Legal News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[07/22] Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Ct
In an action involving alleged violations of laws governing rest and meal breaks on transfer from the state supreme court, the court of appeals rules that: 1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; 2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; 3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; 4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and 5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.

[07/22] Bondi v. Capital & Fin. Asset Mgmt. S.A.
Denial of motion by debtor in foreign bankruptcy proceedings to enjoin actions brought against it in the United States is affirmed where the district court acted within its sound discretion in interpreting 11 U.S.C. section 304(c)'s instruction to assure an economical and expeditious administration of a foreign estate.

[07/21] In re Lugo
In a habeas class action on behalf of parole-eligible life prisoners involving, inter alia, efforts to reduce the backlog of parole suitability hearings, an order by the trial court in the matter is affirmed with respect to an attorney's fee award but reversed to the extent the order required the Board "not to deny further parole consideration for more than one year in the case of prisoners who have formerly been denied for one year, in the absence of a significant change in circumstances, which must be stated on the record." A separate order is reversed to the extent it related to the preparation of parole hearing transcripts or imposed penalties for the untimely preparation of such transcripts.

[07/18] LA ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a parens patriae action alleging violations of Louisiana's antitrust laws, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is affirmed where: 1) the Louisiana attorney general has power to bring parens patriae antitrust actions and possesses broad powers to vindicate the interests of the state; 2) the policyholders and not the state are the real parties in interest due to the state's request for treble damages; and 3) plaintiff waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

[07/18] Fidel v. Farley
In the context of a securities class-action settlement, a nonintervening, nonnamed class member is a "party" for the purpose of appealing approval of a settlement.

[07/17] Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp.
In a putative class action brought against GM after plaintiffs' windshield wipers failed alleging breach of warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), dismissal and other rulings against plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in dismissing breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment claims on statute of limitations grounds; 2) dismissal of a breach of contract claim was proper as well; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend; 4) summary judgment on the state law MMPA claim was proper as plaintiffs presented no evidence from which a jury reasonably could conclude that their loss was the result of the alleged defect that GM failed to disclose.

[07/16] Brack v. Omni Loan Co., Ltd.
In a suit alleging violations of borrower's rights under the Finance Lenders Law, and raising claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, dismissal of the suit based on choice of law provisions in the loan agreements is reversed where: 1) the Finance Lenders Law represents a fundamental policy of the state and application of the provisions would undermine the policy; and 2) application of Nevada law would impair California's regulatory interests to a far greater extent than application of California law would impair Nevada's interests.

[07/15] Sony Computer Enter. Am., Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
In a suit brought by Sony against insurers for failing to indemnify and defend it in a class action suit alleging product defects in the Sony PlayStation 2 video game system, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where neither insurance company had a duty to indemnify or defend Sony in the underlying lawsuit, primarily since the suit did not assert claims within the meaning of the term "negligent publication." The circuit court defines the term "negligent publication" as a narrow tort in which the publication of material encourages or instructs readers to engage in harmful conduct.

More...