« What Does American Business Think About the Golden State? | Main | Proposition 65 Primer: Three Views »

April 26, 2007

Fishing for Class Representatives -- Maybe Not a Good Idea

Today's Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports things went badly for Southern California's Westrup Klick when it tried to get a class certified against Oreck Direct, the vacuum cleaner folks.  Judge Marilyn Patel of the Northern District denied certification under Rule 23, and had some choice words for the Westrup Klick office:

“In short, the conduct in this action does not look good, does not sound good, and does not smell good. In fact, it reeks. The court will not participate in this scheme by certifying a class.”

But wait, there's more:

"Furthermore, the Westrup Klick firm has had trouble regarding its choice of plaintiffs in the past. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.App. 4th 1253 (2005) (disqualifying the Westrup Klick firm from a class action case where it was established that, “from 2003 to 2005, Westrup Klick and [another firm] had jointly filed 10 class actions under [California’s Unfair Competition Law] in which an attorney from Westrup Klick or a relative of one of the attorneys was the named plaintiff”). The latest filing is just one more example of plaintiff’s counsel’s improper approach to consumer litigation."

And then, there's this:

"Indeed, counsel himself admitted at the hearing that he or his firm had the research performed on the product at issue and had a theory about the product’s deficiencies. Then, armed with that information they went in search of a plaintiff, never mind the lack of a fitting plaintiff or the lack of ethical scruples. The instant action is nothing more than Westrup, Klick bringing its show to the Northern District and continuing its practice of selecting stand-in plaintiffs, even ones who are inappropriate.. To grant class certification in such circumstances would be to place this court’s imprimatur on litigation practices which it finds abhorrent and inconsistent with the standards of federal class action suits."

Ah come on, Judge Patel.  Why don't you tell us what you really think?  The entire opinion is here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451e4e569e200d834ca4b5e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fishing for Class Representatives -- Maybe Not a Good Idea:

» April 27 roundup from Overlawyered
Big news: California judge: contingency-fee lawyers hired by state present inherent conflict of interest. [POL roundup; Santa Clara v. ARCO] Must-read post about Westrup Klick's fishing for clients in class actions. [Cal Biz Lit; Lattman;... [Read More]

» Bogus class representative? Ambush 'em from PointOfLaw Forum
From The Recorder, in California:When Los Angeles-based Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner partner David Aronoff wants to oppose a class action, he routinely hires private investigators to probe pre-existing relationships between plaintiffs and their ... [Read More]

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

My Photo

Citations in Cal Biz Lit

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

May, 2009 Posts at CalBizLitAfterHours

Blog powered by TypePad