In Greenwood v. Compucredit Corp., District Court denies motion to decertify, criticizing Cohen line of cases

United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) denied defendants' motion to decertify a class alleging violations of the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. and Prof.Code § 17200 et seq.  Greenwood v. Computcredit Corp., 2010 WL 4807095 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010).  The defendant relied, in part, on Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir.2010).  While my amicus briefing efforts were not successful in Avritt, this Court didn't pull any punches:

The decision in Avritt does not bind this Court, and it is unpersuasive. Avritt acknowledges that federal courts “do not require that each member of a class submit evidence of personal standing.” 615 F.3d at 1034.

Slip op., at 3.  The Court the criticized Avritt on another ground:

Defendants rely on Avritt for the additional argument that the class should be decertified for failure to satisfy Rule 23(b) (3), because of individualized issues of reliance. The present case is factually distinguishable on this point. First, class members in this case by definition have been exposed to Defendants' advertising, unlike the proposed class members in Avritt. The class in this case comprises California residents who were mailed a solicitation by CompuCredit Corporation for the issuance of an Aspire Visa by Columbus Bank and Trust. In Avritt, class members were not required to have received any promotional materials, and the named plaintiffs did not recall receiving any printed sales materials or brochures.

Slip op., at 4.  The Court then took exception with the analysis of Tobacco II supplied by Cohen:

To the extent that the court of appeal's decision in Cohen might be read to require individualized evidence of class members' reliance, it is inconsistent with Tobacco II. The California Court of Appeal made the same point in In re Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145, 158, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 (2010). The court stated:

As Tobacco II made clear, Proposition 64 did not change the substantive law governing UCL claims, other than the standing requirements for the named plaintiffs, and “before Proposition 64, ‘California courts have repeatedly held that relief under the UCL is available without individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury.’ [Citation]” Id. (citing Tobacco II, 46 Cal.4th at 326, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20).

This is a question of the meaning of a California state law, on which the California Supreme Court's decision in Tobacco II is determinative.

Slip op., at 5.  Interesting that a District Court seems more clear on the weight given to California Supreme Court decisions than some Courts of Appeal.

Ninth Circuit defers the submission of Mazza v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. pending outcome in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

In a somewhat dodgy maneuver, the Ninth Circuit, on December 7, 2010, issued an Order deferring submission of Mazza v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. pending a decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. granted, --- S.Ct. ----, 79 U.S.L.W. 3128 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2010) (No. 10-277).  Huh?  That seems like a stretch, unless you think that Wal-Mart will issue some sort of proclamation about all nationwide class actions, which seems to be far down on the list of likely outcomes.  More about Mazza here and here.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of December 6, 2010

No conference was held this week.

Certiorari granted by United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v. Dukes

On December 6, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in what will eventually be known as Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court limited review to two issues, Question I from the Petition, and a second issue included by the Court.  The Court said:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question I presented by the petition. In addition to Question I, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a)."

Question I from the Petition is as follows:

Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)—which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief—and, if so, under what circumstances.

Petition, at i.  The Court declined to hear Question II, which asked, "Whether the certification order conforms to the requirements of Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Seventh Amendment, the Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23."

This decision could run the gamut from a highly fact-specific outcome, to a treatise on discrimination class actions, to a wholesale commentary on the Rule 23(a) requisites.  Considering the scope of issues covered in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart en banc decision, it's very difficult to handicap this race.

In Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Ninth Circuit offers guidance on burden of proof showing required in CAFA-based removals

In Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that, under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005) (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.), the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction is, as it was before CAFA, on the party asserting jurisdiction in federal court.  CAFA authorizes removal to federal court of class actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (excluding interest and costs).  In the Ninth Circuit, when the complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, the party attempting removal under diversity bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory amount. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n., 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007).  In Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (November 18, 2010), the Ninth Circuit considered whether the defendant's unrebutted affidavit showing a potential amount in controversy was sufficient to meet the burden of showing the amount in controversy.

The Ninth Circuit held that, on the uncontested showing by Verizon, the amount in controversy was sufficiently demonstrated:

The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability. See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008) (“The amount in controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will recover. Rather, it is an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation.”). To establish the jurisdictional amount, Verizon need not concede liability for the entire amount, which is what the district court was in essence demanding by effectively asking Verizon to admit that at least $5 million of the billings were “unauthorized” within the meaning of the complaint.

Slip op., at 11.  The Ninth Circuit noted that its standard of proof is higher than some Circuits:

The law in our circuit is articulated a little differently from that of others, in that we expressly contemplate the district court’s consideration of some evidentiary record. See generally Diane B. Bratvold & Daniel J. Supalla, Standard of Proof to Establish Amount in Controversy When Defending Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act, 36 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 1397 (2010). We employ a preponderance of the evidence standard when the complaint does not allege a specific amount in controversy. Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. The Seventh Circuit, along with the First and Second Circuits, apply what may be a lower standard of proof: a “reasonable probability” standard. See, e.g., Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir. 2005) (when the complaint is “silent or ambiguous on one or more of the ingredients needed to calculate the amount in controversy . . . the removing litigant must show a reasonable probability that the stakes exceed the minimum.”); see also Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); DiTolla v. Doral Dental IPA of New York, 469 F.3d 271, 277 (2nd Cir. 2006). The Fourth Circuit has not adopted a specific standard of proof, although “several district courts within the Fourth Circuit have concluded that the appropriate standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.” Laws v. Priority Trustee Services of N.C., L.L.C., 2008 WL 3539512 at * 2 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2008). Both the Seventh Circuit in Spivey and the Fourth Circuit in Strawn have looked to evidence outside the complaint when the complaint is silent as to the amount. Regardless of the label applied to the standard of proof, the result in this case should be the same as that in the Seventh and Fourth Circuits’ decisions in Spivey and Strawn.

Slip op., at 12.  The Ninth Circuit then observed that Spivey was closest to the case before it and approvingly followed the same analysis.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of November 29, 2010

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on December 1, 2010.   Notable results include:

• On a Petition for Review, review was denied in Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports (August 13, 201), mentioned briefly on this blog here.  [Class action ban in arbitration provision unconscionable.]   Interestingly, the California Supreme Court recently denied review in Walnut Producers v. Diamond Foods (August 16, 2010), which upheld an order striking class allegations pursuant to a class action ban in an arbitration provision.
• On a Petition for Review, review was denied in Fireside Bank Cases (pub. August 25, 2010).  [Res judicata issues in UCL action regarding alleged Rees-Levering violations.]

Ninth Circuit issues its first opinion on criteria that appellate courts should consider when deciding whether to accept an appeal of a remand order under CAFA

Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), a party may seek leave to appeal a remand order to the court of appeals, which has discretion whether to accept the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).  While other Circuits have discussed the criteria that an appellate court should consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to hear such a discretionary appeal, the Ninth Circuit, until today, had not set forth its own set of such criteria.  In Coleman v. Estes Express Lines (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010), the Ninth Circuit set forth criteria to guide a reviewing court.

Coleman sued both Estes West and Estes Express Lines for wage and hour violations.  After its acquisition, Estes West was an internal regional division of Estes Express Lines.  After removal, Coleman moved to remand under the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction.  Estes Express Lines argued that, as a Virginia-based company from which any relief would be obtained, the local controversy exception did not apply.  The district court granted the motion to remand, noting that courts are divided as to whether to look beyond the complaint to determine whether the local controversy exception applies.

The Ninth Circuit used this petition as an opportunity to adopt the First Circuit's list of criteria to use in evaluating applications for leave to appeal under section 1453(c)(1):

In Dental Surgeons, the First Circuit held that a key factor in determining whether to accept an appeal is “the presence of an important CAFA-related question” in the case. Coll. of Dental Surgeons, 585 F.3d at 38. Because discretion to hear appeals exists in part to develop a body of appellate law interpreting CAFA, “[t]he presence of a non-CAFA issue (even an important one) is generally not thought to be entitled to the same weight.” Id. If the CAFA-related question is unsettled, immediate appeal is more likely to be appropriate, particularly when the question “appears to be either incorrectly decided [by the court below] or at least fairly debatable.” Id.

The First Circuit also enumerated several case-specific factors, including the importance of the CAFA-related question to the case at hand and the likelihood that the question will “evade effective review if left for consideration only after final judgment.” Id. The appellate court should also consider whether the record is sufficiently developed and the order sufficiently final to permit “intelligent review.” Id. Finally, the First Circuit observed that the court should conduct the familiar inquiry into the balance of the harms. Id. at 39.

Slip op., at 19025-26.  Applied to the case before it, the Court concluded that leave to appeal was appropriate because it would advance CAFA jursiprudence:

Applying these criteria, we grant Estes Express’ application for leave to appeal. Although the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction is “narrow,” it is nonetheless an enumerated exception to a federal court’s CAFA removal jurisdiction. It is intended to “identify . . . a controversy that uniquely affects a particular locality” and to ensure that it is decided by a state rather than a federal court. See Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1163-64 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The question whether the district court must rely only on the pleadings or should look to extrinsic evidence will often determine whether a case will be remanded under the local controversy exception. This case thus raises an important issue of CAFA law. As the district court recognized, this is an unsettled question in this Circuit. We do not say that district court’s decision “appears to be incorrectly decided,” but the array of courts on both sides of the question indicates that it is at least “fairly debatable” and that appellate review would be useful.

Slip op., at 19026.  The Court concluded that the issue would escape appellate review if not taken now and that no harm other than delay would be suffered by the plaintiff.  It follows that we can expect guidance from the Ninth Circuit in the next year or so on this issue.

Supreme Court holds that a single statue of limitation governs Labor Code section 203 claims

California Labor Code § 203 provides that, if an employer willfully fails to timely pay final wages, “the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.”  Lab. Code § 203(a).  Usually, a one-year statute of limitation governs actions to recover penalties (Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a)), but section 203 states that an employee may sue for “these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.” Lab. Code § 203(b).  In Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. (November 18, 2010), the California Supreme Court answered two questions related to section 203 claims:  first, whether a different statute of limitation applies when an employee seeks to recover only section 203 penalties (in this case, final wages were paid late but before the filing of the action), as opposed to when an employee seeks both final wages and penalties; and, second, whether section 203 penalties recoverable as restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.).  A unanimous Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that (1) the underlying wage claim statute of limitation is tied to the 203 cause of action, and (2) since employees have no ownership interest in section 203 penalties they cannot use the UCL to recover those penalties as a form of restitution.

The Court had little difficulty concluding that a single, longer statute of limitation applies to section 203 claims:

Plaintiff urges us to conclude the Legislature intended for a single statute of limitations — the one set forth in section 203(b) — to govern the filing of any and all suits for section 203 penalties, regardless of whether a claim for unpaid final wages accompanies the claim for penalties. He contends this is the only plausible construction of section 203, and his contention has merit.  Absent explicit statutory language to the contrary, common sense would suggest that, where the Legislature has set forth a statute of limitations in one part of a statute, the prescribed limitations period governs the filing of actions provided for in another part of the same statute. In providing when “[s]uit may be filed for [section 203] penalties” (§ 203(b)), the Legislature could have employed language unambiguously limiting the application of section 203(b)‟s limitations period to those suits that seek both unpaid wages and penalties. For example, it could have provided that “[s]uit for unpaid final wages and these penalties may be filed at any time before . . . .” It did not.

Slip op., at 5-6.  The Court then spent several pages dismissing the defendant's strained construction of the Legislature's grammatical choices, concluding by remarking on the important public policy served by the prompt payment of final wages.

As for the UCL, the Court was equally quick to reach its conclusion that 203 penalties cannot be recovered by means of restitution under the UCL:

By contrast, permitting recovery of section 203 penalties via the UCL would not “restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest.” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1149.) Section 203 is not designed to compensate employees for work performed. Instead, it is intended to encourage employers to pay final wages on time, and to punish employers who fail to do so.  In other words, it is the employers' action (or inaction) that gives rise to section 203 penalties. The vested interest in unpaid wages, on the other hand, arises out of the employees' action, i.e., their labor. Until awarded by a relevant body, employees have no comparable vested interest in section 203 penalties. We thus hold section 203 penalties cannot be recovered as restitution under the UCL.

Slip op.,  at 14-15.

Compared to many others from the Supreme Court, this was a short opinion.  The direct language suggests that the Court found little over which to disagree as the opinion was prepared.  Congratulations to my colleague, Mr. Greg Karasik, on obtaining this partial reversal.

Supreme Court activity for the week of November 15, 2010

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on November 17, 2010.  Notable results include:

• On a Petition for Review, review was granted in  in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (July 27, 2010), covered previously here.  The issue under review is limited as follows:  "Does Labor Code section 218.5 govern attorney's fees awarded on a cause of action alleging violation of the statutorily mandated wage payment for missed meal and rest periods (Lab. Code, [sec.] 226.7), or is an attorney's fee award governed by Labor Code section 1194?"
• On a Request for Depublication, depublication was denied in Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (July 15, 2010).  Prior comments from this blog are here.

BREAKING NEWS: Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. decision to be released November 18, 2010

Earlier today, the California Supreme Court posted a notice of forthcoming filings, indicating that  Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. will be filed on November 18, 2010, at approximately 10:00 a.m.

In Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., plaintiff Pineda advanced the theory that restitution of "penalties" recoverable under Labor Code section 203 (waiting time penalties) was available under the UCL because the penalty was a vested property interest due upon failure to timely pay wages.  Pineda also argued that the correct statute of limitation was that for suits to recover wages (3 years), not the statute for recovery of penalties (generally 1 year).  The Court of Appeal rejected both theories.  My earlier post about Pineda is here.