CLASS ACTION CASES
U.S. 2nd Circuit, May 13, 2008
Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, No. 06-5703
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.
Read more...
U.S. 4th Circuit, May 14, 2008
Saunders v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. of Virginia, No. 07-1108
In an action alleging violation of defendant-lender's duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), judgment against defendant including a denial of defendant's motions for judgment as a mater of law and for remittitur is affirmed where: 1) a decision by defendant to report a debt to credit reporting agencies without mention of a dispute was in violation of section 1681s-2 of the FCRA; 2) plaintiff was able to demonstrate that defendant knowingly and intentionally withheld information of a valid dispute from credit reporting agencies; 3) there were sufficient facts for a jury to find that plaintiff had an excuse for failing to make payments; and 4) an $80,000 punitive award was not grossly excessive in light of defendant's reprehensible conduct and the fact that a lower award would not have a punitive or deterrent effect.
Read more...
U.S. 6th Circuit, May 15, 2008
In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation, No. 06-4511
In an antitrust action involving the scrap metal market in Northeastern Ohio, judgment and damages award for plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing expert testimony based on allegedly erroneous data; 2) the fact that the jury awarded damages are below the figure mentioned by an expert witness did not mean that there was insufficient evidence since the jury was entitled to award damages based on expert testimony it found credible; 3) there was no "impermissible fluid recovery" since plaintiffs provided evidence of a class-wide aggregate injury; 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the certification of a class ; and 5) any error in instructions to the jury regarding fraudulent concealment was harmless since the jury heard evidence of fraudulent concealment dating before the earliest date of consideration set by the court.
Read more...
