News - Law Firm Peach & Weathers Attorneys San Bernardino, California

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[06/09] Am. Nurses Ass'n v. O'Connell
In an action against the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the California Department of Education (CDE) challenging a portion of a legal advisory regarding the rights of students with disabilities in K-12 public schools, arising from a 2005 class action settlement, trial court's judgment and peremptory writ of mandate issued are affirmed as California law does not allow designated voluntary school personnel, who are not licensed nurses, to administer insulin to diabetic students who require the injections under a section 504 Plan or Individualized Education Program.

[06/09] Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.
In a class action alleging violations of the Florida Condominium Act as well as breach of contract, the district court's order remanding the action to state court is reversed where: 1) defendant established by more than a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million; and 2) the jurisdictional evidence that defendant attached to its opposition to remand should not have been excluded merely because it was submitted in response to the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

[06/07] Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp.
In two putative class actions against multiple defendants, alleging negligence in connection with beryllium exposure and seeking a medical monitoring trust fund based on their increased risk of developing chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) the plaintiff cannot prevail because under Pohl, the threshold increase in risk to establish a medical monitoring claim under Redland Soccer remains at sensitization, a point along the exposure-to-disease continuum that plaintiff has not reached; 2) plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that, as a proximate result of the exposure, he has a significantly increased risk of contracting CBD; 3) because the underlying assertions in each action are the same, and because plaintiff could have brought a medical monitoring claim in the prior suit, the district court properly granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on claim preclusion; and 4) district court properly granted defendant-engineering consultants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[06/04] In re: Metro. Gov of Nashville
Defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus, arising from plaintiffs' racial discrimination suit against their employer, is granted in part, denied in part and remanded where: 1) defendant's appeal of the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial is dismissed as such an order is generally not appealable as the order does not qualify as a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C section 1291; 2) defendant's contention that jurisdiction exists to consider its appeal by means of reviewing the district court's purported finding of alleged attorney misconduct is rejected; 3) the petition is granted to the extent of directing the district court to rule on the outstanding disparate-impact claims within 90 days from the filing of this opinion; and 4) remainder of the petition is denied.

[06/03] Froud v. Anadarko E&P Co.
In plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion to remand their class action, the request is denied where, while full briefing of the merits may not be necessary to allow the court to exercise its discretion to permit the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 5, petitioners did not provide any discussion of the merits or the nature or importance of the issues presented by their requested appeal.

[06/02] Mabry v. Superior Court
In homeowners' petition for a writ of mandate challenging an order of the trial court, allowing for foreclosure to proceed on their home, is granted in part and remanded to the trial court to determine whether or not the lender complied with Civil Code section 2923.5. To the extent that the trial court's order precludes the assertion of any class action claims, the petition is denied.

[06/02] Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action suit against Weyth Corporation and its subsidiary, alleging that defendants had sold a heartworm medication for dogs without disclosing safety concerns revealed in initial testing and in subsequent use, a grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to sate a claim is affirmed where: 1) recovery generally is not available under the warranty of merchantability where the defect that made the product unfit caused no injury to the claimant and the threat is now gone and nothing now possessed by the claimant has been lessened in value; and 2) plaintiff has suffered no economic injuries under 93A section 4.

[05/28] Sheinberg v. Sorensen
In plaintiffs' action against companies affiliated with their now bankrupt, former employer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other claims, district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to recertify the case as a class action is vacated and remanded as the district court not only failed to follow Rule 23(g) but also failed to apply the alternative standard it identified for determining the adequacy of counsel to the facts before it.

[05/27] Seijas v. Repub. of Argentina
In a class action by holders of defaulted bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina, the district court's order of class certification is affirmed in part where: 1) the fact that damages may have to be ascertained on an individual basis was not sufficient to defeat class certification; and 2) the district court correctly determined that proceeding individually would be prohibitive for class members with small claims. However, the order is reversed in part where estimating gross damages for each of the classes as a whole, without using appropriate procedures to ensure that the damages awards roughly reflected the aggregate amount owed to class members, enlarged plaintiffs' rights by allowing them to encumber property to which they have no colorable claim.

[05/26] Bomersheim v. Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Ctr.
In plaintiffs' negligence suit claiming that defendant accepted a duty to provide medical care consistent with the applicable standard of care and breached that duty by negligently administering an improper dosage for syphilis, denial of plaintiff's motion to certify a class is reversed as the trial court's order is based on improper criteria and is not supported by substantial evidence, and class treatment would be a superior method of resolving the claims.

[05/24] Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Caiafa
In an objection to the Vice Chancellor's approval of a settlement among a majority of Countrywide stockholders, Countrywide directors, and Bank of America (BOA), related to Countrywide's merger with BOA, denial of the objection is affirmed where the Vice Chancellor did not abuse his discretion by holding that objector's derivative suit claims for breach of asserted duties were worthless and, therefore, added no conceivable value to the merger.

[05/21] Alvarez v. City of Chicago
In two lawsuits against the City of Chicago brought by paramedics, claiming that it willfully failed to properly compensate them for overtime, district court's grant of city's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court erred in dismissing the claims of the named plaintiffs as they have the right to proceed individually.

[05/20] Pella Corp. v. Saltzman
In plaintiffs' suit against a window manufacturer, alleging that defendant committed consumer fraud by not publicly declaring a design defect that caused wood casing the windows to rot, defendant's Rule 23(f) appeal is granted and the district court's certification of two classes of plaintiffs affirmed as, although consumer fraud class actions present challenges that a district court must carefully consider, certification is appropriate under the circumstance of this case.

[05/19] Mayer v. Belichick
In a suit brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder against the New England Patriots, its head coach Bill Belichick, and the NFL, claiming various causes of action related to the Patriot's secret videotaping of their opponent's signals, known as the "Spygate" scandal, district court's order dismissing the amended complaint is affirmed as plaintiff suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest.

[05/19] In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against defendants alleging that their failure to inspect and maintain a railroad trestle caused the town to flood damaging their property, judgment of the district court remanding the case to state court following plaintiffs' amendment of the complaint to omit the class allegations is vacated and remanded, as jurisdiction under CAFA is secure even though after removal the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate the class allegations, because the well-established general rule is that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, and nothing filed after removal affects jurisdiction.

[05/13] Goldberg v Merrill Lynch Credit Corp.
In plaintiffs' class action suits seeking to recover document preparation fees charged by defendant for services performed by clerical personnel in the processing of mortgage loans, court of appeal's decision dismissing the two separate class action suits on the basis that the Florida Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether defendants' actions constitute the unauthorized practice of law is affirmed, but on a different reason that, in order to state a cause of action for damages under any legal theory that arises from the unauthorized practice of law, the pleading must state that the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the specified conduct at issue constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.

[05/13] Arguelles-Romero v. Superior Court
Petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court's decision granting defendant's motion to compel individual arbitration in their attempt to pursue a class action against the assignee of plaintiffs' automobile financing contract is granted and the trial court's order vacated and remanded as, although the trial court did not err in finding the class action waiver was not unconscionable, it should have also performed a discretionary analysis on whether a class action is a significantly more effective practical means of vindicating the unwaivable statutory rights at issue.

[01/14] Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Brown
In an action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and disclosure claims relating to a tender offer, the denial of an intervenor's motion to recover attorneys' fees and costs is affirmed where: 1) the court of chancery applied the proper legal precepts in placing the burden on defendants to demonstrate that appellant was in no way a cause of the tender offer increase; and 2) defendants met this burden.

Back to Main