Consumer Advocate Legal Update : Class Action Lawyers & Attorneys : Khorrami Pollard & Abir Law Firm : Mass Torts, Products Liability

In re Tobacco II Cases almost one year later:
A boon for California Consumers, or a bust?

Perhaps no opinion has had more impact on class action litigation in the last year than the California Supreme Court’s decision in the Tobacco II Cases. In less than a year, however, several of the Court’s core findings have been diminished by subsequent interpretation. Matt Bailey examines subsequent treatment of Tobacco II by lower courts, providing insight on some of the current pitfalls in pursuing a class action under the deception prong of the UCL.

To read the full article featured in Advocate Magazine on pages 54 - 61, click here.

For the latest updates on California and National Class Action developments, follow Matt Bailey's Blog: Bailey Class Action Daily.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 4, 2009, New York District Court Judge, Hon. Roslynn R. Mauskopf, rejected efforts by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") to disavow the existence of the New York State regulation empowering its hourly paid employees to receive overtime compensation.  (Andrade v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80836 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2009)).  Chase’s argument, which sought to set employee rights back 100 years to the era of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), asserted that hourly employees in New York could claim overtime compensation under New York State law only if the employee had personally negotiated such a right with financial behemoth Chase by way of contract.  The Lochner decision – which invalidated early efforts by the States to regulate sweatshop-like working conditions during the industrial revolution – reduced employee protections solely to the right of contract under a pro-business judicial philosophy that was subsequently abandoned in the post Depression era.  In modern times, however, Chase’s claim insisting that New York does not have a mandatory overtime law is an extreme, if not outrageous, proposition.  This fact was underscored by Judge Mauskopf, who reasoned that “the cases recognizing the validity of New York's overtime regulation are legion.” See Andrade, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80836, at 5-7, n.1. Thus, the Andrade decision reflects a victory for New York hourly employees who are entitled by law to receive overtime compensation for going the extra mile to generate profits for their corporate employers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matt Bailey was published on Friday, September 3 in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.  He provided readers with a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the professional class action objector.  As co-head of KPA's class action team, Matt handles all class actions within the firm and has several years of experience, and success, with this type of complex litigation. 

Deborah Gutierrez was published today, September 14, on LawDragon.com.  Her article "Limiting the Preemption Doctrine" provides an update to the 2009 Wyeth v. Levine decision, and it's affect on consumer's over the past few months.  This is one of several articles Deborah has had published on this topic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link