Procedural Posture
Plaintiff customers brought a putative class action against defendant phone manufacturer and wireless carrier, alleging, inter alia, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301 et seq. Defendants moved to dismiss the master complaint.
Overview
A civil trial lawyer specializes in defending clients before a court of law and in giving legal advice, conducting lawsuits, etc. The carrier argued that the claims challenged its 3G rates and market entrance, and such claims were preempted by the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (FCA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 151 et seq. The court agreed that the claims were preempted as to the carrier where the core allegations that defendants knew that the network was not sufficiently developed to accommodate the number of phone users and that defendants deceived the customers into paying higher rates for a service that defendants knew they could not deliver implicated the reasonableness of the carrier's rates. In essence, the customers were paying for the 3G service, for which the carrier charged a higher rate, but received 2G service. Since the customer's claims were an attack on the carrier's rates and 3G market entry, they were preempted by the FCA. The Federal Communications Commission's opinions and district court decisions dealing with the scope of FCA preemption of state law remedies were in accord. Since the claims against the manufacturer were inextricably tied to the claims against the carrier and the carrier was an indispensable party, the claims were also dismissed as to the manufacturer.
Outcome
The motion to dismiss the master complaint was granted. All other motions were denied.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff employee appealed an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, which granted defendant employer's motion to strike class allegations from her complaint that alleged causes of action for failure to pay overtime compensation under Lab. Code, §§ 1194, 1197, and disgorgement of unpaid wages under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.
Overview
Two years before the employee filed her complaint, two other persons filed a class action complaint against the employer on behalf of all managers and assistant managers in its California stores during the preceding four years, alleging the same causes of action. The three plaintiffs subsequently filed a coordinated complaint against the employer. The court held the trial court correctly handled the motion under class certification guidelines, properly receiving evidence on the class certification issue and exercising its discretion in denying certification. The motion filed under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.767, was not an attack on the pleadings, like a traditional motion to strike; rather, it was a request to initiate the class certification process. The motion was timely, and the trial court properly took evidence outside the pleadings and denied the belated discovery request. Plaintiffs received proper notice of the employer's motion and had the opportunity to respond with evidence of their own. They presented nothing to counter the employer's evidence that the action did not meet the requirements of a class action. The employee had not met her burden of demonstrating error.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's order.