News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[10/29] Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co.
Sanctions order against law firm for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings in a class action case are vacated in part and remanded where: 1) sanctions under section 1927 were not available for any alleged failure on appellant-law firm's part to vet plaintiff or investigate the bona fides of his claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion in reaching the sanctions determination with respect to the phase of litigation the case was in; 3) appellant-law firm's response to defendant's motion could not be termed a "concession" by the law firm to name recruited individual as a plaintiff; and 4) court's determination of sanctionable conduct in connection with the abortive filing of the motion to substitute the named plaintiff and putative class representative must be set aside because its precursor findings were set aside.

[10/28] Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc.
In a class and individual action against defendant-former employer for violations of the Labor Code, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to prove that employer knowingly and intentionally made misstatements on paystubs and that plaintiff suffered injury as a result; and 2) defendant-employee complied with state law requiring employers to make meal periods and rest periods available.

[10/28] Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
In a class-action suit claiming deceptive advertising by defendant of clothes dryers with stainless-steel drums, certification of a class under the Class Action Fairness Act is reversed where there were no common issues of law or fact to be tried, given that each consumer in the class was likely to have a different understanding of the alleged deception involved in labeling the dryers as having stainless-steel drums.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[10/28] Cohen v. Mem'l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr.
In a suit under Labor Law section 240(1), summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where no Labor Law section 240(1) liability exists where an injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first place.

[10/28] Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc.
In a class and individual action against defendant-former employer for violations of the Labor Code, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to prove that employer knowingly and intentionally made misstatements on paystubs and that plaintiff suffered injury as a result; and 2) defendant-employee complied with state law requiring employers to make meal periods and rest periods available.

[10/24] Chubb v. Delaware
In a claim by a state employee for workers' compensation benefits, an Industrial Accident Board finding against claimant is affirmed where: 1) claimant did not show that he had suffered a recurrence of total disability; 2) claimant was not a prima facie displaced worker; and 3) the board committed no legal error by granting the request of the state to offset payments made by the state to claimant.

More...