Recent Cases

Subscribe to Recent Cases via RSS

In MacKay v. Superior Court (October 6, 2010) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ the Second District Court of Appeal threw out a class action challenging an insurer’s rating practices on the ground that California law prohibits insureds from challenging rates approved by the California Department of Insurance (“DOI”) through a civil action. Writing for the court, Justice Croskey concluded that the “filed rate doctrine” applies to California insurance ratemaking, despite the voters’ enactment of Proposition 103, and that the exclusive remedy for challenging an insurer’s approved rating practices was through a statutory administrative review process.
Continue Reading The Second District Court of Appeal Applies the “Filed Rate Doctrine” to California Insurance Ratemaking, and Holds that the Use of Approved Insurance Rates Cannot Create Tort Liability Against an Insurer in a Class Action

In Walnut Producers of California v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Case No. C060346 (August 16, 2010), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that a class arbitration waiver in an agreement between walnut producers and a walnut processor is not unconscionable. Plaintiffs include Walnut Producers of California, a nonprofit cooperative marketing association whose members are walnut growers, and walnut producer George J. Miller Ranch, Inc. Defendant Diamond Foods is the successor by way of merger to Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. (“Co-op”), an agricultural cooperative.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Holds Class Action Waiver in Commercial Contract Not Unconscionable

UPDATE:  On July 28, 2010, the Court of Appeal, First District, modified and published the opinion in Cellphone Fee Termination Cases .  The court retained its holdings regarding the adequacy of the class notice and the appropriate “incentive” payments to the class representatives.  However, the court did not publish the portion of its opinion that analyzed the “fairness” of the class settlement, including the court’s recognition that the pending cross-complaint filed by Verizon against the class that could have reduced the class’s overall damage award.  The rest of the opinion remains the same and can now be relied upon as authority supporting similar class-notice and incentive payment settlement plans.

On June 28, 2010, in the unpublished opinion Cellphone Fee Termination Cases, A124038 (June 28, 2010), the Court of Appeal, First District, affirmed the trial court’s approval of a nationwide class action settlement over the objections of several class members. Although it is not published, the Cellphone Fee case provides guidance for litigants seeking to secure approval of class-wide settlements. It also suggests effective litigation strategy that will help class action parties “win” the settlement against asserted objections.Continue Reading Court of Appeal Affirms Multi-Million Dollar Settlement Despite Vigorous Objections

The Second District of California Court of Appeal recently refused to extend the continuing violations doctrine to causes of action brought under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly sustained the defendant’s demurrer on the ground that the UCL cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.
Continue Reading Time Out: California Court of Appeal Enforces Statute of Limitations in Class Action Brought Under the UCL

On June 4, 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued its first important decision on the scope of California’s Perata Mortgage Relief Act, passed into law in 2008 and codified at California Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6. See Mabry v. Superior Court (Case No. G042911, June 4, 2010) —Cal.App.4th—, 2010 WL 2180530. The plaintiffs alleged a class action.
Continue Reading The California Court Of Appeal Narrowly Interprets The Perata Mortgage Relief Act

On May 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part a district court’s decision certifying class actions against the Republic of Argentina and granting over $2 billion in damages to eight classes of plaintiffs.  Puricelli v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 09-0332, 2010 WL 2105132 (2nd Cir. May 27, 2010)(“Puricelli“). While the Court of Appeals concluded that class certification was appropriate, it held that the district court erred in entering aggregate class-wide relief, as opposed to determining individual relief.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Rejects $2 Billion Class Action Award Against The Republic of Argentina

On March 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit held that the National Bank Act (“NBA”) preempts claims of “unfair” and “fraudulent” conduct in violation of state law. See Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., No. 07-17277 (9th Cir. March 9, 2010).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That The National Bank Act Preempts California’s Unfair Competition Law

On December 31, 2009, the Third Circuit held that a borrower must prove detrimental reliance to obtain actual damages for a violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). See Vallies v. Sky Bank, —F.3d—, 2009 WL 5154473 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Continue Reading In A Putative Class Action, The Third Circuit Holds That A Plaintiff Must Show Detrimental Reliance On Improper Loan Disclosure Statements To Obtain Actual Damages Under The Truth In Lending Act

In Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 2009 WL 3448264 (3d Cir. October 28, 2009), the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit confronted the issue of whether consumer plaintiffs alleging a violation of section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”), codified in relevant part at 12 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(2), need to show a monetary injury “in the form of an overcharge” to have standing to bring a private right of action against a mortgage lender. The Third Circuit concluded that plaintiffs need not suffer an overcharge because the “plain language of RESPA section 8 indicate[s] that Congress created a private right of action without requiring an overcharge allegation.” Rather, plaintiffs must only allege that a defendant received a “kickback” or offered a “sham service” under RESPA section 8(a) and 8(b) –– regardless of whether plaintiffs have suffered a monetary harm –– to have Article III standing to sue in the Third Circuit. This decision paves the way for class action litigation against other lenders asserting claims under Section 8 of RESPA.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Holds That Plaintiffs Alleging Respa Violations Under Section 8 Need Not Show An Overcharge To Have Article III Standing To Sue

The California Court of Appeal has recently published two new decisions involving data privacy class actions. Both involve claims under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. The most recent, Jessica Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 2009 DJDAR 15191, affirmed the judgment against the plaintiff on the grounds that it is not a violation of Song-Beverly to request a zip code during a credit card transaction, even if the zip code is matched with a name to acquire that individual’s address, and that the same conduct is not a serious invasion of privacy where the home address information is publicly available and plaintiff has taken no special steps to protect it. Approximately one month earlier, the same panel held in Susan Powers v. Pottery Barn Inc., (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1039, that the federal CAN-SPAM Act does not preempt a Song-Beverly claim based on a request for an email address, and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Continue Reading In Two Recent Class Actions, Retailers Get More Clarity On Key Privacy Issues In Song-Beverly Cases – Zip Code O.K., Reverse Lookup O.K., E-mail Address Not Preempted