plaintiff challenged the defendant’s CAFA removal on several grounds, including whether the amount in controversy requirement had been met. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of all individuals previously convicted of a misdemeanor or ordinance violation in Georgia who were under probation supervised by Sentinel, a private probation company.  The plaintiff sued for alleged violation of Georgia’s RICO statute and sought reimbursement in an amount equal to times the amount paid to Sentinel for supervision of the class members in private probation.

Sentinel supported its CAFA removal with a declaration from its COO and Vice President, who stated that there were 35,753 individuals convicted of misdemeanors or ordinance violations in the State of Georgia under probation supervised by Sentinel, and that Sentinel had collected $5,675,639.20 from these individuals in supervision fees.  Plaintiff challenged the declaration because it did not specify when the fees were collected, whether they were collected within the statute of limitations period, or if they had been paid by persons who were class members.  The court rejected this challenge and retained jurisdiction.  The court noted that the declaration set forth an amount reflective of the damages sought by the plaintiff in the complaint.  The RICO claim sought the divestiture of any interest in the enterprise or personal property, including all fees collected by Sentinel. As for plaintiff’s statute of limitations argument, the court noted that when determining the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes, it could not look past the complaint to the merits of a defense that had not yet been established.

2. Has the plaintiff alleged an amount in controversy less than $5 million?

While some plaintiffs may allege no amount in controversy in the complaint, other plaintiffs may disavow an amount that meets the jurisdictional requisite.  For instance, in Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., 551 F. 3d 405 (6th Cir. 2008), the plaintiffs made every effort to avoid CAFA jurisdiction.

The claims involved 300 landowners who sued a paper mill for nuisance created by water pollution.  In their first class action suit filed in 2005 in Tennessee state court, the plaintiffs asserted claims covering a 6-year period from 6/1/99 to 8/17/05.  At trial in that case, they recovered an aggregate award of $2 million.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an additional class action lawsuit in state court, in which they sought damages accruing after 8/17/05 until the date of trial.  The name plaintiff disavowed individual damages above $74,000 or aggregate damages above $4.9 million.  The defendant removed the suit to federal court, but it was remanded for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional amount.

After remand, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to seek damages from 8/17/05 to 2/17/06.  The state court orally granted the motion to amend in December of 2007, but the written order was not entered until February of 2008.  In the interim, the plaintiffs filed four more lawsuits in state court , each suit covering a different six month time period.  Each complaint was essentially identical and pled the same damage limitations as the initial complaint. On February 4, 2008, the defendant removed all five cases to federal court where they were consolidated and subsequently remanded.  Defendant appealed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that the CAFA threshold had been met because the $4.9 million sought in each complaint had to be aggregated.  In so holding, the court noted that the complaints were identical, except for the artificially broken up time periods, and the plaintiffs offered no colorable reason for breaking up the lawsuits other than to avoid CAFA jurisdiction.  The court limited its holding to the situation where no colorable basis exists for dividing up the sought-for retrospective relief into separate time periods, other than to frustrate the purposes of CAFA. The Sixth Circuit recognized that generally a plaintiff could avoid CAFA jurisdiction by seeking amounts less than the threshold, “but where recovery is expanded, rather than limited, by virtue of splintering of lawsuits for no colorable reason, the total of such identical splintered lawsuits may be aggregated.”  Id. at 409.

E.  Arguments for exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction

While the party removing a case has the burden to establish that the federal court has jurisdiction under CAFA, once that burden has been met, the burden then shifts to the party seeking to remand the case to establish that a CAFA exception applies.

1.  The Home State Exception.

In Jackson v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7005, (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2011) the plaintiffs sued Sprint, a Kansas Corporation alleging that Sprint conspired with other cell phone providers to impose artificially high prices for text messaging.  The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of all individuals who purchased texting from Sprint or an alleged co-conspirator from 1/1/05 to the present, had a Kansas cell phone number, received their cell phone bill at a Kansas mailing address, and paid a Kansas USF fee.  Sprint removed based on CAFA jurisdiction and the plaintiffs sought remand on the basis of the home state exception.

The lower court granted remand, finding that the plaintiffs had met their burden of establishing the existence of the home state exception because Sprint was a resident of Kansas and at least two thirds of the members of the proposed class were citizens of Kansas since the class only included members with Kansas billing addresses and cell phone numbers.  Sprint appealed.

On appeal the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the lower court could not draw conclusions about the citizenship of the class members based on information like the class members cell phone numbers and mailing addresses.  Instead, the district court could have relied on evidence of citizenship obtained through affidavits or survey responses in which putative class members revealed whether they intended to remain in Kansas or were a Kansas business. Using statistical principles, the plaintiffs could then establish the two thirds number required under the home state exception. Alternatively, the court noted that the plaintiffs could have defined their class as “all Kansas citizens who purchased text messaging from Sprint Nextel or an alleged co-conspirator. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

On remand, the parties conducted jurisdictional discovery.  Following the evidentiary roadmap set forth in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, the plaintiffs obtained updated customer information from Sprint and its alleged co-conspirators.  The plaintiffs conducted a telephone survey of a random sample of putative class members.  They searched voter registration, driver license and secretary of state records and collected Internet information to determine the citizenship of those individuals and businesses who had not answered the survey. Using this new data, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for remand.  While Sprint challenged the survey results on various grounds, in the end the court found that the plaintiffs had met their burden of establishing the elements of the home state exception. Hence the case was remanded.

2.  The Local Controversy Exception.

Under the local controversy exception, plaintiffs may name a local defendant from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the class, and who has not been sued in a class action in the previous three years.

Case in point, LaFalier v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17588 (10th Cir. 2010), where the plaintiffs owned properties located in an environmentally contaminated town in Oklahoma.  The state established a Trust to purchase the properties and assist the homeowners in relocating.  During the purchase/relocation process, many homes were damaged by a tornado.  The Trust then offset any amounts the plaintiffs might receive from insurance against the amounts the plaintiffs would receive under the Trust.  The plaintiffs eventually brought suit against two individuals responsible for administering the Trust, and two appraisal companies, alleging that the defendants deliberately used appraisals that undervalued the properties, and conducted secret proceedings concerning the appraisals. The plaintiffs also sued ten insurance companies, three from Oklahoma and ten from out of state, alleging that the insurers paid only cash value for the tornado damage because they knew the properties would not be repaired or replaced, failed to reveal all coverage available, and improperly leveraged Trust offsets to urge the insureds to accept lower payments.

State Farm removed the case pursuant to CAFA.  The plaintiffs moved for remand under the local controversy exception and the case was remanded.  The insurers appealed, but remand was upheld.  The insurers argued that the claims against the Trust defendants had been misjoined with the claims against the insurers, consequently, the Trust defendant claims should have been ignored for purposes of analyzing the local controversy exception.  The district court disagreed.  Every plaintiff had a claim against the Trust defendants, but not every plaintiff had a claim against each named defendant insurer.  The Trust defendants were local defendants from whom significant relief was sought and whose conduct formed a significant basis for the claims asserted.  The doctrine of procedural misjoinder had not been adopted in the Tenth Circuit, and even if it had, it was not clear that the severed claims against the insurers would meet CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements of over 100 class members and in excess of $5,000,0000.

The lower court also rejected the insurers’ contention that an earlier lawsuit filed by these plaintiffs against the Trust itself, and not against the current named Trust defendants, meant that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the last prong of the local controversy exception.  On appeal the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court, noting that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(A(ii) says there must be a prior action “against any of the defendants” and not “against any of the defendantsor parties in privity with them” as the insurers would have had the court interpret the statute.  The Tenth Circuit also noted that State Farm had admitted that not every plaintiff had a claim against an insurer, and there was nothing before the court to demonstrate that at least 100 plaintiffs had claims against the insurers.

3.  The Discretionary/Interests of Justice exception

If greater than one third but less than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed the discretionary exception may apply.  One of the difficulties in addressing this exception is that the term “primary defendant” is not defined in CAFA.  The definition is important because the statute requires that “all” of the primary defendants be residents of the state where the suit was filed.

In Powell v. Tosh, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. 20251, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98564 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2009), the plaintiffs sought to remand their case to state court based, in part, on CAFA’s discretionary exception.  The plaintiffs, 28 Kentucky landowners, brought a class action nuisance lawsuit against nine defendants alleging that noxious fumes from the defendants’ hog farm operations were negatively impacting the value of the plaintiffs’ property and causing personal injuries.  Among the defendants were the local operators of the hog farms as well as some diverse defendants who were the owners of the hogs on those farms.

While it was undisputed that the CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements had been met, the plaintiffs argued that the case should be remanded pursuant to two of CAFA’s mandatory exceptions, the local controversy exception and the discretionary exception.  With respect to the discretionary exception, the plaintiffs argued that greater than one third but less than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class were citizens of Kentucky and the court agreed.  Next, the plaintiffs argued that the primary defendants were citizens of Kentucky.  The court disagreed.

The court looked at the language of the exception and determined that the requirement that the primary defendants be citizens of the state where the suit was filed, meant “all” of the primary defendants.  Next, the court examined the complaint and noted that all members of the plaintiff class had claims against the diverse defendants.  Accordingly, those defendants appeared to be the real targets of the class action.  Also indicative of their status as primary defendants was the fact that the diverse defendants had been sued directly and were the subject of a significant portion of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs.

4.  The State Action Exception

One of the least argued exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction is the state action exception which applies if the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.  Like the discretionary exception, the state action exception also contains the language “primary defendants” which has been interpreted to mean “all” the primary defendants must be state actors.

The question then turns on whether the defendants can be considered States, State officials or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.  The purpose behind the enactment of 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(5)(A) was to prevent states, state officials or governmental entities from removing a case to federal court, and then arguing that due to immunity the federal court would be prohibited from ordering the relief requested by the plaintiff.

The issue was addressed in Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542 (5thCir. 2006) where the plaintiffs brought a class action against the operator of hydrogen processing equipment and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) for damages allegedly caused by seeping mercury.  Pioneer removed the case pursuant to CAFA.  The plaintiffs moved for remand on multiple grounds including that CAFA’s state action exception applied.  The district court denied remand and the plaintiffs appealed.  On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the DEQ was both a primary defendant and a state entity so remand was appropriate.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed because the statute requires “all” primary defendants to be States, State Officials or other governmental entities and Pioneer also was a primary defendant. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that such a result violated the 11th Amendment and the principles of state sovereign immunity. The appellate court noted that unless the state joins in the removal, which it is not required to do so under CAFA, it does not waive its right to assert sovereign immunity.  Furthermore, the court may ignore sovereign immunity until the state asserts it.  The fact that absent waiver of the immunity, the court may not be able to order relief against the state, does not mean the court cannot assume jurisdiction over a case involving a state.

CONCLUSION
In the six years since CAFA’s enactment, the courts have seen many arguments against CAFA jurisdiction.  Several of these arguments could not have been foreseen by the drafters of the legislation.  In the coming year, we should expect to see more arguments relating to calculation of the amount in controversy, interpretation of the “mass action” provisions, and interpretation of CAFA exceptions containing undefined phrases such as “primary defendant” and “significant relief.”

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

 

Wisconsin Tort Reform 2011: Governor signed the Omnibus Tort Reform Act

As posted on the National Law Review by Joseph Louis Olson and Adam E. Witkov of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP – implications of the Wisconsin Omnibus Tort Reform Act signed into law today by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:  

Governor Scott Walker signed the OmnibusTort Reform Act (the “Act”) today, January 27, 2011.  The Act addresses several areas of interest for Wisconsin companies.

Specifically, the Act:

Limits Punitive Damages.

  • Punitive damages are capped at to $200,000 or double the amount of compensatory damages, whichever is higher. The cap does not apply to lawsuits related to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Raises the Standards for Expert Testimony.

  • This Act adopts the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, also known as the “Daubert standard.” The Daubert standard allows the admission of expert testimony only if it is based on sufficient factors or data and is the product of reliable principles and methods.

Limits the Application of the Risk Contribution Theory.

  • This provision is a response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129, 285 Wis. 2d 236, 701 N.W.2d 523, where the Court permitted a case to proceed against seven paint manufacturers despite the fact that the plaintiff could not prove who made the lead-based paints that he claimed poisoned him as a child. The Act limits the holding in Thomas. If the claimant can not identify the specific product that allegedly caused the injury, a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product may be held liable only if all of the following apply: (1) the claimant proves: (a) no other lawful process exists for the claimant to seek any redress from any other person for the injury or harm; (b) that the claimant has suffered an injury or harm that can be caused only by a manufactured product chemically and physically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm; and (c) that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted a complete integrated product, in the form used by the claimant or to which the claimant was exposed, and that meets all of the following criteria: (i) is chemically and physically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm; (ii) was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted in the geographic market where the injury or harm is alleged to have occurred during the time period in which the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted; and (iii) was distributed or sold without labeling or any distinctive characteristic that identified the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter; and (2) the action names, as defendants, those manufacturers of a product who collectively manufactured at least 80 percent of all products sold in this state during the relevant production period by all manufacturers of the product in existence during the relevant production period that are chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm.

Limits Strict Product Liability Claims.

  • Under the Act, Wisconsin is now in line with the majority of other states that have adopted the “reasonable alternative design” test instead of the broader “consumer expectation” test. Accordingly, a manufacturer will be liable for damages caused by the manufacturer’s product based on a claim of strict liability only if the injured claimant proves that the product was defective, the defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous, the defective condition existed at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, the product reached the user or consumer without substantial change, and the defective condition caused the claimant’s injuries. If the injured party’s percentage of total causal responsibility for the injury is greater than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product, the injured party may not, based on the defect in the product, recover damages from the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or any other person responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce. If the injured party’s percentage of total causal responsibility for the injury is equal to or less than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product, the injured party may recover but the damages recovered by the injured party shall be diminished by the percentage attributed to that injured party.

Toughens State Rules Relating to Damages for Frivolous Claims.

  • In civil cases, a party or his or her attorney may be liable for costs and fees for actions that are done (1) in bad faith, solely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring another; or (2) was without a reasonable basis in the law. If the offending party withdraws or corrects the improper conduct within 21 days of receiving the other party’s motion for fees, the court can decide whether to award actual costs taking into consideration the offending party’s mitigating conduct. If the offending party does not timely withdraw or correct the conduct, actual costs shall be awarded. If the decision is appealed and the appellate court affirms the award of fees, the offending party must also pay the attorney fees incurred in the appeal.  

In addition to the tort reform provisions outlined above, the Act includes several health care related provisions previously discussed in a client alert dated January 10, 2011, also available here.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Class Action Defense Cases–American Honda v. Allen: Seventh Circuit Court Reverses Class Action Certification Order Holding District Court’s Daubert Analysis Inadequate And Expert Testimony Inadmissible

National Law Review’s featured blogger Michael J. Hassen of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP provides some insight on a recent 7th Circuit class action case which addresses expert testimony:

District Court Erred in Granting Class Action Certification because Expert Testimony Establishing Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance Prong was Unreliable and District Court’s Daubert Analysis Inadequate Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against American Honda and Honda of America (collectively “Honda”) alleging product defect liability concerning Honda’s Gold Wing GL1800 motorcycle; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that a design defect in the steering assembly causes the motorcycle to “wobble.” American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813, 814 (7th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), relying heavily on an expert’s opinion that common issues predominate; Honda opposed class action treatment and challenged the expert opinion relied upon by plaintiffs in their motion. Id. Defense attorneys moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to strike plaintiffs’ expert report on the grounds that the expert’s “wobble decay standard was unreliable because it was not supported by empirical testing, was not developed through a recognized standard-setting procedure, was not generally accepted in the relevant scientific, technical, or professional community, and was not the product of independent research.” Id. The district court agreed to rule on the admissibility of the report prior to ruling on class certification because the report was central to the motion, id. But while the court announced “definite reservations about the reliability of [the expert’s] wobble decay standard,” it refused to exclude the report entirely “at this early stage of the proceedings.” Id., at 814-15. The district court granted class action certification, id., at 815, and Honda sought leave to appeal, id., at 814. The Seventh Circuit granted Honda’s request and reversed.

The Circuit Court explained that the issue before it was “whether the district court must conclusively rule on the admissibility of an expert opinion prior to class certification in this case because that opinion is essential to the certification decision.” American Honda, at 814. The Court summarized the expert’s “wobble decay” opinion, which was based on a standard the expert himself had devised and that he himself characterized as “reasonable.” Id. The expert opinion was important because “most of Plaintiffs’ predominance arguments rest upon the theories advanced by [their expert].” Id. (quoting Allen v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 264 F.R.D. 412, 425 (N.D. Ill. 2009)). In response to Honda’s objections and following the Daubert hearing, the district court “noted that it was concerned that, among other things, [the expert’s] wobble decay standard may not be supported by empirical evidence, the standard has not been generally accepted by the engineering community, and [his] test sample of one may be inadequate to conclude that the entire fleet of GL1800s is defective.” Id., at 814-15. Nevertheless, the lower court believed it was too early in the litigation to dismiss the expert’s opinion in its entirety, and so it granted class action treatment without prejudice to Honda moving to exclude the expert’s opinion. Id., at 815.

As a matter of first impression in the Seventh Circuit, the Court “specifically addressed whether a district court must resolve a Daubert challenge prior to ruling on class certification if the testimony challenged is integral to the plaintiffs’ satisfaction of Rule 23’s requirements.” American Honda, at 815. The Circuit Court held “that when an expert’s report or testimony is critical to class certification, as it is here…, a district court must conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert’s qualifications or submissions prior to ruling on a class certification motion.” Id., at 815-16. Thus, in the Seventh Circuit’s view, “the district court must perform a full Daubert analysis before certifying the class if the situation warrants.” Id., at 816. This includes not only the expert’s qualifications, but “any challenge to the reliability of information provided by an expert if that information is relevant to establishing any of the Rule 23 requirements for class certification.” Id.

In this case, the district court “started off on the right foot by beginning to undertake what might have become a fairly extensive Daubert analysis,” and both acknowledged “and largely agreed with” Honda’s concerns about the reliability of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, “[y]et the district court ultimately declined, without further explanation, ‘to exclude the report in its entirety at this early stage of the proceedings.’” American Honda, at 816. The Circuit Court explained at page 816 that the district court’s analysis (or lack thereof) constituted an abuse of discretion: “The court’s effective statement of admissibility here is not even conclusory; it leaves open the questions of what portions of [the expert’s] testimony it may have decided (or will decide) to exclude, whether [the expert] reliably applied the standard to the facts of the case, and, ultimately, whether Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. As a result, the district court never actually reached a conclusion about whether [the] expert report was reliable enough to support Plaintiffs’ class certification request. Instead it denied Honda’s motion to exclude without prejudice and noted that the case was in an ‘early stage of the proceedings.’”

Reviewing the expert’s report on the merits, the Seventh Circuit held that “our examination of the record reveals that exclusion is the inescapable result when the Daubert analysis is carried to its conclusion.” American Honda, at 817. The issue here was one of reliability rather than qualifications, but the Circuit Court noted that “even the most ‘supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are based upon some recognized scientific method and are reliable and relevant under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert.’” Id. (citing Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5 (7th Cir.1999)). Based on the Court’s analysis, the expert’s testimony was unreliable, see id., at 817-18, and “expert testimony that is not scientifically reliable should not be admitted, even ‘at this early stage of the proceedings,’” id., at 819 (citation omitted). Because the expert’s testimony formed the foundation for Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance test, class action certification could not stand. Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit granted Honda’s petition for leave to appeal and vacated the denial of Honda’s motion to strike and the district court’s order grant of class action treatment. Id.

NOTE: In response to plaintiffs’ request that the Circuit Court deny leave to appeal, the Seventh Circuit explained, “Given the uncertainty surrounding the propriety of conducting a Daubert analysis at the class certification stage, and the frequency with which this issue arises, we find the question to be one appropriate for resolution under Rule 23(f).” American Honda, at 815 (citation omitted).

© 2010 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author:

Michael J. Hassen is a Litigation Partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP with more than 23 years experience in general business and commercial litigation, including class action defense and matters involving intellectual property, securities and unfair competition.  415-984-9666 / www.jmbm.com

Class Action Defense Cases–Donovan v. Philip Morris: Massachusetts Federal Court Certifies Class Action Seeking Medical Monitoring For Lung Cancer Of 20-Year Marlboro Smokers

This week’s featured blogger at the National Law Review is Michael J. Hassen of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP who writes for the Class Action Defense Blog.

Class Action Against Tobacco Company Alleging Unfair Trade Practices and Breach of Implied Warranty and Seeking Medical Monitoring for Lung Cancer on Behalf of Class of Smokers who have not been Diagnosed with Lung Cancer and who are Asymptomatic Warranted Class Action Certification under both Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) Massachusetts Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Philip Morris alleging “unfair or deceptive” trade practices in violation of Massachusetts state law, breach of implied warranty, and negligence; specifically, the class action complaint “allege[d] that Philip Morris designed, marketed, and sold Marlboro cigarettes that delivered an excessive and dangerous level of carcinogens.” Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D.Mass. June 24, 2010) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, “plaintiffs have no apparent symptoms of lung cancer, and as such, are not seeking damages.” Id. Thus, this class action “diverges from a typical tobacco suit,” id. Instead of seeking damages, the class action sought to compel Philip Morris to pay for medical monitoring – “that is, regular screenings to determine whether they have early signs of the disease” based on the argument that “if [class members] do eventually develop lung cancer, these screenings will increase their likelihood of survival almost six-fold.” Id., at 1-2. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class action “on behalf of Massachusetts residents, age fifty and older, who have smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least twenty pack-years.” Id., at 1. Further, “No class member may be diagnosed with lung cancer or be under a physician’s care for suspected lung cancer, and all must have smoked Marlboro cigarettes within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” Id., at 2. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment. In a 56-page order, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification.

In analyzing whether to grant class action treatment, the district court noted that “the motion was not easily resolved because it raised threshold issues of Massachusetts products liability law.” Donovan, at 2. First, the class action certification motion presented a set of issues tied to “the unusual remedy plaintiffs seek, a supervised medical monitoring program using Low-Dose Computed Tomography (‘LDCT’) scans.” Id. Plaintiffs argued that unlike x-rays, which could only detect lung cancer “when it had reached an advanced stage,” the new LDCT-scanning technology allowed for much earlier detection “significantly increasing survival rates from about fifteen percent to eighty-five percent.” Id. (Plaintiffs argued that monetary damages would not adequately compensate class members for the cost of medical monitoring, id., at 3.) Second, the class action certification motion presented the question of whether the named plaintiffs had standing to prosecute the class action because “[b]y definition, plaintiffs who seek medical monitoring to determine whether they have cancer are asymptomatic.” Id. And third, the class action presents a “novel issue [that] pertains to the timing of plaintiffs’ claims and the related issue of claim preclusion.” Id. “Typically, toxic tort exposure cases put the plaintiffs on the horns of a dilemma. If they bring a claim when they are aware of their exposure – assuming the standing issues are resolved – they take the risk that they cannot recover if they develop cancer in the future under the ‘single controversy rule.’ If they wait until they develop cancer to bring a claim, the statute of limitations will have expired because they knew of the risks at an earlier time.” Id. Here, plaintiffs argued that this dilemma was avoided because “The statute of limitations should run from the date that plaintiffs develop subcellular changes that substantially increase their risk of cancer and where that increase triggers a medically-accepted form of screening.” Id., at 4.

The district court noted that, in light of these novel issues, it certified two questions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: “(1) Does the plaintiffs’ suit for medical monitoring, based on the subclinical effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and increased risk of lung cancer, state a cognizable claim and/or permit a remedy under Massachusetts state law? (2) If the plaintiffs have successfully stated a claim or claims, has the statute of limitations governing those claims expired?” Donovan, at 4. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Judicial Court answered “yes” to the first question, and “no” to the second. Id.; see Donovan v. Philip Morris, 914 N.E.2d 891, 894-95 (Mass. 2009). The federal court summarized that opinion at pages 4 and 5 as follows:

On the first question, the court held that subclinical effects on lung tissue constituted a legally cognizable injury on which plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claim could be based and outlined what comprised proof of such a claim. On the second question, the court held that the statute of limitations began to run only after the plaintiffs suffered “physiological change[s] resulting in a substantial increase in the risk of cancer” due to their smoking and “that increase, under the standard of care, triggers the need for available diagnostic testing . . .” Id. at 903. Finally, the Supreme Judicial Court held that there would be no claim preclusion under the “single controversy rule.” Litigation of the plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claim in this action would not preclude a future action for damages if plaintiffs eventually contract lung cancer.

Armed with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision on the novel issues presented by the class action certification motion, the federal court granted class action treatment under both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) to plaintiffs’ unfair trade practices and implied warranty claims, but denied class action treatment as to plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Donovan, at 6. Moreover, in light of Seventh Amendment concerns, the federal court held that the class action would proceed as a jury trial. Id.

© 2010 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author:

Michael J. Hassen is a Litigation Partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP with more than 23 years experience in general business and commercial litigation, including class action defense and matters involving intellectual property, securities and unfair competition. 415-984-9666 / www.jmbm.com

Wal-Mart Class Action Defense Cases–Dukes v. Wal-Mart : Ninth Circuit Court Affirms Class Action Certification Of Largest Labor Law Class Action In U.S. History

The National Law Review’s Featured Guest Blogger Michael J. Hassen of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP discusses the recent California Employment Class Action cases involving WalMart’s female employees.  

Labor Law Class Action Alleging Wal-Mart Discriminates Against Female Employees in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Properly Certified As Nationwide Class Action by District Court Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wal-Mart alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Wal-Mart discriminates against its female employees. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. April 26, 2010) [Slip Opn., at 6137, 6146]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint (originally filed in 2004), Wal-Mart discriminated against women employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because “women employed in Wal-Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions, despite having higher performance ratings and greater seniority; and (2) receive fewer—and wait longer for—promotions to in-store management positions than men.” Id., at 6147. The class action complaint sought to represent a nationwide class on the grounds “that Wal-Mart’s strong, centralized structure fosters or facilitates gender stereotyping and discrimination, that the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout Wal-Mart stores, and that this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal-Mart stores.” Id. The proposed class included “women employed in a range of Wal-Mart positions, from part-time entry-level hourly employees to salaried managers.” Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, defined as “All women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998 who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart’s challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices.” Id., at 6148. Defense attorneys opposed class certification and stressed that the proposed class would consist of as many as 1.5 million current and former employees who worked at 3,400 stores in 41 regions. Id., at 6148 and n.3. The district court granted the motion and certified the litigation as a class action, id., at 6146-47. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Circuit Court opinion is quite lengthy, so we simply “hit the highlights” in this article. Defense attorneys may contact the author of the Blog for a more detailed discussion of the case.

The Ninth Circuit spent a considerable amount of time discussing the standard governing district court consideration of class certification under Rule 23 and clarified the “proper standard of Rule 23 adjudication.” See Dukes, at 6149-83. This analysis includes a discussion, and rejection, of the dissent’s “significant proof” standard. See id., at 6177-83. The Circuit Court then turned to the merits of the Rule 23 analysis, beginning with Rule 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement, which was not contested given the enormous size of the class. Id., at 6185. The Court also found that Wal-Mart had not waived its right to object to Rule 23(a)(3)’s typicality requirement, see id., at 6209-10, but concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the named-plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently typical of those of the class: “Even though individual employees in different stores with different managers may have received different levels of pay or may have been denied promotion or promoted at different rates, because the discrimination they claim to have suffered occurred through alleged common practices—e.g., excessively subjective decision making in a corporate culture of uniformity and gender stereotyping—the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that their claims are sufficiently typical to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3).” Id., at 6210. Moreover, “because all female employees faced the same alleged discrimination, the lack of a class representative for each management category does not undermine Plaintiffs’ certification goal.” Id., at 6211. And the Ninth Circuit found no difficulty in finding that the adequacy of representation test in Rule 23(a)(4) had been met. Id., at 6212.

The Circuit Court spent the vast majority of its time discussing Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality test. See Dukes, at 6186-6209. The district court found that this test had been met: “Plaintiffs have exceeded the permissive and minimal burden of establishing commonality by providing: (1) significant evidence of company-wide corporate practices and policies, which include (a) excessive subjectivity in personnel decisions, (b) gender stereotyping, and (c) maintenance of a strong corporate culture; (2) statistical evidence of gender disparities caused by discrimination; and (3) anecdotal evidence of gender bias. Together, this evidence raises an inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices in compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a common manner.” Id., at 6186-87 (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit agreed, id., at 6287. Despite the wide-ranging nature of the class, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence of a common policy of discrimination, see id., at 6187-6207. The Circuit Court also found that the district court did not err in finding “substantial evidence suggesting common pay and promotion policies among Wal-Mart’s many stores” and that “Wal-Mart’s decision to permit its managers to utilize subjectivity in interpreting those policies offers additional support for a commonality finding.” Id., at 6207. Thus, the Court concluded at page 6209:

Plaintiffs’ factual evidence, expert opinions, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence provide sufficient support to raise the common question whether Wal-Mart’s female employees nationwide were subjected to a single set of corporate policies (not merely a number of independent discriminatory acts) that may have worked to unlawfully discriminate against them in violation of Title VII. Evidence of Wal-Mart’s subjective decision-making policies suggests a common legal or factual question regarding whether Wal-Mart’s policies or practices are discriminatory.

Finally, “Plaintiffs moved to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires showing that ‘the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief . . . is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.’” Dukes, at 6214. The Circuit Court recognized that a (b)(2) class was inappropriate if the primary relief sought by the class action complaint is monetary. Id., at 6214-15. The Ninth Circuit previously had adopted “a test that focuses on the plaintiffs’ subjective intent in bringing a lawsuit.” Id., at 6215. But the Court now reversed that position and adopted an entirely new standard, set forth at page 6217 as follows:

Rule 23(b)(2) certification is not appropriate where monetary relief is “predominant” over injunctive relief or declaratory relief. To determine whether monetary relief predominates, a district court should consider, on a case-by-case basis, the objective “effect of the relief sought” on the litigation. [Citation.] Factors such as whether the monetary relief sought determines the key procedures that will be used, whether it introduces new and significant legal and factual issues, whether it requires individualized hearings, and whether its size and nature—as measured by recovery per class member—raise particular due process and manageability concerns would all be relevant, though no single factor would be determinative.

The Court then concluded: “Under this standard…, the district court’s decision to include claims for back pay in a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2) was not an abuse of its discretion. On the other hand, the district court did abuse its discretion by failing to analyze whether certifying Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims under Rule 23(b)(2) caused monetary damages to predominate, notwithstanding its decision to require notice and an opportunity for Plaintiffs to opt-out of the punitive damages claims.” Dukes, at 6217. Thus, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for further consideration of the punitive damage relief claim. Additionally, the Circuit Court agreed with Wal-Mart that (b)(2) class may not be proper as to employees who no longer worked for Wal-Mart at the time the class action was filed because those individuals “do not have standing to pursue injunctive or declaratory relief.” Id., at 6228. Wal-Mart argued that since former employees lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, monetary relief would predominate for those class members. Id. But while the Court reversed the district court order to the extent it included former employees in the (b)(2) class, it remanded the matter for further consideration as to whether a (b)(3) class could be certified for such individuals noting, “The district court may, in its discretion, certify a separate Rule 23(b)(3) class of former employees for back pay and punitive damages.” Id., at 6229. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Id., at 6236-37.

Judge Graber filed a brief concurring opinion to stress the “unremarkable” nature of the Court’s holding: “The majority and the dissent have written scholarly and complete explanations of their positions. What the length of their opinions may mask is the simplicity of the majority’s unremarkable holding: [¶] Current female employees may maintain a Rule 23(b)(2) class action against their employer, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and back pay on behalf of all the current female employees, when they challenge as discriminatory the effects of their employer’s company-wide policies. [¶] If the employer had 500 female employees, I doubt that any of my colleagues would question the certification of such a class. Certification does not become an abuse of discretion merely because the class has 500,000 members.” See Dukes, at 6237-38.

NOTE: Judge Ikuta dissented, joined by Chief Judge Kozinski and Judges Rymer, Silverman and Bea. See Dukes, at 6238-6279. The dissent argued that “the district court abused its discretion in two ways. First, it failed to follow the Supreme Court’s direction to ‘evaluate carefully the legitimacy of the named plaintiff’s plea that he is a proper class representative under Rule 23(a),’ [citation], and to ensure ‘after a rigorous analysis’ that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been met, [citation]. Second, the district court erred in ignoring Wal-Mart’s statutory right to raise defenses to liability for back pay and punitive damages under Title VII, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(g)(2); Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b), and therefore abused its discretion in holding that the proposed class could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).” Dukes, at 6243.

Chief Judge Kozinski joined the dissent and added the following concise explanation: “Maybe there’d be no difference between 500 employees and 500,000 employees if they all had similar jobs, worked at the same half-billion square foot store and were supervised by the same managers. But the half-million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female), subject to a variety of regional policies that all differed depending on each class member’s job, location and period of employment. Some thrived while others did poorly. They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit. [¶] I therefore join fully Judge Ikuta’s dissent.” Dukes, at 6279.

© 2010 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author:

Michael J. Hassen is a Litigation Partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP with more than 23 years experience in general business and commercial litigation, including class action defense and matters involving intellectual property, securities and unfair competition.  415-984-9666 / www.jmbm.com


Cy Pres Class Action Defense Cases–In re American Tower: Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Request To Distribute Class Action Settlement Cy Pres Funds To Non-Profit Organization

First of a series of daily guest blog spots from the National Law Review’s featured blogger Michael J. Hassen of  Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP.  Michael Hassan authors  JMBM’s Class Action Defense Blog.

Distribution of Unclaimed Class Action Settlement Funds to Non-Profit Organization Unconnected to Harm Suffered by Class Members Inappropriate Massachusetts Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against American Tower Corp. alleging violations of federal securities laws and purported to be brought on behalf of “members of the public who were harmed by the securities fraud.” In re American Tower Corp. Securities Litig., 648 F.Supp.2d 223, 224-25 (D.Mass. 2010). Eventually, the parties negotiated a settlement of the class action which provided for the distribution of unclaimed funds through a cy pres fund. Id., at 224. Lead Plaintiff moved the district court for authorization to distribute the cy pres funds “to The Peggy Browning Fund, a private, nonsectarian, not-for-profit organization with 501(c)(3) tax-deductible status.” Id. The federal court denied the motion because plaintiff sought “to disburse settlement funds to a non-profit organization with little connection to the harms class members suffered,” id. Because the author has received numerous inquiries from defense and plaintiff counsel concerning the proper scope of a cy pres fund, we include this article on the district court’s ruling.

The district court noted that the proper inquiry was to “determine whether the Peggy Browning Fund is an appropriate recipient of any residual settlement funds” of the class action settlement. In re American Tower Corp., at 224. The court explained that the purpose of the use of a cy pres fund is effect a distribution of class action settlement funds “to a ‘next-best’ recipient” when it is impractical to distribute the settlement funds to the class members. Id., at 224-25 (citing In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litig., 268 F.3d 619, 626 (8th Cir.2001)). “‘In such cases, the court, guided by the parties’ original purpose, directs that the unclaimed funds be distributed for the prospective benefit of the class.’” Id. (citation omitted). The federal court easily concluded, then, that the Peggy Browning Fund was “an inappropriate recipient of any unclaimed class funds.” Id. “Disbursement of unclaimed funds must have some relationship to the harm suffered by class members…. However, the Peggy Browning Fund focuses on labor issues…. Therefore, it does not appear that funds donated to the Peggy Browning Fund would benefit the class or address the harms suffered by class members.” Id. (italics added). The district court therefore denied the motion, without prejudice to Lead Plaintiff renewing the request and noting that Lead Plaintiff “should, if possible, propose a national organization whose work relates to the harm suffered by class members in this case.” Id.

NOTE: The author notes that trial courts are far too willing to authorize the distribution of cy pres funds to practically any organization. In such cases, the courts appear to be more interested in punishing the defendant than in effecting a distribution of funds to the “next-best” recipient.

© 2010 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author:

Michael J. Hassen is a Litigation Partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP with more than 23 years experience in general business and commercial litigation, including class action defense and matters involving intellectual property, securities and unfair competition.  415-984-9666 /www.jmbm.com