DOCSLIB.ORG

H.1 Sample Class Action Complaint [Caption] [Court]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H.1 Sample Class Action Complaint [Caption] [Court] H.1 Sample Class Action Complaint [caption] [court]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [plaintiff]JENNY CONSUMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, [vs.] [defendant]TOON TOWN MOTORS, INC., a corporation, Defendant. [end caption] CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ODOMETER LAW, FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff, by her undersigned attorneys, for her Class Action Complaint (Complaint) against defendants, alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 409(b) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ("the Act"), 49 U.S.C. § 32710(b) and principles of pendent jurisdiction. The claims asserted here arise under Sections 408 and 409 of the Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 32705 and 32710 and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Transportation, 49 CFR 580.1 et seq., and under state law of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. 2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Toon Town Motors, Inc. ("Toon Town Motors") is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 6410 Brae Burn, Dania, California. Many of the acts and transactions giving rise to the violations of law complained of herein, including the sales of motor vehicles with false odometer information, occurred in this District. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 3. During the period _______, Toon Town Motors acquired more than 150 used cars from a group of used car distributors, primarily one dealer d/b/a "International Motors," which Toon Town Motors resold to consumers such as plaintiff. All of those vehicles were represented by Toon Town Motors to have lower mileage than they in fact had. This is a class action on behalf of all persons, other than defendants, who, during the period _______, purchased from Toon Town Motors used vehicles which Toon Town Motors had acquired from the distributors named below in paragraph 5. and which had rolled back odometer readings. THE PARTIES 4. Toon Town Motors sells new and used motor vehicles from its dealership facilities in Dania and elsewhere in California. It is a "dealer" within the meaning of that term as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 32702(2). 5. Joe Able, Susie Baker, Karen Cross, and Kyle David were, at all times relevant, in the business of buying and selling used cars; they are "distributors" within the meaning of that term as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 32702(3) and are hereinafter referred to in this Complaint as "the distributors." 6. Plaintiff Jenny Consumer is a citizen of California who resides in the City and County of San Francisco. DUTIES OF THE DEFENDANTS 7. Pursuant to the Act and the regulations prescribed thereunder by the Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR 580.1 et seq.), every transferor of a motor vehicle is required to deliver to the transferee a written disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer, or a statement that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to the transferor to be different from the number or miles the vehicle has actually traveled. 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a); 49 CFR 580.5. The transferor is prohibited from making any false statement to the transferee in making the required disclosure and from violating any regulation prescribed by the Secretary. 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a). Dealers, like Toon Town Motors, are prohibited from acquiring ownership of any motor vehicle if the written disclosure required by the Act and regulations is incomplete. 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a). 8. The Act makes it illegal for any person to conspire with any other person to violate section 32703, 32704, or 32705. 49 U.S.C. § 32703(4). PLAINTIFF CLASS ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiff brings this action as a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who, during the period _______, purchased from Toon Town Motors a used vehicle which Toon Town Motors had purchased from the distributors and which had a false odometer statement. Excluded from the Class are the defendant herein, the distributors, the officers and directors of Toon Town Motors and their immediate family members, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. 10. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to plaintiff at the present time, plaintiff is informed and believes that Toon Town Motors bought more than 150 used vehicles from the distributors during this period and resold each of them to a private purchaser like plaintiff without disclosing to those purchasers that the odometers on those vehicles had been altered or replaced. 11. Plaintiff©s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because plaintiff and all the Class members sustained damages which arose out of defendant©s wrongful conduct complained of herein. 12. Plaintiff is a representative party who will fully and adequately protect the interests of the Class members. Plaintiff has retained counsel who are experienced and competent in both class action and consumer litigation, including federal odometer statute litigation. Plaintiff has no interests which are contrary to or in conflict with those of the Class she seeks to represent. 13. A class action would be superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 14. The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications concerning the subject of this action, which adjudication could establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendant under the laws alleged herein. Further, questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions which may affect only individual members in that defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are: a. Whether the federal odometer law was violated by Toon Town Motors as herein alleged; b. Whether Toon Town Motors acted with intent to defraud; c. Whether Toon Town Motors conspired with the distributors to violate the Act; d. Whether Toon Town Motors aided and abetted the distributors in violating the Act; e. Whether the prices at which the vehicles were sold to the consumers were artificially inflated due to the misrepresentation of mileage complained of herein; f. The extent of injuries sustained by members of the Class and the appropriate measure of damages. CONSPIRACY AND AIDING AND ABETTING ALLEGATIONS 15. During all relevant times, Toon Town Motors was in a conspiracy with the distributors listed in paragraph 5. above to purchase used vehicles from individual sellers, roll back the odometers on those vehicles, and resell them to unsuspecting purchasers like plaintiff at inflated prices. 16. During all relevant times, Toon Town Motors was an agent of the distributors in their scheme to purchase used vehicles, roll back the odometers, and resell them to unsuspecting purchasers like plaintiff at inflated prices. THE VEHICLE SALES 17. Between _______ and _______, Toon Town Motors acquired more than 150 used vehicles from the distributors. During this period, Toon Town Motors©s Manager of Used Car Sales was an individual who was personal friends with the above-named distributors. Through the actions of this employee, Toon Town Motors acquired the vehicles which are the subject of this action. When it acquired those vehicles, Toon Town Motors intended to resell them to consumers at a profit. 18. One of the vehicles which Toon Town Motors acquired from the distributors was a 1985 Buick Century, License # 1LPE001 ("the 1985 Buick"). 19. On or about _______, plaintiff Jenny Consumer purchased the 1985 Buick from Toon Town Motors. At the time of the sale, Toon Town Motors represented in writing and orally that the 1985 Buick had been driven a total of 39,400 miles. 20. In truth, the 1985 Buick had been driven more than 81,800 miles. Its odometer had been altered or replaced in order to make it appear that the vehicle had less mileage than it actually had, so as to inflate the price of the vehicle. 21. At the time Toon Town Motors sold the 1985 Buick Century to plaintiff it intended to defraud her. 22. Plaintiff did not discover the fraud until late _______, when she received a letter from Investigation and Occupational Licensing, California Department of Motor Vehicles, informing her that the odometer on the 1985 Buick had been altered. 23. During the relevant period, Toon Town Motors sold to other members of the Class approximately 150 other used vehicles which it had acquired from the distributors. The odometers on those vehicles had also been altered or replaced in order to make it appear that they had lower mileage and to inflate the prices of those vehicles. 24. At the time Toon Town Motors sold those vehicles to the members of the Class, Toon Town Motors intended to defraud them. COUNT I For Violations Of Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and the Regulations Promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation 25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 as if set forth fully herein. 26. Defendant Toon Town Motors misrepresented the actual mileage on the vehicles that it sold to plaintiff and the Class during the relevant period. 27. Defendant Toon Town Motors intended to defraud plaintiff and the Class.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Judgment Or Settlement In
    EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: ELIOT N. KOLERS STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP Volume 9 Number 3 March 2015 IN THIS ISSUE FIGHT OR FLIGHT: SUMMARY JUDGMENT Most class actions result in settlements. OR SETTLEMENT IN CLASS ACTIONS However, with the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling in Hryniak breathing new life nationally into summary judgment, class action counsel now have another tool at their disposal that may provide an effective means to bringing class actions to a cost-effective and timely resolution on the merits. Monique Jilesen and Julia Brown of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP consider the possible advantages of summary judgment and the risk of the settlement approval process in class actions………………....29 Monique Jilesen Julia Brown PARTNER ASSOCIATE Despite an unusual decrease in class LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP action activity in Alberta this past year, a significant ruling emanating from the interplay between class actions and With a low threshold for certification, a defendant facing a class action third-party claims (and the tension has a number of tactical decisions to make from a cost, legal, and reputa- between them) was released. Michael Mestinsek, Brandon Mewhort and David tional perspective. In order to manage the cost and reputational issues, Price of Stikeman Elliott LLP analyze defendants have arguably too often been choosing to settle class actions the decision in Harrison v. XL Foods and that could have been successfully defended on the merits. The Supreme its possible impact, all within the context of the recent class action landscape in Court has recently breathed new life into another tool for defendants in Alberta…………………………………..35 class actions to consider—summary judgment.1 Rather than focusing one’s efforts on defending certification or achieving an early settlement, defendants can consider dealing with the action on its merits in a sum- mary judgment motion.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Approach to Plaintiff Incentive Fees in Class Action Lawsuits
    Copyright 2020 by Jason Jarvis Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 115, No. 3 Note A NEW APPROACH TO PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE FEES IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS Jason Jarvis ABSTRACT—Because modern litigation is time-intensive and expensive, a consumer has no monetary incentive to sue over a low-value claim—even when the defendant has clearly violated that consumer’s legal rights. But the defendant may have harmed many consumers in the same way, causing significant cumulative damage. By permitting the aggregation of numerous small claims, class action lawsuits provide a monetary incentive for lawyers and plaintiffs to pursue otherwise low-value suits. Often, an important part of this incentive is the “incentive fee,” an additional payment awarded to the named plaintiffs as compensation for the time they spend and risks they assume in representing the class. But such fees have the potential to create dangerous conflicts of interest—named plaintiffs may be “bought off” with a large incentive fee to give their approval to an otherwise unfair settlement. To avoid this problem, courts must review and approve requests for incentive fees. Unfortunately, courts do not adequately evaluate the dangers of incentive awards and balance these dangers against the justifications for such awards. This Note proposes a new test to better guide courts in assessing the propriety of incentive fees. Specifically, courts should look at (1) the amount of time and effort that the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation; (2) risks that the named plaintiff faced in bringing and advancing the litigation; and (3) evidence of conflicts of interest that might prejudice the class.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Action Lawsuits: a Legal Overview for the 115Th Congress
    Class Action Lawsuits: A Legal Overview for the 115th Congress Updated April 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45159 Class Action Lawsuits: A Legal Overview for the 115th Congress Summary A class action is a procedure by which a large group of entities (known as a “class”) may challenge a defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct in a single lawsuit, rather than through numerous, separate suits initiated by individual plaintiffs. In a class action, a plaintiff (known as the “class representative,” the “named representative,” or the “named plaintiff”) may sue the defendant not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other entities (the “class members”) who are similarly situated to the class representative in order to resolve any legal or factual questions that are common to the entire class. Courts and commentators have recognized that class actions can serve several beneficial purposes, including economizing litigation and incentivizing plaintiffs to pursue socially desirable lawsuits. At the same time, however, class actions can occasionally subject defendants to costly or abusive litigation. Moreover, because the class members generally do not actively participate in a class action lawsuit, class actions pose a risk that the class representative and his counsel will not always act in accordance with the class members’ best interests. In an attempt to balance the benefits of class actions against the risks to defendants and class members, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 establishes a rigorous series of prerequisites that a federal class action must satisfy. For similar reasons, Rule 23 also subjects proposed class action settlements to the scrutiny of the federal courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting the Class Action Tolling Forfeiture Rule
    41674-nyu_94-4 Sheet No. 163 Side A 10/04/2019 07:34:32 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\94-4\NYU409.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-OCT-19 14:08 REJECTING THE CLASS ACTION TOLLING FORFEITURE RULE JAMES J. MAYER* This Note analyzes a circuit split over the application of the Forfeiture Rule, which holds that plaintiffs forfeit American Pipe tolling when they file individual actions before class certification has been resolved in the underlying putative class action. This Note rejects the Forfeiture Rule and argues that it misunderstands the purpose and rationale of American Pipe and class action tolling. Given the increased uncer- tainty facing class action plaintiffs, the policy and equity interests that motivated courts to adopt the Forfeiture Rule now require courts to abandon it. This is the first article to analyze the Forfeiture Rule’s history and evolution, to explore the impact of changes in class action jurisprudence on statutes of limitations on the Forfeiture Rule, and to argue against the continued viability of the Forfeiture Rule across the federal judicial system. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 900 R I. AMERICAN PIPE TOLLING AND THE FORFEITURE RULE ...................................... 905 R A. The Creation and Policy Goals of American Pipe Tolling .............................................. 906 R B. Individual Plaintiffs and the Forfeiture Rule . 909 R C. The Development of the Forfeiture Rule . 911 R 1. In Favor of the Forfeiture Rule . 911 R 2. Against the Forfeiture Rule. 916 R II. CHANGES IN THE LAW DEMONSTRATE WHERE THE FORFEITURE RULE CAN LEAD TO INJUSTICE . 922 R A. Class Certification Is More Uncertain . 922 R 41674-nyu_94-4 Sheet No.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Discovery Strategies in Class-Action Litigation by David R
    Spring 2014, Vol. 28 No. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Articles » Effective Discovery Strategies in Class-Action Litigation By David R. Singh and Gaspard Curioni Lay the foundation for timely, fair, and cost-efficient resolution of a putative class action. Strategies for Removal under the Class Action Fairness Act By Wystan Ackerman Removal to federal court under CAFA requires swift action. Navigating CAFA Removal and Remand Strategies By Jennifer L. Gray Decisions concerning removal and remand under CAFA have exhibited an interesting dichotomy. A Brief Guide to Removal By Matthew M.K. Stein Removing a case to federal court is a technical and detail-oriented process. News & Developments » Potential Conflicts of Interest for Class-Action Counsel Class-action counsel should be aware of potential issues and evolving interests that may arise after a settlement agreement is reached. SCOTUS Relaxes Attorney Fee Standard in Patent Infringement Cases The Court, in two unanimous decisions, held that the Federal Circuit's test for awarding attorney fees in patent-infringement cases was too rigid. Corporate Counsel Spring 2014, Vol. 28 No. 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ARTICLES Effective Discovery Strategies in Class-Action Litigation By David R. Singh and Gaspard Curioni – May 26, 2014 Discovery in class-action litigation is notoriously asymmetric. While a corporate defendant
    [Show full text]
  • United Healthcare Corporation Class Action Litigation Frequently Asked Questions
    United Healthcare Corporation Class Action Litigation Frequently Asked Questions 1. Overview 2. What benefits does the Settlement provide? 3. Why did I receive this information when I was never a subscriber or out-of-network provider? 4. Why did I receive more than one Notice? 5. I believe I am a Class Member, but I did not receive the Notice and Claim Form. How can I obtain a copy of these documents? 6. What are my options? 7. What do I need to do in order to take part in this class action and receive a payment? 8. How much money am I likely to receive from this class action? 9. When can I expect to receive my payment? 10. If I missed the filing deadline, will my late claim be accepted? 11. How can I exclude myself from this Settlement? 12. I am a primary insured. Should my claim have information for the medical services and supplies I personally used, or those used by my family (myself and the dependents listed in my coverage)? 13. I have a number of healthcare services claims that UHC denied completely. Can I make a claim for such denied medical services? 14. The Notice says that I may request certain claims information. What do I need to do? 15. I am a Provider and would like to know whether some of the patients that owe me money filed claims in this case. What do I need to do? 16. Some of the information on my record of medical services is either missing or wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Prerequisities to a Class Action Under New Rule 23 Charles Donelan
    Boston College Law Review Volume 10 Issue 3 A Symposium Federal Rule 23 - The Class Article 6 Action 4-1-1969 Prerequisities to a Class Action Under New Rule 23 Charles Donelan Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Charles Donelan, Prerequisities to a Class Action Under New Rule 23, 10 B.C.L. Rev. 527 (1969), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ bclr/vol10/iss3/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PREREQUISITES TO A CLASS ACTION UNDER NEW RULE 23 CHARLES DONELAN* The author analyzes the four very specific prerequisites im- posed by new Rule 23 upon the would-be class action repre- sentative: that the representative first demonstrate that the class members are so numerous as to make their joinder im- practicable; that he establish the presence of common ques- tions of law or fact; that he have an interest of sufficient affinity with that of the rest of the class; and, finally, that the representative have the capacity to protect adequately the interests of the entire class. The author concludes that these prerequisites, shaped by considerations of practicability and due process, will more than adequately safeguard the rights of absent class members so long as they are conscien- tiously administered.
    [Show full text]
  • 16-Cv-06633-JD Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 14
    Case 3:16-cv-06633-JD Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 14 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) 1 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 2 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 3 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 4 Email: [email protected] 5 Counsel for Plaintiff 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RUBEN PERALES, Individually and on behalf 9 of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 10 VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL Plaintiff, SECURITIES LAWS 11 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 13 TERRAVIA HOLDINGS, INC., JONATHAN S. WOLFSON, APU MODY, and TYLER W. 14 PAINTER, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ruben Perales (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other persons 19 similarly situated, by Plaintiff undersigned attorneys, for Plaintiff’s complaint against 20 Defendants (defined below), alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff 21 and Plaintiff’s own acts, and information and belief as to all other matters, based upon, inter alia, 22 the investigation conducted by and through Plaintiff’s attorneys, which included, among other 23 things, a review of the Defendants’ public documents, announcements, United States Securities 24 and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding 25 TerraVia Holdings, Inc. (“TerraVia” or the “Company”), analysts’ reports and advisories about 26 the Company, and information readily obtainable on the Internet. Plaintiff believes that 27 28 - 1 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS Case 3:16-cv-06633-JD Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 14 1 substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable 2 opportunity for discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Enhanced Summary Judgment Prior to Class Certification
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 Dropping the Spear: The aC se for Enhanced Summary Judgment Prior to Class Certification Linda S. Mullenix Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Mullenix, Linda S. (2010) "Dropping the Spear: The asC e for Enhanced Summary Judgment Prior to Class Certification," Akron Law Review: Vol. 43 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol43/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Mullenix: Dropping the Spear 10_MULLENIX_WESTERN 11/9/2010 1:15 PM DROPPING THE SPEAR: THE CASE FOR ENHANCED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO CLASS CERTIFICATION Linda S. Mullenix After granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, therefore, and since (as was predictable, given the district judge’s ground) no one stepped forward to pick up the spear dropped by the named plaintiffs, the judge denied the motion for class certification.1 I. Introduction ..................................................................... 1198 II. Summary Judgment Prior to Class Certification: Strategy and Basic Principles .......................................... 1204 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 62 Issue 3 Article 2 Summer 1987 Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation Edward F. Sherman University of Texas School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Sherman, Edward F. (1987) "Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 62 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol62/iss3/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation EDWARD F. SIumRAN* Legal innovations, like social and political movements, are often the result of some compelling human ideal, and the development of the modem class action arises from the lofty hope that group wrongs can be resolved in a single case. Thus a principal objective of the class action is to avoid having members of the class file individual suits, or, to use the term by which that phenomena has come to be known, to avoid duplicative litigation.' By trying a group of similar cases together in a single suit, the class action promises to prevent the unnecessary waste of judicial resources and the possibility of inconsistent judg- ments. Duplicative litigation is a constant problem in the class action context, but there is a peculiar lack of agreement as to both the availability of legal devices to avoid it and the policy considerations at stake.
    [Show full text]
  • Bifurcated Discovery in Class Actions: an Effective Strategy to Prevent the Continuation of the Unmeritorious Lawsuit
    y June 2011 Bifurcated Discovery in Class Actions: An Effective Strategy to Prevent the Continuation of the Unmeritorious Lawsuit BY THE COMPLEX LITIGATION AND TRIAL PRACTICE Consumer class action lawsuits are expensive. Case after case confirms this fact. Recognizing this, many consumer class action lawsuits are filed without a proper class representative, solely so that discovery may be initiated to locate a plaintiff with a “legitimate” claim. As counsel for the named plaintiffs search for someone, anyone, to step into the lawsuit in the place of the original plaintiffs, the defendant faces substantial cost in discovery alone, and that cost takes many forms. It includes dollars spent, employee hours lost, possible reputational harm in the market place, and a general distraction from day-to-day operations. In light of that reality, the Paul Hastings Complex Litigation and Trial Practice employs a number of strategies in an effort to reduce that cost. One of those strategies is to pursue bifurcated discovery. Assuming a case survives a demurrer or a motion to dismiss, and after consultation with the client to ensure the strategy is appropriate for the particular case, Paul Hastings will often seek to bifurcate discovery into two phases: (1) pre-class certification discovery, and (2) post-class certification discovery. In the pre-class certification phase, discovery would be limited to the issues relevant to the class-certification analysis, inclusive of the plaintiff’s standing to pursue the asserted claims. If a class is certified and makes it to the post-class certification phase, discovery will focus on the “merits” of the underlying claims.
    [Show full text]