Seventh Circuit provides sharply defined view on class member standing in Kohen, et al. v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et al.

I don't follow the Seventh Circuit's decisions closely.  It's a bit outside my regular commute.  But it has served up an educational opinion about class member standing that is too intriguing to pass up without comment.

Kohen v. Pacific Investment Management Co. (7th Cir. Jul. 7, 2009) follows from a successful Rule 23(f) petition by defendants for permission to appeal a District Court's order certifying a class.  The suit, based on section 22(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 25(a), accuses the defendants (referred to in the appeal as “PIMCO”) of having violated section 9(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a), by cornering a futures market.  What's a cornered futures market?  Glad you asked.  Circuit Judge Posner explains in a very educational discussion that breaks down how a short seller can monopolize a futures market:

Changes in the demand for or the supply of the underlying commodity will make the price of a futures contract change over the period in which the contract is in force. If the price rises, the “long” (the buyer) benefits, as in our example, and if it falls the “short” (the seller) benefits. But a buyer may be able to force up the price by “cornering” the market—in this case by buying so many June contracts for 10-year Treasury notes that sellers can fulfill their contractual obligations only by dealing with that buyer.

Slip op. at 4.  But defendants were trying to corner financial commodities, and you can't corner the money supply...except in one particular instance involving Treasury notes:

Board of Trade v. SEC, supra, 187 F.3d at 725, remarks that since the possibility of manipulation “comes from the potential imbalance between the deliverable supply and investors’ contract rights near the expiration date[,] . . . [f]inancial futures contracts, which are settled in cash, have no ‘deliverable supply’; there can never be a mismatch between demand and supply near the expiration, or at any other time.” But while it is correct that most financial futures contracts are settled in cash, CFTC v. Zelener, 373 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2004); Kolb, supra, at 16, and that if a cash option exists there is no market to corner (no one can corner the U.S. money supply!), futures contracts traded on the Chicago Board of Trade for ten-year U.S. Treasury notes are an exception; they are not “cash settled.” Short sellers who make delivery must do so with approved U.S. Treasury notes; otherwise they must execute offsetting futures contracts.

Slip op. at 5.  The class certified by the district court consisted of all persons who between May 9 and June 30, 2005, bought a June Contract in order to close out a short position.  PIMCO challenged the definition on the ground that it includes persons who lack “standing” to sue because they did not lose money in their speculation on the June Contract.  For example, some of the class members might have taken both short and long positions (in order to hedge—that is, to limit their potential losses) and made more money in the long positions by virtue of PIMCO’s alleged cornering of the market than they lost in their short positions. The plaintiffs acknowledged this possibility but argued that its significance was best determined at the damages stage of the litigation.  The Court rejected PIMCO's contention:

PIMCO argues that before certifying a class the district judge was required to determine which class members had suffered damages. But putting the cart before the horse in that way would vitiate the economies of class action procedure; in effect the trial would precede the certification. It is true that injury is a prerequisite to standing. But as long as one member of a certified class has a plausible claim to have suffered damages, the requirement of standing is satisfied. United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 404 (1980); Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784, 785-86 (7th Cir. 2008).  This is true even  if the named plaintiff (the class representative) lacks standing, provided that he can be replaced by a class member who has standing. “The named plaintiff who no longer has a stake may not be a suitable class representative, but that is not a matter of jurisdiction and would not disqualify him from continuing as class representative until a more suitable member of the class was found to replace him.” Id. at 786.

Slip op. at 7.  Thus far, the Court has stated little more than settled principles about the ability to substitute class representatives after certification.  But the Court also commented on pre-certification standing:

Before a class is certified, it is true, the named plaintiff must have standing, because at that stage no one else has a legally protected interest in maintaining the suit. Id.; Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402 (1975); Walters v. Edgar, 163 F.3d 430, 432-33 (7th Cir. 1998); Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 810 (11th Cir. 2001). And while ordinarily an unchallenged allegation of standing suffices, a colorable challenge requires the plaintiff to meet it rather than stand mute. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). PIMCO tried to show in the district court that two of the named plaintiffs could not have been injured by the alleged corner. We need not decide whether it succeeded in doing so, because even if it did, that left one named plaintiff with standing, and one is all that is necessary.

Slip op. at 7-8.  The Court then explained that it is unnecessary to know whether all class members have standing to bring claims prior to certification:

What is true is that a class will often include persons who have not been injured by the defendant’s conduct; indeed this is almost inevitable because at the outset of the case many of the members of the class may be unknown, or if they are known still the facts bearing on their claims may be unknown. Such a possibility or indeed inevitability does not preclude class certification, Carnegie v. Household Int’l, supra, 376 F.3d at 661; 1 Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 2:4, pp. 73-75 (4th ed. 2002), despite statements in some cases that it must be reasonably clear at the outset that all class members were injured by the defendant’s conduct. Adashunas v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600, 604 (7th Cir. 1980); Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d Cir. 2006). Those cases focus on the class definition; if the definition is so broad that it sweeps within it persons who could not have been injured by the defendant’s conduct, it is too broad.

Slip op. at 9-10.  Later, California authority received a nod from the Court:

At argument PIMCO’s lawyer told us that he could obtain names of class members. If so, he can, as in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchage, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544, 550-51, 568, 571 (Cal. App. 2004), and Long v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 1988 WL 87051, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 1988), depose a random sample of class members to determine how many were net gainers from the alleged manipulation and therefore were not injured, and if it turns out to be a high percentage he could urge the district court to revisit its decision to certify the class. Cf. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 782-84 (9th Cir. 1996); Long v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 1320, 1325-30 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 1997 WL 630183, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 1997). PIMCO has not done this; should it take the hint and try to do so now, this will be an issue for consideration by the district judge.

Slip op. at 13.  The Opinion finishes with a sharp kick to the shins: "PIMCO’s attempt to derail this suit at the outset is ill timed, ill conceived, and must fail. The district court’s class certification is AFFIRMED."  Slip op. at 15.  Nothing like an educational and blunt opinion to keep legal discourse interesting.

My thanks to Kimberly Kralowec for the mention at UCL Practitioner.  And thanks to some guy whose name sounds like "I am - saw the end" for directing me to the case.

Ninth Circuit makes overtime misclassification cases a little bit tougher with opinions in Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and In re: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Overtime misclassification cases were first out of the blocks when wage & hour employment class actions surged in the last decade or so.  Misclassification cases, when successful, usually generate larger per-class member recoveries than other wage & hour class actions.  But their early success was eventually met with more sophisticated defense tactics in the perpetual chess match of move and counter-move.  For those misclassification cases unfortunate enough to end up in federal court, the Ninth Circuit has just made them a bit harder than they were a few days ago.

The first of this duo, In re: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (July 7, 2009), considered whether the trial " court abused its discretion in finding that the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) was satisfied, based — in large part — on an employer’s internal policy of treating its employees as exempt from overtime laws."  Slip op., at 8328.  The Trial Court though that Wells Fargo was unfairly trying to have its cake and eat it too:

Wells Fargo’s uniform policies regarding HMCs weigh heavily in favor of class certification. As numerous courts have recognized, it is manifestly disingenuous for a company to treat a class of employees as a homogenous group for the purposes of internal policies and compensation, and then assert that the same group is too diverse for class treatment in overtime litigation.

Slip op., at 8330.  The Ninth Circuit focused its review on whether the Trial Court's treatment of that classification policy was correct:

District courts within this circuit have split on the relevance of exemption policies. The district court relied primarily on Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 602, 612-13 (C.D. Cal. 2005), which found predominance of common issues based on an employer’s policy of treating all employees in a certain position as uniformly exempt from overtime compensation requirements. In contrast, another district court has expressed doubt about Wang, and found that uniform exemption policies are merely a minor factor in the predominance analysis. See Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers,, 253 F.R.D. 586, 603-04 (E.D. Cal. LLP 2008) (rejecting “estoppel” position of Wang).

Slip op., at 8333.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that the approach in Wang went too far, but then emphasized that employer policies remain very important in the majority of certification analyses in this area of law:

Of course, uniform corporate policies will often bear heavily on questions of predominance and superiority. Indeed, courts have long found that comprehensive uniform policies detailing the job duties and responsibilities of employees carry great weight for certification purposes. Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 152, 160 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Where . . . there is evidence that the duties of the job are largely defined by comprehensive corporate procedures and policies, district courts have routinely certified classes of employees challenging their classification as exempt, despite arguments about ‘individualized’ differences in job responsibilities.”).  Such centralized rules, to the extent they reflect the realities of the workplace, suggest a uniformity among employees that is susceptible to common proof.

Slip op., at 8334-35.  So too much Wang is no good, but some Wang is okay.  Got it.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that exemption policies, in particular, are less likely to have a "transformative" power that turns an otherwise individual issue into a common one.

In Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (July 7, 2009), the Ninth Circuit considered two primary issues, one of which matters.  Countrywide filed a motion to deny class certification before the plaintiffs could file their motion for class certification.  The defendant's motion was granted.  As an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit was asked to determine whether it was per se improper for the trial court to hear defendant's motion.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that it was not per se improper:

Rule 23(c)(1)(A) addresses the timing of a district court’s class certification determination, and states: “Time to Issue: At an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). Nothing in the plain language of Rule 23(c)(1)(A) either vests plaintiffs with the exclusive right to put the class certification issue before the district court or prohibits a defendant from seeking early resolution of the class certification question. The only requirement is that the certification question be resolved “[a]t an early practicable time.”  The plain language of Rule 23(c)(1)(A) alone defeats Plaintiffs’ argument that there is some sort of “per se rule” that precludes defense motions to deny certification, and Plaintiffs have produced no authority to the contrary.

Slip op., at 8307-8.  That seems simple enough.  But these things rarely are.  The Ninth Circuit was particularly interested in the fact that the plaintiffs had (1) failed to bring their motion in almost a year, (2) admitted during a hearing that they didn't need additional discovery to file their motion, and (3) didn't request any sort of continuance of the hearing of defendant's motion:

First, at the time of the hearing Plaintiffs had conducted significant discovery and did not intend to propound any additional discovery seeking information from Countrywide regarding the propriety of class certification. Second, it is evident that Plaintiffs had made a strategic choice to limit the amount of evidence it presented to the district court in opposition to Countrywide’s motion; they proffered their class certification arguments through their “preview” declarations. Third, Plaintiffs’ real complaint is not that they were deprived of adequate time in which to complete discovery, but that they “didn’t want to be on defendants’ schedule.” But, again, this is just a variation on Plaintiffs argument in favor of a per se rule.

Slip op., at 8314.  I can only assume that Defendants will now race to be the first to file a motion related to certification.  Plaintiffs will need to be diligent in their litigation and discovery efforts to fend off this counter-assault.  One thing is certain - different trial courts will deal with this complication in a wide variety of ways.

In Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., Ninth Circuit defers to FCC and construes text messages as "calls" under TCPA

In Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. (June 19, 2009), the Ninth Circuit issued a consumer-oriented opinion that exemplifies the challenges faced by courts that are asked to apply existing laws to developing areas of technology.  By technology standards, Satterfield is not cutting-edge material.  Plaintiff Satterfield alleged a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, arising after Satterfield received an unsolicited text message.  At the time of the TCPA's enactment, text messaging was not yet in use:

The precise language at issue here is what did Congress intend when it said “to make any call” under the TCPA. Utilizing the aforementioned canons of statutory construction, we look to the ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning of the verb “to call.” Webster’s defines “call” in this context as “to communicate with or try to get into communication with a person by a telephone.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 318 (2002). This definition suggests that by enacting the TCPA, Congress intended to regulate the use of an ATDS to communicate or try to get into communication with a person by a telephone. However, this law was enacted in 1991 when text messaging was not available.

Slip op., at 7342.  With no court having addressed this question, the Ninth Circuit looked to the FCC's determination on the issue for guidance:

The TCPA makes it unlawful “to make any call” using an ATDS. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). While the TCPA does not define “call,” the FCC has explicitly stated that the TCPA’s prohibition on ATDSs “encompasses both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers including, for example, short message service (SMS) calls . . . .” In re Rules and Regulations, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14115 Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (July 3, 2003) (hereinafter “2003 Report and Order”). The FCC subsequently confirmed that the “prohibition on using automatic telephone dialing systems to make calls to wireless phone numbers applies to text messages (e.g., phone-to-phone SMS), as well as voice calls.”  In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003; Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 19 FCC Rcd. 15927, 15934 (FCC August Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003; Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 12, 2004).  In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of the CANSPAM Act, the FCC also noted “that the TCPA and Commission rules that specifically prohibit using automatic telephone dialing systems to call wireless numbers already apply to any type of call, including both voice and text calls.”  Id. at 15933.  Therefore, the FCC has determined that a text message falls within the meaning of “to make any call” in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).

Slip op. at 7338-39.  Applying the two-step test for judicial review of administrative agency interpretations of federal law set forth in Chevron v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the FCC's treatment of text messaging as "calls" under the TCPA was reasonable.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.  It is unclear whether this proposed class action was certified prior to the summary judgment motion.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of June 15, 2009

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

• A Petition for Review was denied in Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc., 172 Cal. App. 4th 908 (2009) (tip pooling)
• A Petition for Review was denied in Budrow v. Dave & Buster's of California, 171 Cal. App. 4th 875 (2009) (tip pooling)
• A Petition for Review was denied in Franco v. Athens Disposal Company, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (2009) (class action waiver and PAGA waiver in arbitration agreement)
• The Court also issued an opinion modification but denied rehearing in Strauss v. Horton (2009)

This was a rare week where the California Supreme Court denied review or other relief in every matter considered in Conference.

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.

Update on 2009-05-07 23:39 by The Complex Litigator

UPDATE:  With apologies to the UCL Practitioner, I've fixed the link error to the 9th Circuit opinion.  It happens from time to time when posting while tired.