In Hatfield v. Halifax PLC, et al., the Ninth Circuit explains that American Pipe tolling and California's equitable tolling doctrine are not identical

/

The Ninth Circuit issued a very interesting opinion last week about serial class action tolling in California state courts (for purposes of this post, let's just assume that "interesting" and "serial class action tolling" are phrases you would arguably use in a single sentence that did not also involve irony or sarcasm).  In Hatfield v. Halifax PLC, et al. (May 8, 2009), the Ninth Circuit reviewed a district court decision in which the district court found that Plaintiff "Hatfield’s claims, brought eight-and-a-half years after her causes of action arose, were barred by California’s statutes of limitations, which are four years or less for each of Hatfield’s claims."  (Slip op., at p. 5403.)  On appeal, Hatfield argued, in part, that the "limitations period was tolled by the filing of a previous class action in New Jersey state court, making this action timely.  (Id.)

First, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Hatfield, as an individual, was entitled to tolling from the filing of the New Jersey class action.  (Slip op., at pp. 5412-15.)  The Ninth Circuit then turned to the more difficult question of whether Hatfield could claim such tolling on behalf of class members that Hatfield sought to represent:

While there is no California precedent directly on point, based on closely analogous precedent, we see no reason why California’s equitable tolling doctrine would not also apply to the claims of its unnamed putative class members who, like Hatfield, are California residents.  First, the California Supreme Court has indicated a general agreement with tolling in the class action context, going so far as to cite with approval the Supreme Court’s decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). See Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923, 934-35 (Cal. 1988). In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” 414 U.S. at 554.  In Jolly, 751 P.2d 934-35, the California Supreme Court noted with approval the two major policies that underlie the American Pipe tolling rule, the first of which is most relevant here.  That policy protects the class action device because, without it, potential class members would be induced to file protective actions to preserve their claims, thus depriving class actions of their ability to secure “efficiency and economy of litigation.”  Id. at 935 (quoting American Pipe, 414 U.S. at 553).  In Jolly, despite the endorsement of American Pipe, the court rejected its application under the facts of that case.  Id. at 935-36.

(Slip op., at pp. 5415-16, footnotes omitted.)  Defendant Halifax then argued that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), precluded "cross-jurisdictional tolling."  The Ninth Circuit agreed that, while Clemens would preclude American Pipe tolling, it would not bar California's equitable tolling doctrine:

Although the Clemens decision would foreclose application of American Pipe here, it does not dictate a similar rejection of California’s equitable tolling doctrine, especially as it applies to California’s own residents. Although the two types of tolling—equitable and American Pipe —overlap to some extent, see Becker, 277 Cal. Rptr. at 496, and even though California courts have treated them at times as interchangeable, they are not congruent. The Halifax Appellees themselves concede that “the equitable tolling applied to individual actions is distinct from American Pipe tolling.” They cite Newport v. Dell, Inc., No. CV-08-0096, 2008 WL 4347311, at *4 n.8 (D. Az. Aug. 21, 2008), a case decided shortly after Clemens, which stated that “[t]he class-action tolling discussed in American Pipe and Crown is a species of legal tolling, not equitable tolling.” Thus, by the Halifax Appellees’ own admission, Clemens, which only rejected the application of American Pipe tolling in a cross-jurisdictional action, does not affect the application of California’s equitable tolling doctrine, which covers situations beyond those covered by American Pipe. See McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 194 P.3d 1026, 1032 (Cal. 2008) (“[California’s equitable HATFIELD v. HALIFAX PLC tolling] may apply where one action stands to lessen the harm that is the subject of a potential second action; where administrative remedies must be exhausted before a second action can proceed; or where a first action, embarked upon in good faith, is found to be defective for some reason.”).

(Slip op., at pp. 5417-18.)  The Court concluded that California would protect its own citizens with its equitable tolling doctrine ("California has a strong interest in providing a remedy for wrongs committed against its citizens"), but would not extend that same equitable tolling protection to individuals outside of California. 

As a final observation, the Ninth Circuit also offered a useful comment on the extent of tolling that is available under American Pipe:

Although American Pipe is clearly applicable to individual actions, some federal decisions have refused to allow the doctrine to toll the limitations period for subsequently filed class actions. See Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1987) (“We agree with the Second Circuit that to extend tolling to class actions ‘tests the outer limits of the American Pipe doctrine and . . . falls beyond its carefully crafted parameters into the range of abusive options.’ ” (quoting Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir. 1987) (alteration in original))).  In Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), however, the Ninth Circuit extended American Pipe to toll the claims of an entire class where “[p]laintiffs . . . are not attempting to relitigate an earlier denial of class certification, or to correct a procedural deficiency in an earlier would-be class.”  Whether the subject class action was actually trying to relitigate the certification issue was disputed by one of the dissents.  Id. at 1157-58 (Graber, J., dissenting in part).  However, the current action is clearly not an instance in which Hatfield is trying to reargue a denial of class certification because of a failure to meet Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or its state counterpart.  Rather, the previous class action was dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction.  Thus, if Hatfield had brought the original class action in California, American Pipe would permit tolling for the entire class action.

(Slip op., at p. 5419, fn. 8.)

In D'Este v. Bayer Corporation, Ninth Circuit certifies interesting issue to California Supreme Court

/

The Ninth Circuit has been certifying questions to various state Supreme Courts with increasing frequency.  After giving this observed increase some thought, I theorize that at least one reason for this increase is the shift of some class actions to federal court as a result of CAFA.  For example, in a post on this blog, I noted a recent question certified to the California Supreme Court about e-mail spam.  Other issues certified to state supreme courts are simply questions of first impression, at least as the caselaw is viewed by the Ninth Circuit.  One example of such an issue involves a question about statutes of limitation in California, noted in this post on Products Liability Prof Blog.  The most famous recent example involves the certification of questions in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., covered on The UCL Practitioner.

On May 5, 2009, in D'Este v. Bayer Corporation (link now corrected) the Ninth Circuit certified a challenging question that actually a colleague of mine fits in a class action we both worked on several years ago.  Here is the key question certified to the California Supreme Court:

“The Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders 1-2001 and 4-2001 define “outside salesperson” to mean “any person, 18 years of age or over, who customarily and regularly works more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of facilities.” 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11010, subd. 2(J); 11040, subd. 2(M). Does a pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) qualify as an “outside salesperson” under this definition, if the PSR spends more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business and personally interacts with doctors and hospitals on behalf of drug companies for the purpose of increasing individual doctors’ prescriptions of specific drugs?

(Order, at p. 5193.)  But the question doesn't really capture the issue.  The underlying issue, developed in the factual description, turns on the fundamental nature of sales for purposes of the "outside salesperson" overtime exemption.  The pharmaceutical representatives in question promote Bayer products to doctors and hospitals, but they don't actually enter into bindings sales agreements.  Instead, they attempt to influence the prescription decisions of doctors and hospitals.  Are they "selling" when they engage in this promotion that does not end in a commercial transaction?  The Ninth Circuit thinks that the wage order can be interpreted in either manner.  Without CAFA, this issue would certainly have made its way to a California Court of Appeal.  Instead, it has moved outside the state court system, up to the Ninth Circuit, and may end up at the California Supreme Court through this inefficient route.

In Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services, the Ninth Circuit goes the extra mile to address class notice cost-shifting

/

Ninth Circuit Seal“We have never addressed when it is appropriate to place notice costs on a class action defendant,” said the Ninth Circuit on March 31, 2009, in Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services. When an appellate court says that, you are almost guaranteed to get an answer to that question (unless the appellate court takes that opportunity to mention that it isn’t going to answer that question because it doesn’t have to reach the question to resolve the appeal). In this instance, you are in luck. Hunt provides something of an answer to that question.

The “holding” is summarized in the final paragraph of the opinion:

“District courts may order a class action defendant to pay the cost of class notification after they determine that the defendant is liable on the merits. They may in an appropriate case shift these notice costs even when the liability decision is under appeal. Here, considering the totality of circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by placing the cost of class notification on IMS.

(Opinion, at p. 3895.) From this paragraph, we already know that trouble is afoot. We know that merits were decided, in some fashion, against the defendant, and that decision is on appeal. One could also infer, rightly in this case, that the opinion doesn’t resolve the liability appeal. So we have a notice cost shifting order resolved on an appeal before the underlying liability decision is resolved. The truth, as is often the case in litigation, is even worse than that:

“This appeal reaches us in unusual procedural circumstances [author’s note: “uh oh”] that have resulted in two active appeals assigned to different panels of our circuit. Brandy Hunt and Brian Castillo (collectively “Hunt”) filed a class action complaint against IMS, alleging that it violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect both an interest charge and a statutory service charge on dishonored checks. The district court concluded that whether IMS violated the FDCPA turned on whether California law permits a debt collector to demand both a statutory service charge and interest in addition to the debt amount. Hunt v. Check Recovery Sys., Inc., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1161 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The district court granted Hunt partial summary judgment on liability in March 2007, concluding that IMS’ collection efforts violated California law and thus the FDCPA. In a separate order filed the same day, the district court certified two subclasses under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), with Hunt and Castillo as named plaintiffs.

(Opinion, at p. 3885.) But wait, there’s more:

“The class action was not the first time Brandy Hunt had pursued her FDCPA claim against IMS. Hunt had declared bankruptcy before filing her class action complaint, and the bankruptcy court determined that IMS could not collect both an interest charge and a statutory service charge from Hunt under California law. IMS appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the district court, and the appeal was assigned to the same district judge responsible for the consolidated class action cases. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, incorporating its March 2007 partial summary judgment order in this class action case as the basis for affirming. IMS appealed the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court, and the appeal was assigned to a different panel of our circuit as case number 07-15976 (the “merits appeal”). On May 12, 2008, the other panel certified to the California Supreme Court the question whether a debt collector recovering on a dishonored check may impose both a service charge and prejudgment interest under California law. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc. v. Hunt, 528 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008).

The California Supreme Court granted certification in July 2008, but has not yet issued its decision, and so the merits appeal is still active. The class action case has been stayed since June 2008, pending resolution of both this appeal and the merits appeal.

(Opinion, at p. 3886-7.) Amazing. You can decide for yourself whether you think that this is amazing “good” or amazing “bad”. If you are curious about the cost-shifting analysis, it is but a smidgeon of the opinion. Before the Court ever reaches that issue, it has to decide whether it can hear the appeal, what standard of review applies, whether the appeal is moot, whether it is “anticipatorily moot,” and whether the Court will hear the matter regardless. The Court decides to hear the issue because it is an “issue that often arises in district courts but typically evades appellate review.”

Read More

Class action news of note: Tobacco II arguments leaves everyone guessing, and more

/

This past week, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Tobacco II cases.  Extensive coverage of the oral argument is available from the UCL Practitioner in this post.  The obligatory reading of tea leaves has, in this instance, revealed little.  For examle, Mike McKee, writing for The Records, said, "Just a few weeks ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act can only be filed by individuals who suffer real damage from unlawful business practices. But during oral arguments on Tuesday it wasn't clear where the court stood on applying that same rule to every participant of class actions filed under the state's Unfair Competition Law."  (Mike McKee, Calif. Justices Air Standing for UCL Class Actions Against Tobacco Industry (March 4, 2009) www.law.com.)  Having watched the argument myself, I agree that it was hard to discern much from the Justices.  The cynic in me always assumes that the creep of Proposition 64 will keep on spreading its tendrils, but the argument itself gives me little actual evidence to support that guess.

Meanwhile, the significance of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., et al. (February 26, 2009) reached the legal media:  "In a blow to plaintiffs class action lawyers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made it tougher to hold that a national company is a 'citizen' of California merely based on the disproportionate size of the state's population."  (Pamela A. MacLean, 9th Circuit Deals a Blow to Plaintiffs Lawyers in 'Principal Place of Business' Test (March 9, 2009) www.law.com.)  Not that Tosco actually held that a state's population size governed corporate citizenship, but the remainder of the article is accurate.  This blog noted the decision in this short post.

Finally, while a bit late to the party, another ISP and the defunct Adzilla were sued for deep packet inspection for the purposes of obtaining the advertising holy grail: complete knowledge of each consumer's behaviors and preferences.  (Ryan Singel, Another ISP Ad Snooper Hit With Lawsuit (March 3, 2009) www.wired.com.)  I've already expressed my contempt for this behavior by ISPs.  Luckily, these projects appear dead in the United States.  But don't count on them staying down forever.

Read More

in brief: Ninth Circuit clarifies the Tosco "substantial predominance" test for corporate operations in Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., et al.

/

Ninth Circuit SealIf you spend any time litigating class actions, CAFA almost guarantees that some of that time will be spent in federal court. Thus, the citizenship of the defendant(s) is a significant issue. In Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., et al. (February 26, 2009), the Ninth Circuit interpreted and limited the “substantial predominance” analysis for the “principal place of business” test, as it was described in Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2001). In brief, the Court held that the “substantial predominance” of activities is tested against national activities, not the next largest state, but a per-capita analysis is not required.

Read More

in brief: UCL Practitioner has more on Sullivan, et al. v. Oracle Corporation

/

The UCL Pracitioner has a series of posts on Sullivan, et al. v. Oracle Corporation.  In particular, the most recent post sets forth the questions certified by the Ninth Circuit to the California Supreme Court.

Read More

in brief: Ninth Circuit opinion in Sullivan, et al. v. Oracle Corporation is withdrawn

/

Ninth Circuit SealThe Ninth Circuit issued an Order today in Sullivan, et al. v. Oracle Corporation, withdrawing its prior opinion. The Court said, "We have today issued an order requesting the California Supreme Court to answer three certified questions of California law presented in this case. We hereby withdraw our published opinion in this case, Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), pending a decision by the California Supreme Court on those questions. Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing and Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc are dismissed as moot." The Complex Litigator will have more on the certified questions in another post.

Read More

Ninth Circuit certifies interesting e-mail question to California Supreme Court in Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings

/

As I play weekend catch-up and work through the list of items to consider for posting, I saw a Ninth Circuit case that I saved for its technology angle.  Periodically, the Ninth Circuit gets a tricky question of first impression about California law.  When the answer to the question could prove significant, the Ninth Circuit will occasionally certify a question to the California Supreme Court, in the hope that the California Supreme Court will bail them out and take the question.  In Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings, the Ninth Circuit certified this question:

“Does sending unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters constitute falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a)(2)?

Yes.  Why yes?  Because there isn't any spam out there that isn't faking its header information.  Perhaps an overstatement, but so close to true that the differential is insignificant.  The fact that spam comes from multiple domain names is just an additional irritation.  Somebody oughta' file a class action...

Read More

Travelers Casualty v. Brenneke: How to serve a recalcitrant defendant

/

Ninth Circuit SealJust because your case is complex doesn’t mean that you don’t have to worry about ordinary tasks . . . like serving parties. While The Complex Litigator doesn’t spend much time covering civil procedure issues outside of the class action device, there are exceptions to almost every rule, as with a recent Ninth Circuit decision regarding service of process. In Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Brenneke (January 9, 2009), the Ninth Circuit examined the nature of “person service” when a defendant studiously avoids service of process.

Describing the disputed service of process, the Court said:

“ In connection with its motion to enter default, Travelers submitted the affidavit of Phil Sheldon (“Sheldon”), a process server for Barrister Support Service, which Travelers had hired to effectuate service upon Brenneke. Sheldon stated that he had experienced “significant difficulty” in serving Brenneke in the past, and that he was aware of other process servers’ having experienced similar difficulty. He also indicated that he had successfully served legal documents personally on Brenneke on prior occasions. As to the current matter, he stated that he had made four separate visits to Brenneke’s home between March 17, 2006 and April 2, 2006, attempting to accomplish service. No one answered the door or intercom even though, on more than one occasion, there were two or three vehicles in the driveway. On both his first and third visits to that residence, Sheldon left a note for Brenneke to contact Barrister Support Service, but he did not do so. During what was apparently the fifth attempt, on the evening of April 2, 2006, an adult male answering to the name of Paul Brenneke responded to Sheldon’s ringing on the intercom at Brenneke’s residence. When Sheldon identified himself as a process server, that person responded “Oh great,” but never opened the door. However, Sheldon observed Brenneke standing behind the window next to the front door watching him. Sheldon then held the summons and complaint out towards the window, and announced in a loud voice “You are served.” Sheldon further indicated that Brenneke watched him place the documents on the doorstep. Sheldon thereafter completed a proof of service form.

(Slip op., at p. 166.) I find this sort of behavior very entertaining. Many years ago, I was counsel in a matter where one defendant jumped in a car and locked the door to avoid service. The papers were left on the windshield. I was successful in arguing that “personal service” had been effectuated.

District Court Judge George H. Wu, sitting by designation, delivered the opinion of the Court.  As an aside, the Ninth Circuit has made viewing new opinions very easy through their website with an embedded PDF viewer.

Read More

Cable set-top box class action against Time Warner are centralized in New York

/

I recently reported on proposed class action suits filed against Time Warner in California and Kansas, among other states.  That background information about those class action can be found in this post, but, in a nutshell, the suits challenge as unlawful the inability of consumers to purchase their set-top boxes outright.  On December 8, 2008, the MDL consolidated six class actions in the Southern District of New York.  (In re Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (December 8, 2008).)

Via ClassActionDefenseBlog.

Read More