Third Circuit Awards $10 Million to Plaintiff on Summary Judgment in Recent RICO Case

Third Circuit Awards $10 Million to Plaintiff on Summary Judgment in Recent RICO Case

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff for more than $10 million in damages on federal and state RICO claims. In the process, the court shed light on what evidence shows an “intent to defraud a financial institution” as required to establish bank fraud. In Liberty Bell Bank v. Rogers, et al., a bank sued an individual and entities he owned and controlled, alleging, among other things, violations of the federal and New Jersey RICO statutes. The bank alleged that the defendants developed a scheme through which they fraudulently obtained loans from the bank and further defrauded it by making payments on the loans using a check-kiting scheme. On a motion for summary judgment – in response to which the individual pro se defendant failed to file a responsive statement of material facts, thereby enabling the court to deem certain facts admitted – the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the bank, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to the bank for more than $10 million, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants appealed, and the Third Circuit affirmed. In particular, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that defendants had...

Ninth Circuit Reverses $200 Million Settlement and Class Certification For Lack of Proper Choice of Law Analysis

Ninth Circuit Reverses $200 Million Settlement and Class Certification For Lack of Proper Choice of Law Analysis

In a decision that may make it harder to settle cases on behalf of nationwide classes, the Ninth Circuit recently overturned a $200 million class action settlement and vacated the certification of a nationwide class of consumers, finding the district court failed to examine whether different states’ laws applied to the class members’ claims and whether Rule 23’s predominance requirement was satisfied. The dispute was rooted in a 2012 investigation which found that Hyundai and Kia deviated from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy testing protocols and overstated the fuel efficiency estimates in advertisements and car window stickers for certain 2011, 2012, and 2013 vehicles. A California federal court approved the settlement in June 2015. However, in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, a split three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s approval order and certification of a nationwide class of consumers. Five objectors appealed from the class settlement arguing, among other things, that the settlement violated consumer rights in states other than California. The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court erred by failing to apply California’s choice of law rules to determine whether California law could apply to all plaintiffs in a nationwide class...

Third Circuit Clarifies Focus of Preliminary Injunction Standard

Third Circuit Clarifies Focus of Preliminary Injunction Standard

Describing its precedent as “confus[ing]” and “inconsistent,” the Third Circuit recently clarified the test for deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Since the 1970’s, courts in the Third Circuit have decided preliminary injunction applications based upon the following factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably harmed in the absence of relief; (3) the possibility of harm to others from grant or denial of the relief; and (4) the public interest. However, courts differed as to how these four factors should be applied. In Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, the Third Circuit shed light on how these factors are to be weighed and, at least in part, who bears the burden on each. The Third Circuit held that a movant seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of “meet[ing] the threshold for the first two ‘most critical’ factors.” To satisfy the first prong, the movant “must demonstrate that it can win on the merits” by showing that its chances of success are “significantly better than negligible but not necessarily more likely than not.” To satisfy the second prong, however, the movant must show “that it is more likely than not to...

Doomed CFA and TCCWNA Claims for Proposed Health Club Class Action Lead District Court to Question CAFA Jurisdiction 0

Doomed CFA and TCCWNA Claims for Proposed Health Club Class Action Lead District Court to Question CAFA Jurisdiction

The District of New Jersey’s recent decision in Truglio v. Planet Fitness, Inc. provides valuable lessons on pleading claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), and Health Club Services Act (“HCSA”). Not only does the district court’s opinion reinforce the requirement of an ascertainable loss to sustain a CFA claim, but it also confirms that omissions are not actionable under the TCCWNA. Moreover, the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff in this putative class action did not plead an ascertainable loss directly called into question the subject matter jurisdiction of the court: is there $5 million in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) if the plaintiff has not alleged an ascertainable loss? Read below for more on this case, and stay tuned for additional developments after supplemental briefing on the CAFA issue.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds the UTPCPA’s “Ascertainable Loss” Requirement Cannot Be Manufactured by Voluntarily Hiring Counsel and Incurring Litigation Costs 0

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds the UTPCPA’s “Ascertainable Loss” Requirement Cannot Be Manufactured by Voluntarily Hiring Counsel and Incurring Litigation Costs

In Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phila., LLC, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the retention of counsel to institute suit alone does not constitute “ascertainable loss” under the state’s consumer protection statute. The plaintiff in Grimes had rented a car from an Enterprise branch in Philadelphia and apparently declined to purchase Collision Damage Waiver or Loss Damage Waiver coverage.