Class-Action

AT&T Case Heard By Supreme Court and Most Media Outlets Predict Consumer Victory Based on State’s Rights Principles

November 11, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Slate published an excellent article handicapping that the Supreme Court in the AT&T case will vote in favor of consumer class actions continuing. The article explains in in plain English what is at stake in the case and the arcane legal issues on which the decision will turn. You can view the entire article by clicking here. This article like most of those written by the major newspapers, media outlets and blogs, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ADR Blog, predicts a consumer victory based on deference to state’s rights and California’s right to invalidate an unconscionable class action ban in an arbitration agreement.

The Slate article states:

In plain English, the Supreme Court needs to decide whether Corporate America can make ordinary slobs like us, who sign take-it-or-leave-it contracts, give up our right to file class-action suits. And in case you’re wondering why class-action suits matter to us ordinary slobs, consider this: Not a lot of lawyers are willing to take on AT&T for $30.32. Sometimes the only way to police misconduct—particularly small differentials in pay (based on, say, race or gender) or itsy bitsy fraudulent representations—is by pooling litigants together and suing together as a class.

LA Time’s Opinion Piece on Upcoming Supreme Court Case Which Could End Most Consumer Class Actions

November 5, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A thoughtful opinion piece appeared in the LA Times on the upcoming oral argument before the Supreme Court in the case which will decide if corporations can take away consumers’ rights to file class actions through take it or leave it form contracts.

The opinion piece which appeared in the LA Times states in part:

“The marketplace is fairer for consumers and workers because there’s a deterrent out there,” said Deepak Gupta, an attorney for the advocacy group Public Citizen who will argue on consumers’ behalf before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

PR Newswire Reports: “Parents Bring Federal Class-Action Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn”

October 31, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Parents Bring Federal Class-Action Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Allegedly Injures Newborn

The article describes a new class action lawsuit brought against Abbott Laboratories for allegedly selling tainted baby formula and mishandling a recall. The plaintiff’s attorney is quoted in the article as stating:

What we have found is that certain companies handle product recalls in an upfront and transparent way. We believe that we can prove that Abbott did the opposite and sat on information while babies got sick.

Law.com reports: “Wal-Mart Janitors Try Again to Bring Class Action Suit Over Wages, Hours”

October 31, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Wal-Mart Janitors Try Again to Bring Class Action Suit Over Wages, Hours

By Charles Toutant

After a federal judge de-certified a class action alleging that Wal-Mart took advantage of illegal aliens and failed to properly pay them by locking them into stores and requiring them to work overtime without, plaintiffs have rbrought new class-action suits making the same allegations unde the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bank of America Loses Motion to Dismiss in Unpaid Overtime Class Action Brought By Its Call Center Employees

October 30, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A federal court in Kansas denied Bank of America motion to dismiss an unpaid overtime lawsuit brought by the Bank’s call center employees.

The call center employees claim Bank of America forced them to work without pay during meal breaks and before and after their regular hours due to laying off too many employees and under staffing decisions designed to lower costs and increase the Bank’s profits. The lawsuits brings class-action claims under the laws of different states and collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

To read the Court’s opinion click here.

Wal-Mart Overtime Lawsuit Settled in California for Up to $86,000,000 Repaid to Allegedly Cheated Workers

October 30, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In our work as Illinois and nationwide wage and hour attorneys, we frequently see workers who have been misclassified as exempt from overtime. Whether this was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to save money, it effectively “steals” wages from the misclassified employees. DiTommaso Lubin stands up for the rights of workers in Chicago, Illinois and throughout the country who are victims of overtime wage theft, including misclassified employees as well as those pressured to work off the clock; lie on timesheets; or simply not paid an overtime rate. Our Oak Brook, Waukegan and Chicago unpaid overtime lawyers handle both individual and class action employment cases. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., our Chicago Fair Labor Standard’s Act attorneys represent clients throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States.

Law.com Reports: “National Class Action Status Granted in Conseco Life Insurance Case”

October 30, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

National Class Action Status Granted in Conseco Life Insurance Case
By Petra Pasternak
October 26, 2010
Instead on alleging fraud based on state consumer fraud statutes this article explains that this class action against Conseco relies on a breach of contract claim for the life insurance carrier’s alleged failure to honor the terms of similar life insurance policies. The article describes the Federal Judge Ilston’s decision to approve class certification because Judge Ilston concluded contract law is subtantially the same in throughout the different States:

The plaintiffs alleged that Conseco was breaching nearly 10,000 “LifeTrend” insurance policies … including improper premium charges and improper deductions from policyholders’ accounts — could result in losses of tens of thousands of dollars per policyholder. …
Conseco tried to smack down class certification … But Illston wrote that Conseco was exaggerating any variations when it came to breach-of-contract.
“Contrary to Conseco’s representations, several courts have recognized that the law relating to the element of breach does not vary greatly from state to state,” Illston wrote.

This trend to to allow use of contract law to obtain national class certification is a breath of fresh air. Class actions are the only way to protect against this type of mass breach of contract by a large insurer. Absent a national class action many victims in smaller states would obtain no redress.

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion is Supreme Court Case Which Raises the Following Issue “Cell Phone Giant Rips Off Customers, Wants New Law Saying It’s OK.”

October 20, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Public Justice had the following to say about the briefing:

Would this headline surprise you? “Cell Phone Giant Rips Off Customers.” Maybe not. But what about this one? “Cell Phone Giant Rips Off Customers, Wants New Law Saying It’s OK.” That one might just catch your attention. I know it would mine.
Well, that second hypothetical headline is actually the premise of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a hugely important case that will be argued before the Supreme Court in early November.
Yesterday, Public Justice Senior Attorney Paul Bland participated in a press briefing on this case at the National Press Club and sponsored by the American Constitution Society. Other panelists were Nina Pillard, law professor at Georgetown; Stephen Ware, law professor at the University of Kansas; and Alan Kaplinsky, a private attorney in Philadelphia who counsels financial institutions on how to shield themselves from liability.

At one point, about 38 minutes in, an audience member posted this to Twitter: “Paul Bland is on a TEAR at the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion briefing. What passion for class actions!” This case has been under-the-radar for awhile now, but don’t be fooled: It actually has nothing to do with the minutiae of arbitration clauses like AT&T Mobility (AT&T) says it does. Really, it’s about banning class actions and taking away consumers’ rights.

PR Newswire Reports: “Proposed Settlement in Class Action Suit Against Audi, Volkswagen Wins Judge’s Approval”

October 9, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Proposed Settlement in Class Action Suit Against Audi, Volkswagen Wins Judge’s Approval

The article states:

Volkswagen and Audi have agreed to pay sludge-related maintenance costs for nearly 480,000 vehicles as part of a proposed settlement conditionally approved in federal court. The order filed Thursday, September 23, 2010 by Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston, defined the group, or “class,” that can benefit from the settlement as all current and former owners and lessees of Audi’s A4 (model year 1997-2004) and Volkswagen’s Passat (model year 1998-2004) that were equipped with a 1.8 liter turbo engine.

The Wall Street Journal Reports: “‘Cookies’ Cause Bitter Backlash”

September 20, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

‘Cookies’ Cause Bitter Backlash
Spate of Lawsuits Shows User Discomfort With Latest Innovations in Online-Tracking Technology
By JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIESAnd EMILY STEEL
The Wall Street reports:

Since July, at least six suits have been filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against websites and companies that create advertising technology, accusing them of installing online-tracking tools that are so surreptitious that they essentially hack into users’ machines without their knowledge. All of the suits seek class-action status and accuse companies of violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other laws against deceptive practices. …

In one of the lawsuits, filed last week in the Central District of California, three California residents sued Cable News Network, Travel Channel and others over alleged tracking of Web surfing on mobile phones using technology that the suit says is particularly difficult to delete. A spokesman for Scripps Networks Interactive Inc., which controls the Travel Channel, said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation. Time Warner Inc., which owns CNN. …

The tools cited in the suits are part of an “arms race” in tracking technologies, said Chris Hoofnagle, director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology’s information-privacy programs. Some users, uncomfortable with tracking, now routinely block or delete cookies. “There are some in the industry who do not believe that users should be able to block tracking, so they are turning to increasingly sophisticated tools to track people,” he said. One such technology involves “Flash cookies,” which use Adobe Systems Inc.’s popular Flash program to save a small file on a user’s computer. ….