Class Actions Blog

GMAC mortgage class action over alleged false foreclosure documents

Posted on: October 8th, 2010 by Steve Larson

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Maine against GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC) alleging, among other things, that GMAC filed knowingly false certifications for foreclosure and false affidavits in support of foreclosure. The GMAC foreclosure documentation class action lawsuit complaint alleges that thousands of Maine homeowners have lost their homes due to judgments based on alleged false GMAC foreclosure certifications and affidavits.  Maine is one of the 23 states where judicial sign-off is required to move ahead with a foreclosure, and where GMAC (now Ally Financial) has suspended evictions. Read more…

Diversity Ordered for Class Action Counsel

Posted on: October 5th, 2010 by Steve Larson

In the case In re Gildan Activewear Inc. Securities Litigation, Judge Baer’s order appoints class counsel, and imposes a diversity requirement on the plaintiffs’ firms (Robbins Geller and Labaton Sucharow). Read more…

Campaign Finance Suit Denied Class Action Status

Posted on: September 28th, 2010 by Steve Larson

A Florida state court judge has refused to grant class-action status to a lawsuit by two contributors who claim Gov. Charlie Crist cheated them by becoming an independent.

The plaintiffs, Linda Morton of Naples and James Rood of Jacksonville, a former GOP Party chairman and U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, had also asked the court to freeze $7.5 million in Crist’s campaign warchest.  Senior Circuit Judge Jack Schoonover refused to convert the lawsuit to a class action and has twice refused to freeze any of Crist’s funds. Read more…

Ninth Circuit Affirms that “Right to Sue” Means What it Says

Posted on: September 24th, 2010 by Steve Larson

The Ninth Circuit correctly held that a mandatory arbitration clause in a credit card agreement is unenforceable under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”).  Greenwood v. CompuCredit Corp., — F.3d —-, 2010 WL 3222415 (9th Cir. 2010), was a class action stemming from a credit card marketed to consumers with weak credit as a card that would help “rebuild poor credit.”  The plaintiffs alleged that the fees charged for the card (about $275 in fees charged on the card reducing the $300 credit limit to about $25) violated provisions of the CROA and of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The card agreements included arbitration clauses requiring mandatory arbitration before an arbitration company called the National Arbitration Forum, which we now know was owned by the credit card companies.  Plaintiffs sought to void the arbitration agreements on grounds that CROA specifically precludes arbitration by expressly providing for an unwaivable “right to sue.” Read more…

Seventh Circuit blasts Fifth Circuit’s Analysis for Certifying Securities Class Actions

Posted on: September 16th, 2010 by Steve Larson

In its August 20, 2010 opinion in Schleicher v. Wendt, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3271964 (C.A.7 (Ind.), 2010), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of a securities fraud class action and, in so doing, provided a withering critique of the Fifth Circuit’s approach to certification in securities cases.  Judge Easterbrook began by observing the defendants’ arguments against class certification (including that a company as large and widely followed as corporate defendant Conseco does not qualify for the fraud-on-the-market treatment under Basic v. Levinson) would “end the use of class actions in securities cases.”  The panel opinion went on to reject the contentions that, before a class can be certified, the district court must determine that the contested statements actually caused material changes in the stock price and that the plaintiff must prove each element (other than falsity) required to win on the merits. Read more…

Will the Supreme Court invent a federal law to gut state consumer protection laws?

Posted on: September 14th, 2010 by Steve Larson

As mentioned in an earlier post on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider whether companies can ban class action lawsuits in the fine print of their contracts with consumers when it hears argument in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  In its briefs, AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) asks the Supreme Court to, in effect, create a federal law to gut state consumer protection laws.

AT&T knows that there have been many times over the years where it, and other cell phone and long distance phone companies, have been caught overcharging or otherwise cheating large numbers of consumers in ways that only involve a small amount of money for the individual consumer but which add up to many millions of dollars for the consumers combined.  In lots of cases in the past, consumers have filed class actions against AT&T and other phone companies under state consumer protection acts that stopped the illegal behavior for all of the customers, and won refunds for all of the customers. Read more…

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.

About Class Actions:

About this blog

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

About the author

  • Steve Larson

  • Steve Larson
  • Steve Larson has been representing investors, consumers and employees in class actions in Oregon for over 20 years. He is a shareholder at the law firm of Stoll Berne in Portland, Oregon.
Follow stollberne on Twitter

Subscribe to this blog