Back in late 2004, the now-defunct law firm of Sprenger & Lang found itself disqualified as counsel for a plaintiffs class in a class action against Cargill because a former Cargill executive shared his Cargill-privileged documents with the plaintiffs’ lawyers (related opinion here). Now, in a class action lawsuit against Target Corp., the Halunen law firm has been disqualified on a very similar basis.  Notably, the Halunen firm had so… Continue reading →

…d below.  Judge Loken’s colleague, Bobby Shepherd, agreed, but not his other colleague, Michael J. Melloy, who dissented from part of Judge Loken’s decision.  The case is a testament to the challenges of bringing class action litigation; plaintiffs’ battle has been litigated since June, 2009, and it is far from clear that plaintiffs’ counsel will ever see a payday on this one… Update #2 (March , 2011):  ”When… Continue reading →

Famed Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner authored an opinion (covered in Minnesota Litigator here in which Posner quipped, “Litigation is not ping-pong.”) holding that, in the Seventh Circuit, federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act does not evaporate with the denial of a motion for class certification. Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz (D. Minn.) reached the same conclusion in the Starbucks Fair… Continue reading →

Jani-King sells commercial cleaning franchises to individuals (and, from the names of plaintiffs, appear to have had something of a foothold in the Minnesota Hmong community along with other immigrant communities). Proposed class action plaintiffs felt deceived by defendants Jani-King of Minnesota, Jani-King International and others, alleging that (1) many of the accounts offered to them were underbid to the extent that they were not profitable;… Continue reading →

Last November, Minnesota Litigator questioned the strategy of opposing class certification in this matter (and noted a rather unorthodox and liberal use of redaction in the response brief to the motion for class certification) and today comes the press release of settlement for $80 million.  Insurance will pay for all but $20 million of the settlement (and, presumably, all of the defense costs less deductible?).  It is sure that defendants (that… Continue reading →

U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim certified a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices act, premised on the fact that the debt collector defendant added a fee of 35% of the debt, as a collection fee, on top of the amount of the underlying debt. This, the Court held, was inconsistent with Eighth Circuit precedent. Under that precedent, one can only recover actual costs of collection along with the underlying debt when the a… Continue reading →

…e, to continue the metaphor.  When someone is stricken with a particular pathology, particularly one with a scary degree of risk, the specialist, almost regardless of price, is suddenly quite popular. The Minnesota securities class action bar is a fairly well-defined group of specialists.  The ailment, however, has generally been in remission in recent years in the U.S. District of Minnesota (and throughout the country).  This past Friday, class… Continue reading →

Ameriprise brought a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment against the putative employment discrimination class action (based on race) brought by Rosalind Brown.  The grounds for Ameriprise’s motion were multiple.  It prevailed on one ground as to one aspect of the case (failure to exhaust administrative remedy as to the disparate impact claim) but U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle, Sr. (D. Minn.) denied judgment in Amerip… Continue reading →

Minnesota Litigator has received several requests for class action claim forms in recent days.  I am not sure what explains the sudden uptick in contacts to Minnesota Litigator regarding claims in a class action to which Minnesota Litigator has no connection of any kind, other than a stray comment on the litigation.  Whatever the reason, Minnesota Litigator has had to send out several communications as follows: Dear _______, Minnesota Litigator … Continue reading →

Filed in April, 2007, the day of reckoning draws near for employment this employment class action before U.S. District Court Judge Ann D. Montgomery (D. Minn.). The jury trial is noticed for January 11, 2011 (memorably 1/1/11) at 8:45 a.m.   The plaintiffs’ employment class action firm of Nichols Kaster goes up against Minnesota Litigator’s former colleagues at Dorsey & Whitney for Qwest. Plaintiffs’ statement of the case i… Continue reading →

Late yesterday, the Lockridge Grindal & Nauen law firm,  in conjunction with the New York law firm of Levi & Korsinsky filed a putative class action complaint in Ramsey County District Court (St. Paul) in connection with the recently announced sale of Lawson Software. Late yesterday, the Lockridge Grindal & Nauen law firm,  in conjunction with the New York law firm of Levi & Korsinsky filed a putative class action complaint in H… Continue reading →