Your first taste of Brinker in 2011, compliments of Hernandez v. Chipotle

On January 26, 2011, the Supreme Court held a weekly conference.  Of particular note was the "GRANTED and Held" Order in the matter of Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.  Hernandez was striking for how vehemently it ignored Jaimez when it chose to follow the most anti-employee decisions of various federal courts and then enunciate a meal period standard that is the functional equivalent of the standard applicable to rest breaks.  See prior blog post here.  Maybe it means nothing at all other than the Supreme Court doesn't want published meal period cases floating around while Brinker is pending.  Or maybe the Supreme Court is close to the finish line on Brinker and views Hernandez as inconsistent with its intended holdings.

Update on 2011-02-03 07:07 by The Complex Litigator

I wasn't prepared at the time, but now I am ready with my Brinker-Watch 2011 tile.  Look for this tile to alert you to breaking Brinker news.  After all, it's just about time for the Supreme Court to announce its March calendar...

Breaking News: Kwikset Corporation v. Superior Court clears up many issues regarding standing under the UCL

I haven't read the entire opinion yet, which has a 32 page majority opinion and a 12 page dissent, but the the summary of the Supreme Court's holding in Kwikset Corporation v. Superior Court (Jan. 27, 2011) says a lot about what this opinion has to say about the UCL and standing.  James Benson sued Kwikset under the unfair competition and false advertising laws, alleging that he purchased a lockset because of its false country of manufacture label.  The Court said:

Accordingly, plaintiffs who can truthfully allege they were deceived by a product‟s label into spending money to purchase the product, and would not have purchased it otherwise, have “lost money or property” within the meaning of Proposition 64 and have standing to sue. Because plaintiffs here have so alleged, we reverse.

Slip op., at 2.  Stay tuned.

Update on 2011-01-27 23:43 by The Complex Litigator

A link to the opnion has been added to this post.

Ninth Circuit holds that district courts are limited to the complaint in deciding certain local controversy criteria for CAFA remand

On November 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear a discretionary appeal in Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc.  See prior post.  The Ninth Circuit accepted the appeal and provided some guidance in the Ninth Circuit as to whether such appeals should be taken.  Today, the Ninth Circuit issued its Opinion on the underlying issue.  Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc. (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011).  Asked to decide whether a federal district court is limited to the complaint in deciding whether two of the criteria for the local controversy exception are satisfied, the Court held that the district court is so limited.

Coleman moved for remand under the local controversy exception. Estes opposed, arguing that two of the criteria for the local controversy exception were not satisfied. "First, Estes argued that Estes West had insufficient funds to satisfy a judgment, and that 'significant relief' therefore had not been 'sought' from it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa). Second, Estes argued that Estes Express had almost complete control over the operations of Estes West, and that Estes West’s 'alleged conduct' therefore did not 'form a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class.' Id. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb)."  Slip op., at 5.  Estes then supplied a declaration to support its contentions.  The District Court refused to consider the declaration, finding that the complaint satisfied the criteria for remand.

Looking at the plain language of the statute, the Court found support for the concept that the pleadings govern the analysis:

The first criterion is whether “significant relief is sought” from a defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the suit is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa) (emphasis added). The word “sought” focuses attention on the plaintiff’s claim for relief — that is, on what is “sought” in the complaint — rather than on what may or may not be proved by evidence. The second criterion is whether the defendant’s “alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class.” Id. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb) (emphasis added). Like the word “sought,” the word “alleged” makes clear that the second criterion is based on what is alleged in the complaint rather than on what may or may not be proved by evidence.

Slip op., at 8.

The Court then reviewed the legislative history and concluded that it supported the construction applied by the Court.  The Court commentd in passing that the declaration supplied by Estes was probably insufficient even if the District Court could have considered it.

The Court ended with a note about variations in pleading standards between state and federal courts:

We are aware of the difficulties that can be created by different pleading requirements in state and federal courts. A plaintiff filing a putative class action in state court need satisfy only the pleading standards of that court. It is therefore possible that if a putative class action is removed from state to federal court under CAFA the complaint, as originally drafted, will not answer the questions that need to be answered before the federal court can determine whether the suit comes within the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. In that circumstance, the district court may, in its discretion, require or permit the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addresses any relevant CAFA criteria.

Slip op., at 21-22. The Court then affirmed the remand.

Ninth Circuit agrees with other Courts and applies Wyeth v. Levine in holding that failure-to-warn claims are not pre-empted for generic drug manufacturers.

I don't spend too much time on products liability issues, but Wyeth v. Levine was a major ruling in the area of federal preemption, and its reach is still being tested.  In Gaeta v. Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Company (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2011), the Ninth Circuit agreed with two Courts of Appeals and all of the district courts to consider the issue of whether federal law preempts state law failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers.

In Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), the Supreme Court determined that state law failure-to-warn claims against brand name manufacturers were not preempted by federal law.  However, it was unclear whether the holdilng applied to generic manufacturers.  Applying the Levine analysis, two other Courts of Appeals, and all of the district courts to consider the issue, held that federal law does not preempt state law failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers, provided there is no “clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved the proposed stronger warning. We agree and hold that the district court erred in applying federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit agreed, reversing and remanding.

District Court denies certification in consumer case involving appliance repair insurance

United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler (Southern District of California) denied a motion for class certification in a suit alleging improper practices and representations about a home warranty insurance product.  Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection Co., Inc., 2011 WL 42759 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 06, 2011).  The Court found that individual issues would predominate because each denial of warranty coverage would reuqire an inquiry into the basis for the denial.  The Court also relied heavily on the construction of Tobacco II that was advanced in Cohen v. DirectTV, 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009) when it refused to presume reliance on the part of absent class members.

Order from In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litigation highlights need to support incentive award requests with detailed facts when the requested award is substantial

Untited States District Court Judge Saundra B. Armstrong (Northern District of California) granted in part and denied in part the unopposed motion of plaintiffs for an award of incentive payments and attorney's fees.  In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litigation, 2011 WL 31266 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 05, 2011).  Counsel requested 33.3% of the maximum settlement amount of $86 million.  The Court agreed that a departure from the 25% benchmark in the Ninth Circuit was appropriate but not to that degree.  The Court awarded a fee equal to 27% of the maximum settlement amount.

On the requested enhancement awards, the Court said:

Upon review of the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to a reasonable incentive payment. However, the Court finds the requested award of $25,000 per named Plaintiff to be excessive, in view of the nature of their assistance in this case.  First, the Court notes that the named Plaintiffs have not indicated in their declarations the total number of hours they spent on this litigation. Rather, they generally explain that they were deposed, responded to written discovery, and assisted and met with counsel. Second, in arguing that $25,000 is an appropriate award, Plaintiffs cite to cases that are clearly distinguishable. For instance, in Brotherton v. Cleveland, 141 F.Supp.2d 907 (S.D.Ohio 2001), the court awarded $50,000 to a single named plaintiff, finding that “she has spent approximately 800 hours working on this litigation.” Id. at 914. By contrast, here, there is no evidence that the named Plaintiffs' involvement reached anywhere near this level.

Slip op., at 4.  The Court awarded $5,000 to each plaintiff.

Kullar v. Foot Locker generating more precedent, this time on a disqualification issue

So, I'm back after a vacation, and just in time.  Luckily, nothing at all happened while I was gone.  Today, however, we receive a new nugget of precedent from one of those cases that keeps on giving.  In Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (January 18, 2011), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three) reviewed a denial of a motion to disqualify counsel representing the objectors to a proposed class action settlement in Kullar.  If this doesn't ring a bell for you, let me recap.  Kullar (the 2008 opinion: Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2008)) reversed an order granting approval to a proposed class action settlement after concluding that the information provided to the trial court was insufficient to permit the court to conclude that the settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable.

How does this lead to a motion to disqualify?  Glad you asked.  The Court sums up as well as I could the procedural maneuvering leading to the motion to disqualify:

Prior to the trial court's approval of the settlement in the Kullar action (Kullar v. Footlocker, No. CGC-05-447044 (Kullar)), Echeverria, represented by the same attorneys, had filed a partially overlapping putative class action against Foot Locker and others in the Alameda County Superior Court (Echeverria v. Footlocker, No. RG07317036 (Echeverria I)). Because of the pendency of the settlement in the Kullar action, the Alameda court entered an order staying Echeverria I, which remained in effect through the pendency of the Kullar appeal. On April 15, 2009, one month after issuance of the remittitur in Kullar, Echeverria and the two other objectors represented by Q&W filed an action in the San Francisco Superior Court, where Kullar was pending, asserting the same claims as were alleged in the stayed Alameda action (Echeverria v. Footlocker, No. CGC-09-487345 (Echeverria II)). Based on the pendency of identical claims in Echeverria I, the San Francisco court on July 29, 2009, stayed proceedings in Echeverria II. In subsequent proceedings in Kullar, the court considered the additional showing made to establish the fairness of the proposed settlement, the three objectors' renewed objections to settlement approval, and on October 22, 2009, the court again granted final approval of the class settlement. Echeverria dismissed the Alameda action and on November 17, 2009, the San Francisco court lifted the stay in Echeverria II.

Slip op., at 2-3.  The Court then describes the motion to disqualify filed by Foot Locker, which argued that representation of objectors on the one hand and potential class members on the other created a conflict.  The trial court rejected that argument as did the Court of Appeal.  I don't find the outcome surprising.  But the opinion does offer some interesting comments, where the Court briefly discusses the obligations of counsel to putative class members prior to certification:

Initially, since no class has yet been certified in Echeverria II (and no class was ever certified in Echeverria I), no attorney-client relationship has yet arisen between Q&W and the members of the putative class. (Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 867, 873 [“We cannot accept the suggestion that a potential (but as yet unapproached) class member should be deemed 'a party . . . represented by counsel' even before the class is certified; we respectfully disagree to this extent with the federal courts which apparently would accept it.”]; Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 410, 433, citing comment 25 to rule 1.7 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct [“When a lawyer represents or seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs or defendants in a class-action lawsuit, unnamed members of the class are ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for purposes of applying paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule [that restricts representation when there are concurrent conflicts of interest] . . .”]; In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation (N.D.Cal. 2000) 126 F.Supp.2d 1239, 1245; Cal. Compendium on Prof. Responsibility, L.A. County Bar Assn. Formal Opn. No. 481 (March 20, 1995).)  

Foot Locker cites cases that clearly are inapposite to establish that an attorney may incur fiduciary obligations to an individual even though an attorney-client relationship has not arisen. Most involve situations where there were preliminary consultations between the individual and the attorney looking to the retention of the attorney but the potential client did not hire the attorney. (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135; Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802.) Closer to the mark is the court's statement in In re GMC Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig. (3rd Cir. 1995) 55 F.3d 768, 801: “Beyond their ethical obligations to their clients, class attorneys, purporting to represent a class, also owe the entire class a fiduciary duty once the class complaint is filed.” This statement—which, it should be noted, recognizes that putative class members are not clients of the attorney—was made in the context of considering the propriety of certifying a settlement class, with little application to the present situation. Moreover, assuming that Q&W assumed some fiduciary obligations to members of the putative class they seek to represent, no authority has been cited suggesting that those obligations preclude the attorneys from urging that a proposed settlement in related litigation is not in the best interests of the class. (Compare Schick v. Berg (2004) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6842, *19 (S.D.N.Y. 2004, affd. (2d Cir. 2005) 430 F.3d 112 [attorney owed putative class member a duty not to prejudice putative class member's rights in the action in which class certification was sought, but duty did not extend to refraining from advising a third party to sue putative class member].)

Slip op., at 5-6.  After reading these remarks, I now believe that it is unclear in California whether the majority approach follows or diverges from the federal cases suggesting a fiduciary obligation extends to putative class members prior to certification.  It seems likely, however, that regardless of the answer as to where California is on the issue, the obligations to the unknown putative class members do not rise to the same level as that of the obligations to a represented client.  The ability to harmonize this question is complicated by authority indicating that class counsel can replace a proposed class representative for the good of the class, which, in one way of looking at it, suggests that the interests of the putative class can rise high enough to squeeze the initial client to the sidelines.

December 28, 2010 edition of Daily Journal includes columns on class arbitration issues

In case you missed it (as did I, and I'm one of the authors), the December 28, 2010 edition of the Daily Journal includes columns on the interaction between arbitration and class actions.

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno to depart for private sector

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, the only Democrat on the current Court, announced plans to step down from the Court after almost 10 years there.  February 28th will be his last day.  Governor Jerry Brown will appoint his successor.

Justice Moreno authored the majority opinion in Tobacco II.

The Complex Litigator will be on a vacation break for the next week

Having not taken a vacation in several years, it's about time for a week of R&R.  I may post if some sufficiently crazy news comes out, but I would get in trouble if I were posting on run-of-the-mill stuff (I'd get "stink eye" from soon-to-be six-year-old, and that would hurt too much).

Tell the Supreme Court not to ban all class actions until I am back.