Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[03/10] Hesse v. Sprint Corp.
In a class action alleging that defendant Sprint Corp. unlawfully collected a Washington state tax from Washington customers, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a prior class action settlement challenged Sprint's billing of customers for certain federal regulatory fees, and the Washington plaintiffs' interests were not adequately represented in that litigation.

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[03/02] Orosco v. Napolitano
In an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to compel defendants to issue him a law enforcement certification showing his cooperation with law enforcement under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the language of section 1184(p) made it abundantly clear that the decision to issue a law enforcement certification is a discretionary one.

[03/02] Rutti v. Vermillion
In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant's vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer's vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff's postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff's principal activities.

[03/02] Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
In a class action alleging copyright infringement, a circuit court's ruling vacating a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, but a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

[02/24] McAdams v. Monier, Inc.
In plaintiffs' action under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, claiming that defendant failed to disclose that the color composition of its roof tiles would erode away well before the end of the tiles' represented 50-year lifetime, trial court's order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes are reversed where: 1) as to the elements of liability and reliance, plaintiffs' CLR cause of action, based on the alleged failure to disclose is suitable for class treatment; and 2) trial court used improper criteria and made erroneous legal assumptions in denying certification of the proposed UCL class, and on remand, court is instructed to determine if the representative plaintiff meets the UCL standing requirements set forth in Tobacco II.

[02/24] Hertz Corp. v. Friend
In a wage and hour action, the court of appeals' affirmance of the district court's order remanding the case to state court is vacated and remanded where the Court returned to the "nerve center" approach in determining a corporation's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, under which "principal place of business" is best read as referring to the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.

[02/23] Gintis v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc.
In plaintiffs-property owners' action against the owners and operators of a fuel barge that discharged a substantial amount of oil into a Massachusetts bay, district court's denial of class certification is vacated and remanded because the district court did not subject the parties' contentions to the plenary analysis required by precedent.

[02/22] Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc.
In an interlocutory appeal of a trial court's class certification order, where the class representative obtained assignments of claims that the defendant telephone company improperly charged some of its business customers certain municipal fees, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the class decertified where: 1) the assignments are valid and provide standing; 2) the class representative's claims are typical of the other class members' claims; 3) common questions of law or fact predominate; but 4) the putative class representative failed to establish that it adequately represents the claim.

More...