February 2012


February 29, 2012 11:45 AM | Posted by Tinsley, Katie | Permalink

Two Settlement Class Member objectors appealed the approval of a proposed settlement agreement creating a $40 million settlement fund to be allocated among class members and their attorneys.  Union Asset Mgmt Holding A.G. v. Dell, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 375249, *1 (5th Cir., Feb. 7, 2012).   The class representatives allege that Defendant Dell and its officers, “violated the Securities Exchange Act  . . . by fraudulently inflating reported revenues, engaging in erroneous accounting, and disseminating false information to the public.”  Id.   The two objectors assert, inter alia, that the “court erred in using the percentage method to calculate class counsel’s fees.”  Id.

read more
February 27, 2012 11:55 AM | Posted by Celender, Kate | Permalink
In Palmer v. Convergys Corp., No. 7:10-cv-145, 2012 WL 425256, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2012), Plaintiffs sought to proceed as a class action, and argued that the class action waiver found in their employment contract was invalid.  The Middle District of Georgia disagreed and denied Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed as a Collective Action.  Id. at *1. read more
February 14, 2012 9:51 AM | Posted by Katherine Heckert | Permalink
In Sam Duran et al. vs. U.S. Bank National Assn., No. A125557 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2012), the California District Court of Appeals relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart to determine whether 20 out of 260 is a sufficient sample size to support class certification. What did they conclude? Find out, after the jump. read more
February 13, 2012 4:40 PM | Posted by Johanna Clark and Mary Katherine Tinsley | Permalink
In Carol Brinker v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli recommended that the District Judge deny Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because individualized issues of loss causation and timely notice of Plaintiffs’ claims predominated over common questions of fact or law as to their contract claims under closing protection letters. read more
February 10, 2012 10:08 AM | Posted by Katherine Heckert | Permalink
In Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 400369 (C.A.9 (Cal.)), the Ninth Circuit considered an appeal from a dismissal of a putative class action filed in a California federal district court, based on a Massachusetts federal district court’s certification of a nationwide class and approval of a class settlement.  A class member who objected in the Massachusetts case filed suit in California also seeking to represent a nationwide class, seeking damages based on the same facts as the Massachusetts case but against different defendants. Did the Ninth Circuit find this to be an appropriate basis for an action? Find out, after the jump.   read more
February 10, 2012 9:39 AM | Posted by Katherine Heckert | Permalink
Three years after initial class certification, the Ninth Circuit in Mazza v. American Honda, No. 09-55376 (Jan. 12, 2012) reviewed the District Court’s opinion, considering, in part, whether the Wal-Mart affirmative burden to demonstrate that a common question of fact or law exists was met to resolve the issues “in one stroke.”  Were such common issues present in Mazza, where consumers across the country were exposed to different advertising?  Find out, after the jump. read more
February 2, 2012 12:34 PM | Posted by Glover, Anthony | Permalink

Bank v. Hydra Group LLC, 433 F. App'x 50 (2d Cir. 2011), involved a putative class action that claimed violations of the California Business & Professional Code related to the defendant’s unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements.

read more