This page has a list of lawsuits brought as class actions.
United States Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) acknowledged that this court’s seminal decision in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) did not overule Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2003) (per curiam). Despite the decisions of the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the process of removal proceeded apace. Andrew Jackson is reputed to have responded to the news of the Court’s rulings by saying “John Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”.
Class action lawsuits[edit]
| Lawsuit | Subject of lawsuit | Court of decision | Year of decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alperin v. Vatican Bank | conversion, unjust enrichment, restitution, the right to an accounting, human rights violations and violations of international law | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation | violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | |
| Anderson v. Jackson | demolition of public housing damaged by Hurricane Katrina | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 2009 |
| Cobell v. Salazar | Indian trust assets | United States District Court for the District of Columbia | 2009 |
| Collins v. United States | honorable discharge under 'Don't ask, don't tell' | United States Court of Federal Claims | 2013 |
| Conant v. McCaffrey | right to recommend medical marijuana | United States district court | |
| Daniels v. City of New York | racial profiling and unlawful stop and frisk | ||
| Daniela Apostol v. Eastman Kodak Company | false advertising, unfair enrichment, fraudulent concealment, unfair competition[1] | ||
| De Beers Diamonds Antitrust Litigation | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey | ||
| Doe v. Chiquita Brands International | funding and arming known terrorist organizations | ||
| Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores | discriminating against women in promotions, pay, and job assignments | United States Supreme Court | 2011 |
| EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America[2] | creation and long-term toleration of a sexually hostile work environment | United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois | 1998 |
| EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores | hiring decisions based on gender | ||
| Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. | misappropriation of users' names and likenesses | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | |
| Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores | racial and gender discrimination in employment and marketing | ||
| Gratz v. Bollinger | undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy too mechanistic in its use of race as a factor in admissions | Supreme Court of the United States | 2003 |
| Greek Cypriots v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA | denial of access to land and property | United States District Court for the District of Columbia | |
| GM Instrument Cluster Settlement | owners of vehicles with faulty instrument clusters receive 'special coverage' | U.S. District Court in Seattle | 2008 |
| Hepting v. AT&T | surveillance of telecommunications | ||
| James v. Meow Media | video game responsibility for murders | ||
| Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. | sexual harassment, abusive language, threats, stalking and intimidation | ||
| Jewel v. NSA | surveillance | 2010 | |
| Lane v. Facebook, Inc. | internet privacy and social media | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | 2010 |
| Luévano v. Campbell | racial bias in written test for employment | ||
| Madrigal v. Quilligan | involuntary sterilization | ||
| Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores | health insurance not covering prescription contraceptives | United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia | |
| Mochizuki v. United States | forcible kidnapping and imprisonment | ||
| Morgan v. Hennigan | racial segregation and school busing | ||
| Nasdaq Market Makers Antitrust Litigation | stock market collusion | ||
| National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation | e-commerce website accessibility | ||
| National Organization for Women v. Scheidler | anti-abortion activities | Supreme Court of the United States | 1994 |
| Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation | price fixing and other allegedly anti-competitive trade practices in the credit card industry | 2012 | |
| Pigford v. Glickman | racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance | 1999/2010 | |
| Price v. Philip Morris, Inc | cigarette company advertising class action led by plaintiff's attorney Stephen Tillery resulted in $10.1 billion judgement[3] | Madison County, Illinois | 2003/2006 |
| Ritalin class action lawsuits | promoting disorder ADHD to increase drug profits | ||
| Robbins v. Lower Merion School District | charged schools secretly spied on students through surreptitiously and remotely activated webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home; privacy rights | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | filed 2010 |
| Ruiz v. Estelle | prisoners' rights | United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas | 1979 |
| Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (2003) | anti-abortion activities | Supreme Court of the United States | 2003 |
| Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (2006) | anti-abortion activities | Supreme Court of the United States | 2006 |
| Shell Canada lawsuit | gasoline additive damaging fuel supply systems of cars | ||
| Shyamala Rajender v. University of Minnesota | employment discrimination based on sex | United States District Court for the District of Minnesota | 1980 |
| Smiley v. Citibank | limiting credit card late fees and other penalties | Supreme Court of the United States | 1996 |
| Sullivan v. Zebley | Social Security regulation on determining disability for children | Supreme Court of the United States | 1990 |
| Swift v. Zynga | misleading advertising | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | |
| TNA Entertainment, LLC v. Wittenstein and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. | use of secret contact information to steal talent | ||
| Turkmen v. Ashcroft | unlawful detainment | ||
| Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak Company | false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation | ||
| World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks | retrieving deposits from dormant bank accounts | 2000 |
Lawsuits related to class action[edit]
| Lawsuit | Subject of lawsuit | Court of decision | Year of decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion | contracts that exclude class action arbitration | Supreme Court of the United States | 2011 |
| Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit | SLUSA preempting state law class action claims | Supreme Court of the United States | 2006 |
| West v. Randall | required parties to class action | United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |
See also[edit]
Class action lawyers[edit]
- William Lerach (class action lawyer)
- Tim Misny (class action lawyer)
- David I. Shapiro (class action lawyer)
- Paul Sprenger (lawyer representing employees in class actions)
- Harvey Thomas Strosberg (Canadian class action lawyer)
- Ted Wells (lawyer representing corporations in class actions)
Class action law firms[edit]
- Center for Class Action Fairness (law firm representing consumers in class actions)
- Edelson McGuire (law firm representing consumers in class actions)
Other persons involved in class actions[edit]
- William Hohri (class action lead plaintiff)
- Harry Kalven (American jurist, a pioneer in class action)
- Jeffrey Krinsk (co-founder of a class action litigation law firm)
Legislation[edit]
- Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (in the US)
- Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (in the US)
Other related topics[edit]
- British American Tobacco#Canadian class action lawsuit
- Shannon, Quebec#Cancer cluster (in Canada)
Jackson Family Estate Vs Tumblr
References[edit]
- ^'Class action complaint filing for case: 30-2011-00510342-CU-FR-CXC'(PDF).
- ^'MMNA and EEOC reach voluntary agreement to settle harassment suit', EEOC press release, June 11, 1998
- ^Korein Tillery will retry light cigarettes case against Philip Morris, Market Watch, October 25, 2011
External links[edit]
- The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C) (Listing of racial discrimination class actions in the Federal government)
- Wal-Mart will pay $40m to workers - The Boston Globe (December 3, 2009)
- Mississippi's first class-action lawsuit filed over oil spill - Oil Spill - SunHerald.com (30 April 2010)
[Post by Jake McGowan]
Branca v. Mann, CV 11-00584 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012)
When a celebrity goes bankrupt or forgets to pay a bill for his/her physical-space storage locker, opportunists may swoop in and purchase the goods so they can try and turn a profit reselling them. But sometimes, these buyers get a little overzealous–they convince themselves that their interest in the tangible property gives them an interest in some of the celebrity’s underlying intellectual property rights. This leads to poorly designed pay-for-access websites with risqué names like “parisexposed.com.”
A district court in California heard one of these storage locker disputes in Branca v. Mann, where the defendants set up a pay-for-access website relating to the late Michael Jackson. The court lowered the boom on August 10th, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for a long list of claims including copyright infringement, false designation of origin, misappropriation of likeness, cybersquatting, and so on.
Background
The Jacksons have been blessed with many talents, but financial management is not one of them.
Toni Sanchez Poy / Shutterstock.com
In the late nineties, Michael Jackson’s parents and two of his brothers owed money to a company owned by one of the defendants. To collect on the debt, the company found a storage facility with Jackson family memorabilia and sought to authorize a bankruptcy sale including photographs and audio recordings found in the storage facility (the “Subject Property”). Jackson tried to block the sale, but the defendants ended up buying the Estate’s right, title and interest in the Subject Property.
In 2004, some of the defendants in this suit created a pay-for-access website using Jackson’s name, likeness, photographs and other copyrighted material from the bankruptcy sale. Jackson fired back, filing a suit alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, and misappropriation of likeness. The court granted a preliminary injunction, but dismissed the action with prejudice in ’06 after Jackson failed to prosecute. If you recall, Jackson’s legal team was a little busy at the time.
Jackson died in 2009 and the defendants tried to cash in, creating new websites and selling access to more of Jackson’s copyright-protected material. Jackson’s lawyers promptly threw the kitchen sink at them, filing a suit alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, cyber piracy, misappropriation of likeness, and unfair competition. They asked for declaratory relief, along with an accounting of how much defendants profited from the alleged unauthorized use and a permanent injunction.
The district court sided with Jackson’s estate, granting summary judgment on almost every claim. The key question in this case, however, was whether the defendants’ purchase of the “Subject Property” granted them any interest that would justify their pay-for-access website.
Jackson Family Estate V Tumblr Videos
Defendants Did Not Acquire IP Rights Through Bankruptcy Sale
The defendants argued that they acquired an interest in Jackson’s IP rights through the original bankruptcy sale. In support, they pointed to a 7th Circuit decision which held that a sale agreement need not include the exact word “copyright” to transfer an interest in the corresponding IP rights. The court distinguished the 7th Circuit case:
Language in the bankruptcy court’s order and from an exchange between the lawyers and the bankruptcy judge also made clear that the sale had transferred intellectual property rights. Here, to the contrary, none of the facts surrounding the sale of Debtors’ personal property from a storage facility indicate a transfer of any intellectual property rights.
Ultimately, the court held that the bankruptcy sale covered only the personal property of the Jackson debtors, and did not transfer any rights, title, or interest to Michael Jackson’s intellectual property.
[Eric’s note: on the copyright front, this seems like a trivially easy 17 USC 202 case.]
Mass effect 1 target. ___
This is a great example of the conceptual difficulties that arise when intangible property is embedded in tangible property, like a cassette tape. After all, the Jacksons’ storage locker contained valuable, unreleased audio recordings alongside the other tangible property. Many non-lawyers might believe that by purchasing the locker, they purchased everything, including the intangible property contained on tangible property. Although the physical tapes are somewhat valuable in a memorabilia sense, the true value lies in the rights to copy and distribute the song itself. But the tapes are merely a medium for the combination of protected musical tones and lyrics–they don’t grant those rights. They shouldn’t grant those rights, because it would not be fair to allow the songs to leak simply because they were on the wrong cassette at the wrong time.
Jackson Family Estate V Tumblr Pic
Now imagine that the storage locker contained only tapes, and the defendants paid thousands of dollars. If they can’t distribute the songs on the tapes, why did they invest in the first place? They could try and recoup by selling the tapes as memorabilia, but really maybe they just made a bad investment due to a legal error.
Comments are closed.