Andrus Anderson Achieves Nationwide Class Action Settlement In Connection With Honda and Michelin PAX System Litigation

Andrus Anderson LLP announces that on June 23, 2009, the Honorable Roger W. Titus entered an Order granting final approval of a nationwide settlement in a consumer class action, which was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs from various States against Defendants, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) and Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”). The litigation involves the marketing and sale of certain Honda and Acura Vehicles equipped with Run-Flat Tires (“Vehicles”).  The Settlement was negotiated over a number of months with the assistance of a nationally recognized mediator on behalf of Plaintiffs in all of the pending cases and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class with Honda and Michelin.  
 
For settlement purposes, the Court certified a nationwide class consisting of all person or entities who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Honda Odyssey Touring edition model or Acura RL model equipped with the “Technology Package,” which included Michelin’s PAX® Tire and Wheel Assembly in the United States. Excluded from the class are Defendants, Defendants’ employees, officers and directors, and the Judge to whom this Action is or has been assigned. For a copy of the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate links below.  A detailed explanation of the relief under the Settlement can be found in the Class Notice. To view a copy of the Class Notice, please click here.  To submit a claim in connection with this settlement, click here to down load a copy of the claim form which should be submitted by mail as directed.

Cal State ESL Teachers Represented by Andrus Anderson LLP

Andrus Anderson represents California State University-East Bay (Cal State) English as a second language (ESL) teachers in a class action in Alameda County Superior Court.  The lawsuit, Nelson et al., v. California State University, East Bay Foundation, Inc., was filed on March 23, 2009 (Case No. RG09442869).

ESL Teachers Allege Violations of Labor Laws, Back Pay Owed

In their complaint, current and former ESL teachers allege that Cal State has not paid them for all hours worked, as required under California’s labor laws.  Specifically, the teachers claim that Cal State’s refusal to pay for all time worked outside of the classroom (including preparation time, grading time and time spent meeting with students), violates California Wage Order 4-2001 and California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200.  Additionally, the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, failure to pay waiting time penalties to former teachers, and failure to maintain accurate time keeping records.

The ESL teachers seek certification of a class of ESL teachers who have not been paid for all hours worked since March 23, 2005, and, among other things, seek back pay with interest, restitution, and civil penalties.

Contact Andrus Anderson

If you are an ESL teacher and have been denied pay for time spent outside of the classroom, we would like to learn more about your experience as part of our investigation.  Please click here to submit your complaint.

Jennie Lee Anderson To Speak At Prominent Class Action Seminar

AA LLP partner Jennie Lee Anderson will join some of the most influential class action attorneys in the country when she presents at the Consumer Attorneys of California 3rd Annual Class Action Seminar on January 28, 2009 in San Francisco.  Ms. Anderson will be speaking on Protective Orders and Discovery in Class Actions.  “Because class actions implicate the rights of absent class members, it is important that stipulated protective orders only allow truly confidential documents to be filed under seal,” Ms. Anderson noted.  “Too often the parties agree to broad protective orders that result in the case being litigated behind closed doors and away from public view,”  she added.  During her presentation, she will share her techniques for negotiating protective orders and other discovery tips.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Consumers’ Rights In State Courts

Andrus Anderson LLP lauds a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Altria v. Good to deny immunity for cigarette manufacturers who violate state consumer protection laws with false claims of lowered tar and nicotine.

Partner Lori Andrus agrees with the statement issued by the America Association for Justice (www.justice.org): “Today’s decision is a victory for consumers and affirms that cigarette manufacturers cannot claim immunity from consumer fraud when they claim their products have lowered tar and nicotine levels, even though they do not. State laws have an important role to play in helping the federal government police false claims, and today’s decision supports that role.”

“We hope that the court continues to look at claims of corporate immunity from the perspective of consumer health and safety and continues to support the rights of consumers to get justice through the courts.”

To view the full Supreme Court opinion, click here.

Federal Court Judge Rules That Lending Discrimination Claims May Proceed

A federal court in San Diego ruled Monday that Plaintiff’s claims that lenders’ discretionary home mortgage pricing policies have a discriminatory impact on African American borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act (”FHA”) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (”ECOA”) may proceed.  See Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-0732. In denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, which are asserted on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated borrowers, United States District Court Judge John A. Houston wrote that “[t]he Ninth Circuit clearly recognizes the FHA and the ECOA permit discrimination claims under a theory of disparate impact as well as disparate treatment.”  Moreover, “[t]his Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently alleges Defendants engage in a ‘outwardly neutral practice’ though their discretionary pricing policy…[and] specifically identifies and challenges the policy of authorizing brokers to apply subjective, non-risk based factors to impose ‘rate mark-ups.”’  These allegations, along with “statistical information of the discriminatory affect on African Americans in the complaint[]” are sufficient, the Court held.

AA LLP Partner, Jennie Lee Anderson, who argued on behalf of Plaintiff and the class at the hearing, said that the Court’s ruling was correct.  “The FHA and the ECOA seek to ensure that all borrowers, regardless of their race, have equal access to credit and housing,” she said.  “The Court’s decision furthers those important policy goals,” Ms. Anderson said.  For more information regarding the decision or other inquiries regarding credit and housing discrimination, please contact an AA LLP attorney.

To view a copy of the Court’s Order in pdf, please click here.