CLASS ACTION CASES

• Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca Inc.
• Bridges v. Amer. Elec. Power Co.
• Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan
• Babasa v. Lenscrafters, Inc.
• Employers-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors
• Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.
• Harris v. Superior Ct. (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.)

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 17, 2007
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca Inc., No. 05-5340
In an action against a drug maker alleging it engaged in deceptive conduct in the advertising of its new drug Nexium, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is affirmed where: 1) although the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act (DCFA) exemption for advertising regulated by the Federal Trade Commission does not preclude plaintiffs' suit; nevertheless 2) federal law preempts the plaintiffs' state consumer fraud claims. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 15, 2007
Bridges v. Amer. Elec. Power Co., No. 06-4100
In an ERISA action, an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissing his claims without prejudice is reversed and remanded as a former employee like plaintiff has "participant" standing to sue, despite having "cashed out" his defined-contribution plan. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 14, 2007
Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan, No. 06-2555
In a suit charging that defendant violated ERISA by failing to include a cost-of-living adjustment in plaintiff's lump sum distribution from a pension plan, summary judgment for plaintiff and grant of class certification are affirmed where the terms of the plan violated ERISA because the cost-of-living adjustment was an accrued benefit as ERISA defines that term. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Babasa v. Lenscrafters, Inc., No. 07-55880
In a putative class action against Lenscrafters alleging various labor code violations, an order remanding the case to state court for failure to timely file for removal is affirmed as: 1) federal law governs the determination whether a case exceeds the amount in controversy necessary for a diversity action to proceed in federal court, and thus it was unnecessary to determine whether a letter falls within the scope of the California mediation privilege; and 2) considering the letter at issue, Lenscrafters filed its notice of removal well over thirty days after it first could have ascertained that the case was removable. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Employers-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, No. 04-56791
An appeal brought by non-parties to an uncertified securities class action challenging an order granting lead plaintiff's motion to dismiss its claims is dismissed as appellants never filed a complaint or formally moved to intervene, and thus, they lacked standing. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, August 13, 2007
Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. B189031
In class action brought by drivers against defendant-FedEx regarding work-related expenses, a finding that the drivers are employees, the order certifying the class, and a finding that attorney's fees are recoverable are affirmed, however, the fee award is reversed as the amount must be reconsidered. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, August 16, 2007
Harris v. Superior Ct. (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.), No. B195121
In class action where plaintiff claims adjusters sued their employers, defendants-insurance companies, seeking damages based on overtime work for which plaintiffs allege they were not properly paid, orders denying plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication and partially granting defendants' motion to decertify the class are vacated where: 1) plaintiffs are not exempt from the overtime compensation requirements imposed by California law; and 2) no evidence shows that any class members primarily engage in work at the level of management policy or general operations. Read more...