California Class Issues

Summary

Following the trial of a tobacco false advertising case dating back to 1997, a California court found that, although the defendant misrepresented to consumers the health benefits of its Marlboro Lights cigarettes, the Plaintiffs were entitled to no relief as they failed to prove entitlement to any of the limited remedies available under California’s

“Shakedown Suits”

Although California’s passage of Proposition 64 made it more difficult for the plaintiffs’ bar to bring “shakedown suits” against the business community, we are witnessing a flood of false advertising class actions brought (or, more often, threatened) against consumer product manufacturers and retailers, who typically have no arbitration rights.  While some lawsuits are

It is often assumed that the statutory penalty in civil actions under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code section 630 et seq. (“CIPA” or “Act”), is $5,000 for each instance of misconduct that violates the Act.  (Some California courts have indeed indicated as much, though in dicta and without analysis.)  Adopting such a

The Ninth Circuit recently held that a declaration from the defendant’s comptroller stating that the defendant’s sales of the challenged product during the class period exceeded $5 million was sufficient to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (“CAFA”).   Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 13-55755

On July 15, 2013, Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered an opinion in Craftwood II, Inc. v. Tomy International, Inc., No. SA CV 12-1710 (C.D. Cal.), denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rejecting defendant’s argument that its offer of judgment mooted plaintiff’s claims.

Adding to the growing list of Defendants forced into large settlements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Northern District of California approved a $6 million common fund class settlement, inclusive of a 25%, or $1.5 million, attorneys’ fees allocation.

Factual Background

On May 27, 2011, two individuals filed a class action lawsuit against

In one of the many food labeling cases flooding the dockets of California federal courts, U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila denied certification of two proposed classes of consumers that included potential class members who had purchased products other than the ones purchased by the named plaintiff.  See Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

California Penal Code section 632.7 imposes criminal liability and, pursuant to Penal Code section 637.2, civil liability upon persons who intercept or receive a communication involving a cellular or cordless telephone and record the communication without consent.  The section and its sister provision, Penal Code section 632, are popular among class action plaintiffs in California

According to a documentary filmmaker, the answer to that question is a resounding “Yes.”  Last week, Good Morning to You Productions Corp. (“GMTY”), a New York based film company, filed a class action lawsuit seeking to remove any purported copyright protection for the song “Happy Birthday to You,” as well as recovering all allegedly improper