Advocates for Justice

Late Wednesday afternoon a judge in Michigan approved $225 million in settlements for American consumers and businesses who purchased automobiles that were affected by an international automotive parts price-fixing cartel.  The Hon. Marianne O. Battani of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered that the settlements should be approved, compensating American consumers for overcharges they paid as a result of the conspiracy.

May 5, 2016 marks an important day for consumers in the United States, as it is the day that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) issued proposed rules prohibiting banks and other financial institutions from inserting mandatory arbitration provisions in consumer contracts.  These arbitration clauses have grown in popularity as a tool by big-business to prevent consumers from banding together to pursue claims in court and also from pursuing claims as class actions.  Mandatory arbitration provisions give financial institutions a free pass to violate the law at the expense of consumers.  Banks know that they can make billions through sharp and illegal practices when they put a ban on class actions and court proceedings into their ‘take it or leave it’ contracts with consumers.  Big-business knows that few consumers would have the resources to pursue a claim in arbitration when only a few dollars, or few hundred dollars, or even a few thousand dollars are at stake.  This is especially true since class action bans prohibit consumers from joining together to remedy wrongs and is especially true when the mandatory arbitration clauses let the financial institutions pick which arbitrator to use, which rules apply, and which law applies.

The Ninth Circuit decided today that a named plaintiff in a representative action can still pursue class certification even if his individual claims are satisfied through a defendant’s “pick off” tactics and that a case cannot be deemed moot until the plaintiff is afforded a fair opportunity to show that class certification is warranted.

Today, in the Surfrider Foundation’s litigation against the owner of Martins Beach, CPM filed its response brief in the appeal phase of the case.  After a full trial in 2014, Judge Barbara Mallach found the owner had violated the Coastal Act by blocking the public’s access to the popular surf spot just south of Half Moon Bay.

In federal and California state courts, defendants often look to the “public disclosure bar,” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) and Cal. Gov. Code section 12652, subd. (d)(3)(A), to shield them from liability from claims brought under the Federal and California False Claims Acts. Not surprisingly, defendants routinely argue that the public disclosure bar should be broadly construed to bar claims that are only tangentially related to information publicly disclosed before the whistleblower (also called the “relator”) filed their false claims action.

Under the California False Claims Act, like its federal counterpart, defendants often seek to have claims against them dismissed on the basis of the “public disclosure” bar, Cal. Gov. Code section 12652, subd. (d)(3)(A). The scope of the California False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar was recently considered by the Second District Court of Appeals, which explained that the bar is intended “to prevent parasitic or opportunistic actions by persons simply taking advantage of public information without contributing to or assisting in the exposure of the fraud.” State ex rel. Bartlett v. Miller (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1407.

Everyone likes a good deal when shopping.  However, if you are one of the millions of Americans who make purchasing decisions based on a comparison of the sale price to the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) there is a high probability that you are not getting the deal you think you are getting.  

The federal government spent roughly 14% of its overall expenditures on Medicare in 2014. Included in those costs were significant money paid to rehabilitation companies and skilled nursing facilities to provide rehabilitation and care services to seniors. Given the massive amount of money being spent on those services, there is also an increasing amount of fraud, abuse and deception occurring, where dishonest providers are seeking to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars.

Currently pending before the Supreme Court is an important False Claims Act case, Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar. The complaint in the case alleges that Universal Health Services knowingly hired unlicensed, unqualified and unsupervised non-medical professionals to provide mental health services in violation of Massachusetts’ Medicaid rules. The company then billed the state and federal governments as if those services had actually been provided by professionals. The misconduct had tragic consequences. According to the complaint, after seeking mental health services and receiving inadequate care from untrained non-professionals, a seventeen year old girl suffered a fatal seizure and died. When her parents discovered Universal Health Services’ failures, they sued under the False Claims Act.

There have been significant changes to the California Code of Civil Procedure, all of which center on one unifying theme: judicial efficiency. Below are brief discussions of the changes to procedural statutes regarding demurrers, 998 offers, and summary judgment motions.