Class Actions

Legal Battles Continue Over 2010 BP Spill

April 23, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The San Francisco toxic tort law firm at The Brod Law Firm continues to follow the legal battles that have grown out of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We follow the developments because we want to be prepared to help victims should an oil spill in Sacramento or other Northern California oil and gas accidents result in harm to our community.

As the Associated Press reported, last Wednesday, BP and a team of plaintiffs’ attorneys presented judge overseeing the BP cases with the formal terms of a proposed settlement for the pending class-action claims. The lawyers are looking for the judge to issue a preliminary approval that would impact BP and a plaintiff-side class composed of more than 100,000 businesses and individuals. There is no indication of how long it will take the judge to reach a ruling. Judge Barbier is expected to hold a formal fairness hearing to evaluate the settlement prior to issuing a final approval.

The proposed settlement would have BP paying an estimated $7.8 billion to resolve claims from private parties. Settlement papers put no cap on the total damages that BP may have to pay. If approved, it would be one of the largest class-action settlements in history. The parties believe the settlement is reasonable, fair, and adequate and that it builds a comprehensive system for awarding compensation to class members.

California Class Action Firm Following Developments Stemming from 2011 Oil Spill in Brazil

April 16, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The San Francisco class action attorney at The Brod Law Firm has been closely following developments stemming from an oil leak that occurred off the coast of Brazil last fall. Last month, The San Francisco Chronicle reported on developments stemming from the accident. The continuing story serves as a reminder of the importance of legal accountability following an oil-related accident. This story is particularly relevant to our coastal communities since a pipeline accident in California could impact dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of local residents and businesses.

In November 2011, a drilling accident led to an oil spill at Chevron’s Frade field. The Frade site is a deep water field in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. It is estimated that three thousand barrels of crude oil flowed into the water as a result of the Frade incident. According to allegations, the companies involved in the Frade project used faulty equipment, applied excessive drilling pressure, and failed to fulfill requirements aimed at preventing oil spills.

Brazilian authorities have filed lawsuits against Chevron as well as Transocean, the company that operated the Frade drilling rig, and Petroleo Brasilero SA (“Petrobas”), Brazil’s state-controlled oil producer. Individual company executives have also been named in the litigation with prosecutors seeking prison terms of up to thirty-one years on charges they obstructed the government’s investigation into the accident. Prosecutors are seeking $5.5 million each from Chevron and Transocean and additional damages of approximately $549,100 from the individual executives. Petrobas may be responsible for thirty percent of damages charged to Chevron. The Brazilian government suggests these civil damage figures reflect the environmental damage stemming from the Frade spill.

Barriers in Class Action Lawsuits

April 1, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

A class action lawsuit is a type of litigation where a large number of people with a common interest in a matter sue or are sued as a group. This type of legal action provides a convenient way to resolve disputes between large numbers of individuals with similar interests in one case. San Francisco class action lawyers know that class action lawsuits not only save the court time, but they can also be one of the only ways that litigants are able to bring realistically hold certain big interests accountable for their conduct.

Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, class action lawsuits can be seeking money damages or other remedies. Under the rule unnamed class members to a class action are bound by the judgment. However, in order to be bound the unnamed class members must be given adequate notice, adequate representation, and adequate opportunity to opt out before judgment. If you believe that you could be a member of a class action lawsuit it is advisable to contact a San Francisco class action attorney to determine your rights.

The issue of class action lawsuits recently made the news when AT&T lost a suit to wireless subscriber Matt Spaccarelli. Spaccarelli sued the company for slowing down his wireless service after he used 1.5 to 2 GB within one month in his unlimited data plan. Spaccarelli won his suit and was awarded $850, but AT&T was not forced to change its policy of slowing down service in unlimited plans. According to CNET it was not that Spaccarelli won that was surprising, but rather the fact that he was unable to bring a class action lawsuit against the wireless giant due to a clause contained in most wireless provider/subscriber contracts.

Further Developments in the San Bruno Explosion Investigation

March 28, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Last week, our San Francisco pipeline accident law firm updated readers on safety concerns stemming from the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. We wanted to follow-up and update our readers on developments being reported in this week’s San Francisco Chronicle.

On September 9, 2010, a pipeline explosion occurred near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue in San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood. The explosion and resulting fire left eight people dead, completely destroying thirty-eight homes and damages many more properties. Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”), the company responsible for operating the pipeline, dismissed allegations that the pipeline was being operated at an elevated, dangerous, and illegal level of pressure. The current Chronicle investigation revealed that at least three segments in the San Bruno natural gas pipeline were being operated at an illegally high pressure level.

Federal law gives companies the option to maintain records that justify higher pressure levels but the law requires that companies that do not possess specific information must operate on the assumption that the pipelines are the lowest grade and limit pressure accordingly. PG&E failed to provide the needed information and exceeded the allowable pressure limit on the San Bruno pipeline and thirty other lines in California. Reports suggest that the pipeline pressure may have been twenty percent about the legal limit. Several expert consultants have concluded that the disaster might have been averted had PG&E maintained the legally required pressure level.

An Introduction To Class Actions

March 19, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

When a man-made disaster impacts our state, our California class action attorney is prepared to help. In cases involving toxic torts, such as a California oil refinery accident, The Brod Law Firm is prepared to use the tool of either a federal or state class action to ease the burden on individual plaintiffs and allow an entire group of victims to prove their case collectively.

The most likely reason to bring a class action suit in federal court, instead of state court, is the diversity doctrine. This means that the suit involves at least one plaintiff who is a citizen of a different state than one or more of the defendants. For these purposes, companies are citizens of the state where they have their principle place of business. In order to file as a federal class, the plaintiffs must show four things: 1) Commonality (one or more issues is common to the whole class and, often, these common issues dominate over individual matters); 2) Adequacy (the selected representative can effectively protect the interests of all members of the class); 3) Numerosity (the class is large enough that individual lawsuits are not practical, making a class action a better method for resolving the matters); and 4) Typicality (the claim of the representative stems from a wrong to the class and is typical of the claims of the class members). These requirements aim to make sure that a class action is the best method for resolving a dispute and that a proper lead plaintiff is selected to represent the class in court.

Class actions can also be brought under state law. A few examples of the types of claims that might give rise to a class action in California are employment law violations, defective products claims, and consumer protection litigation. The rules governing class actions in California are a mix of guidance from statutes passed by the legislature and interpretations developed by state courts. Some of the basic requirements for a state class action mirror the requirements under federal law. California courts will also be more likely to grant certification of a class if doing so will serve a benefit to the class or to the citizens of the state as a whole and if the claims would be unlikely to be heard individually.

The Importance of Healthy Workplaces: The Asbestos Example

March 12, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

America is a land of opportunity where hard work should earn you a good life. Unfortunately, or San Francisco workplace injury lawyer knows that too many of our residents are subject to dangerous working conditions. These conditions include hazardous chemicals that can cause a myriad of health problems, some of which don’t appear until many years later.

One of the most publicized substances that has led to countless work-related sicknesses is asbestos. There are six major types of asbestos and the substance was widely used for many years because of its commercially beneficial properties. Asbestos fibers are resistant to heat and many chemicals, leading to use in a range of construction elements as well as textiles, cement, and protective coatings. Historians believe asbestos was used as far back as the first century A.D. and asbestos was a popular building material as recently as the 1970s and 1980s.

Many people have become ill as a result of asbestos exposure, including illnesses due to inhaling asbestos fibers at the workplace. Three major health problems associated with asbestos exposure are:

U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes will affect the certification of many class-action lawsuits

July 11, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case that addressed the rights of employees to bring certain class-action lawsuits. In Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, et al., which was decided on June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the claims of over one million women, who were suing Wal-Mart based on discrimination in the workplace. There was no decision by the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether or not the women were, in fact, discriminated against on the basis of their gender in decisions regarding pay and promotions. Instead, it was decided that the women could not proceed as a class action to bring their claims. Part of the Court’s rationale was based on the plaintiffs’ inability to show a “communality of issue”, or that the plaintiffs had all suffered essentially the same harm.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 (a)(2) requires a party seeking class certification to prove that the class has common “questions of law or fact.” The Supreme Court essentially held that the class in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes was not certified properly, and relied upon its decision in General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon 457 U.S. 147, 157-158 (1982) to reject the class for a lack of communality. In Falcon, the U.S. Supreme Court found a wide gap between the claims of promotion discrimination and the allegations that the company had a policy to engage in such discrimination.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes will affect the ability of other class-action cases to become certified in areas that certainly include employment, but also include products liability or consumer class-action claims.
Continue Reading ›