THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO"

Alban Christian Palmer
5 years ago
Views:

1 Coordination Proceeding: THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FIDELITY NATIONAL HOME WARRANTY CASES JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF KAPLAN CLASS ACTION Judge: Hon. Judge Eddie C. Sturgeon Dept.: C Included Actions: Fistolera v. Fidelity National Home Warranty Company Kaplan v. Fidelity National Home Warranty Company Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No CU-BT- CTL (Consolidated with Case No CU-BT-CTL) Action Filed: July 18, 2008 Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, Case No CU-BT- STK) Action Filed: August 30, NOTICE This notice is being provided to all persons and entities residing in the United States who made a warranty claim under a home-warranty contract issued by Fidelity National Home Warranty Company ( Fidelity ) between July 18, 2002 and the present and who did not validly opt-out. 1 THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. SUMMARY OF THE CASE Plaintiffs Dan Kaplan and James Baker ( Plaintiffs ) filed this lawsuit against Fidelity, challenging its business practices with its third-party contractors. Plaintiffs Sixth Amended Complaint alleged that Fidelity (1) caused denials of legitimate warranty claims; (2) performed 1 Persons and entities who opted out of this class action are listed in Exhibit 1. 1 of 4 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF KAPLAN CLASS ACTION

2 temporary fixes rather than proper replacements of covered systems; (3) overcharged customers for allegedly non-covered charges; (4) refused to work on expensive claims; and (5) engaged in false advertising and made promises regarding its home-warranty contracts that it did not intend to keep, among other allegations. Fidelity denied Plaintiffs allegations and/or that they committed any violations of law or engaged in wrongful acts or business practices. CLASS ACTION RULING On November 1, 2010, the Court ordered that this lawsuit may be maintained as a class action. The Court also appointed class counsel. Following the order granting class certification, notice of class certification and the pendency of this lawsuit was provided to class members as follows: All person and entities residing in the United States who, during the period from approximately July 18, 2002 through the present (the Class Period ), made a claim under a home-warranty plan obtained from Defendant Fidelity National Home Warranty Company. Excluded from the class is the defendant and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates; all governmental entities, and any co-conspirators. DISMISSAL OF THE CLASS ACTION IN 2012 On November 1, 2011, the Court granted Fidelity s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, dismissing Plaintiffs claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( CLRA ) with prejudice and dismissing Plaintiffs claim under California s Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ) without prejudice. Plaintiffs attempted to amend their complaint on November 23, 2011 and December 7, Defendant Fidelity filed a motion to dismiss or strike the Fourth Amended Complaint. On February 7, 2012, the Court granted Fidelity s motion on the ground that Plaintiffs exceeded the scope of the leave to amend. The Court entered its final judgment on July 26, Notice of the judgment and dismissal was provided to class members. REVERSAL OF THE DISMISSAL OF CLASS ACTION IN 2012 Plaintiffs appealed the Judgment on August 9, of 4 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF KAPLAN CLASS ACTION

3 On December 17, 2013, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the CLRA claim with prejudice and reversed the remainder of the decision with instructions to the lower court to permit Plaintiffs an opportunity to replead the UCL claim. Remittitur was issued on April 15, DISMISSAL OF THE CLASS ACTION IN 2018 Following remittitur, Plaintiffs filed multiple complaints and Defendant Fidelity filed a demurrer to each complaint. Ultimately, the Court upheld Plaintiffs complaint against Fidelity s demurrer. The operative complaint was the Sixth Amended Complaint, which was filed on November 13, The Sixth Amended Complaint will be posted on the notice website. On August 11, 2017, Defendant Fidelity filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit for alleged failure to bring to trial within the required amount of time. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 8, 2017 and, on December 15, 2017, the Court entered an order ruling that the Kaplan case was to be dismissed. The Court s December 15, 2017 Order will be posted on the notice website and the class is directed to that document for specific information related to the Court s ruling. Other documents may be obtained from the clerk of court for the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. Final judgment dismissing the action is expected to be entered by the Court in February Plaintiffs may appeal the Judgment once it is entered, and may file another lawsuit against Defendant Fidelity to assert one or more claims other than the CLRA claim, which the Court previously dismissed with prejudice. However, as of the date the Judgment is entered by the Court, class members rights will no longer be protected by this class action and any applicable statute of limitations may begin to run. A statute of limitations is the time within which you must file a claim in court against Defendant Fidelity in order to be able to bring the claim. If you do not timely file any claim you have or may have against Fidelity, then your claim may be dismissed by the court, regardless of the merits of your claim. Therefore, if any class member believes that he or she has claims against Fidelity, he or she should consult an 3 of 4 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF KAPLAN CLASS ACTION

4 attorney about the claim and the applicable statute of limitations in order to ensure that he or she does not miss any deadline for bringing any actual or potential claim. Statutes of limitations vary by state, so class members should consult an attorney in the state where he or she resides. Affected class members have the option of pursuing their individual claims against Defendant Fidelity in small claims courts. Information regarding filing an action in a small claims court can be found on the following websites: - Contra Costa Small Claims Court - Los Angeles Small Claims Court - San Diego Small Claims Court - San Francisco Small Claims Court ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have any questions concerning the matters in this notice, please contact Plaintiffs counsel at fbottini@bottinilaw.com, or the following address: Bottini & Bottini, Inc., 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102, La Jolla, CA 92037, telephone: (858) DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT. The pleadings and all other records in this litigation may be examined and copied any time during the regular office hours in the office of the clerk of the court indicated above of 4 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF KAPLAN CLASS ACTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Plaintiff, j Judge: Hon. Joan M. Lewis ) ) )

1 2 3 4 f: I l i Clerk of lho Superior Court By: R. Lindsey-Cooper, Clerk 5 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 10 11 JEFF CARD, an individual and on behalf of