CLASS ACTION CASES

• Diaz-Ramos v. Hyundai Motor Co.
• Coppola v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.
• Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc.
• Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm'n
• Hydrick v. Hunter
• De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees
• Gentry v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Circuit City Stores, Inc.)

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 30, 2007
Diaz-Ramos v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 06-2026
In a suit over an automobile recall, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where no private right of action exists for an individual who seeks to represent a class of injured parties under the Puerto Rico Antitrust Act in conjunction with Puerto Rico's Consumer Class Action Act. Read more...

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 30, 2007
Coppola v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., No. 05-6440
In class-action lawsuit for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as defendants had no liability under WARN since they were not appellants' "employer" within the meaning of the statute. Read more...

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 28, 2007
Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., No. 07-1231, 07-1232 and 07-1270
In a suit brought by plaintiffs representing a class of approximately 6,000 doctors in Central Pennsylvania against defendants alleging their claims handling practices violated RICO, issuance of an injunction, which prohibits defendants from settling or attempting to settle claims in state multi-district litigation that would have the effect of also settling the claims in this case, is vacated as this was not a permissible exercise of power under the All Writs Act. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2007
Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm'n, No. 06-3460
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 class action, alleging that plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated by the Public Defender Commission's policy or custom of failing to seek indigency hearings on behalf of criminal defendants facing jail time for unpaid fines, grant of class certification and summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part as to the certification, but reversed as to summary judgment as defendant raised a genuine question of material fact about the existence of the purported policy or custom. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 30, 2007
Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712
In an action brought by a class of civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at a state hospital pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act alleging that the conditions of their confinement violate their constitutional rights, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is reversed in part where defendants have qualified immunity from suit on plaintiffs' Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy, Procedural Due Process, and Eighth Amendment claims. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 31, 2007
De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, No. 06-15876
In suit alleging violation of migrant workers' rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, order granting class certification is affirmed over claim that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the proposed class consisting of over 1,500 migrant workers admitted to the U.S. under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program and sub-class consisting of those workers who pledged collateral with defendants' agents in order to obtain employment. Read more...

Supreme Court of California, August 30, 2007
Gentry v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Circuit City Stores, Inc.), No. S141502
In the context of employees whose statutory rights to overtime pay pursuant to Labor Code sections 500 et seq. and 11941 allegedly have been violated, class arbitration waivers in employment arbitration agreements should not be enforced if a trial court determines, based on specific factors, that class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of affected employees than individual arbitration. Also, a finding of procedural unconscionability is not required to invalidate a class arbitration waiver if that waiver implicates unwaivable statutory rights, but such a finding is a prerequisite to determining that the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable. Read more...