Case Type Analysis

Case Type Analysis

Percent of Cases in Sample

Year Figure 3. Major case types as a percent of all class action cases reviewed in the study sample, by year4

―Employment‖5

and ―Business Tort‖ cases are the most frequently filed case types in California, comprising more than half of all cases reviewed. ―Employment‖ cases represented a yearly average of 29.3% of all class action cases. ―Business Tort‖ cases represented a yearly average of 27.4% of filings during the same period. The employment category showed the most significant change since 2000, growing from 29 cases in 2000 to 120 cases in 2005, an overall increase of 313.8%. In comparison, filings of business tort cases steadily fell in California, starting in 2002. This case type dropped below employment for the first time in 2004, decreasing by 31.4% from a high of 105 business tort class actions filed in 2002 to 72 cases in 2005.

Other notable case types include ―Breach of Contract‖ (―contract‖) and ―Antitrust. ‖ The percentage of contract class action cases declined during the study period, dropping from 15.9% of yearly filings in 2000 to only 8.0% in 2005, with a six-year average representation of 10.3% of all cases filed. The reason for the decline in contract cases is unknown. Likewise, antitrust cases all but disappeared in 2005, dropping from a high of

4 In the study, 1,572 class action cases were reviewed, 47 of which were filed in 2006. Of the remaining 1,525 study cases filed between 2000 and 2005, 1,474 had an associated case type designation listed on the Civil Case Cover Sheet when filed. Figure 3 represents the four most frequently filed case types as a percentage of the total cases with a designation. Further case type analysis is available in Appendix A, Table A.1. 5 For purposes of this report, ―Employment‖ cases are those filed under case type 15, ―Other Employment,‖ on the Civil Case Cover Sheet. These include all employment cases except wrongful terminations.

10.6% of class actions filed in 2000 to only 0.3% in 2005, with a six-year average of 5.9%.

However, the antitrust case type is a useful example with which to illustrate the complexity of analyzing trends in the class action arena. The antitrust percentage is particularly susceptible to fluctuation driven by extrinsic events rather than adherence to an overall caseload trend, as in the steady rise of employment cases. The percentage of antitrust cases is often a product of many class action filings relating to the same transactional basis or occurrence. For instance, the increased rate of antitrust filings in 2000 is attributable to the California energy crisis, which began in May of 2000.6 Beginning at this time, consumers filed numerous class action suits citing violations of the California Cartwright Act,7 price-manipulation, and profiteering by energy companies and brokers.8 Many of these are proceeding collectively as the Natural Gas Anti-trust Cases I, II, III and IV, also known as the Price-Indexing Cases.

9

Likewise, the secondary antitrust spike in 2003 is in large part due to multiple suits against the General Motors Corporation that were filed in quick succession. These suits against General Motors also allege Cartwright Act violations relating to the pricing of vehicles purchased in California. These antitrust filings proceeded in coordination as the Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II. 10 Thus, the data show that actions taken by a singular corporation or industry can substantially affect filings in this area during any given year. Because of this, the antitrust area does not lend itself to a predictive trend analysis but is more useful when conducting a cause-and-effect examination in a historical context.

Lastly, the antitrust area exemplifies the need to consider the entirety of the class action data case before drawing conclusions about the overall system. In the case of antitrust, assessment of the filings in comparison to type of dispositions suggests that it may be unwise to utilize filings as a proxy by which to speculate about the overall congestion of this case area. Coordination and consolidation are fairly common in this case type, and a majority of the filings proceed in some collective fashion rather than each as a singular,

6 Bill Lockyer, Attorney General’s Energy White Paper: A Law Enforcement Perspective on the California Energy Crisis (April 2004), at p. 16: ―The beginnings of the California energy crisis became evident soon after May 22, 2000.‖ 7 California Business and Professions Code sections 16720, 16726. The Cartwright Act is California‘s general antitrust law, prohibiting unreasonable restraints on trade. 8 Lockyer, at pp. 24–25: ―The California Attorney General has filed a series of legal actions challenging, among other things, apparently fraudulent sales of power to the ISO, anticompetitive sales of power plants, and generators‘ failure to file actual rates, which effectively prevented FERC from exercising any real market oversight. Civil actions on behalf of large industrial users of energy, and class actions on behalf of consumers, have been filed against all of the major generators and traders involved in the crisis.‖ 9 Natural Gas Anti-trust Cases I, II, III and IV, JCCP Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226, and 4228 (Superior Court of California, County of San Diego). 10 Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 4298 and 4303 (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco).