Class Action - Justia Case Law Summaries

Diana v. LVNV Funding LLC

2026-07-08T06:07:44-08:00

After defaulting on his credit card debt, the plaintiff’s outstanding balance was sold by the issuing bank to a series of institutional debt buyers. None of these entities were licensed in New Jersey as consumer lenders or sales finance companies at the time they acquired the debt. The last entity in the chain, LVNV Funding LLC, obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff to collect the debt. Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated a separate class action against LVNV and the other assignees, seeking a declaration that the debt purchase was void under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (CFLA) because the buyers lacked the required licenses, and requesting an injunction against further collection efforts. The Superior Court, Law Division, dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, holding that the CFLA does not provide a private right of action for borrowers to void loan contracts based on alleged licensing violations. While the plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the Appellate Division decided Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, which held that the CFLA confers no such private right. Relying on that precedent, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion to vacate the underlying default judgment. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to determine whether a borrower may bring a private action under the CFLA to void a loan contract. The Court held that the CFLA does not contain an implied private right of action for borrowers to void loan contracts. The Court reasoned that the legislative history and statutory structure show no intent to permit such private suits, noting that prior statutes expressly granted a private remedy, which was omitted from the CFLA. The voiding provision in the CFLA operates within a penal framework, and absent clear legislative direction, the Court will not infer a private right of action. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Diana v. LVNV Funding LLC" on Justia Law

Mehl v. BP Energy Company

2026-07-06T08:01:58-08:00

A group of Kansas residential natural gas consumers, who purchase gas from local distributors, sued several interstate wholesalers. They alleged that during Winter Storm Uri, the wholesalers manipulated the market and sold natural gas to local distributors at exorbitant prices, leading to unprecedented increases in retail gas prices. The plaintiffs claimed these actions violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) by forcing local distributors into the high-priced spot market and passing the excessive costs on to consumers. The plaintiffs contended that even though the alleged misconduct occurred in the wholesale market, it had a direct and significant impact on retail customers. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas consolidated five class actions and reviewed the claims. The district court granted the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, finding that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale natural gas rates under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted. The court concluded that the challenged conduct concerned wholesale transactions, which are subject to comprehensive federal regulation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the NGA field-preempts the plaintiffs’ KCPA claims because the claims are aimed directly at, and challenge, transactions and practices in the interstate wholesale natural gas market, an area reserved for federal oversight. The Tenth Circuit distinguished this case from Supreme Court precedent where state-law claims were not preempted, emphasizing that these plaintiffs’ claims targeted wholesale sales rather than background marketplace conditions. The court concluded that the exclusive jurisdiction of FERC over wholesale sales foreclosed state-law consumer protection claims based on those transactions. View "Mehl v. BP Energy Company" on Justia Law

Phan v. Knight Sacramento SU Inc.

2026-07-02T10:03:11-08:00

The plaintiff was intermittently employed by two car dealerships operated by the defendant corporations from 2022 to 2024. During her employment, she signed several arbitration agreements, including standalone agreements, with both dealerships. These agreements required binding arbitration of “any claims” arising from not only employment but also any other interaction or relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants or their defined third-party beneficiaries. The agreements precluded class actions and included a severance clause for invalid terms. In 2024, the plaintiff filed wage and hour claims both individually and on behalf of a class of current and former employees, seeking a jury trial. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the agreements, or alternatively, to sever any invalid terms and enforce the remainder. The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the motion, relying on Cook v. University of Southern California, and found the agreements procedurally and substantively unconscionable, with unconscionable terms permeating the agreements. The court declined to sever the terms and refused to enforce the agreements. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the arbitration agreements were substantively unconscionable due to their overly broad scope extending beyond employment-related claims and lack of mutuality, as they required the plaintiff to arbitrate all claims against third parties without reciprocal obligation from those parties. The court found no sufficient justification for the breadth or the nonmutual terms. It also concluded that the unconscionable terms tainted the central purpose of the agreements, so severance was not appropriate. The judgment was affirmed. View "Phan v. Knight Sacramento SU Inc." on Justia Law

Trump v. Barbara

2026-06-30T07:15:10-08:00

Several parents, some acting on behalf of their children, challenged a presidential executive order issued in January 2025. The order declared that children born in the United States to parents who were unlawfully or temporarily present would not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore would not be entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plaintiffs argued that this order violated both the Constitution and the INA, as it denied citizenship to children based solely on the immigration status of their parents at the time of birth. The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire reviewed the case and agreed with the plaintiffs. It provisionally certified a nationwide class of children affected by the order and issued a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the executive order. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari before judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and are entitled to citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The Court based its holding on the historical understanding of citizenship rooted in the English common law, the repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, and the precedent established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, upholding birthright citizenship for these children. View "Trump v. Barbara" on Justia Law

Creason v Elanco US Inc.

2026-06-29T10:00:53-08:00

Clayton Creason worked as an engineer for Elanco US from November 2017 to November 2021. During his employment, Elanco offered a standard paid vacation benefit and an optional “vacation buy” program that allowed employees to purchase an extra week of paid leave by accepting a reduction in weekly salary. Creason participated in this program, reducing his pay by approximately $84 per week for the additional vacation week. After resigning, he filed suit under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, claiming Elanco owed him the amount of the salary reduction, arguing the program required a written assignment of wages with notice of the right to rescind, as specified by Indiana law. The suit was initially filed in Indiana state court, with Creason seeking class certification for similarly situated employees. Elanco removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the Class Action Fairness Act. The district court denied Creason’s belated motion to remand, finding his delay in seeking remand unreasonable after substantial progress in federal court. The court then dismissed some claims on the pleadings and granted summary judgment to Elanco on the remaining issues, concluding the vacation buy program did not constitute an assignment of wages and that Elanco’s policies concerning unused pandemic-related vacation hours did not violate Indiana law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the remand request due to Creason’s unreasonable delay. On the merits, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the vacation buy program was not an assignment of wages under Indiana law and that Elanco was not obligated to pay out unused COVID-related vacation hours. The district court’s decision was affirmed. View "Creason v Elanco US Inc." on Justia Law

Huey v. Anavex Life Sciences Corporation

2026-06-26T06:30:03-08:00

An investor in a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company filed a proposed class action against the company and its CEO, alleging securities fraud. The plaintiff claimed that the company misled investors by suggesting that the FDA had approved their methodology for measuring a drug’s efficacy in clinical trials. The alleged misrepresentation was made in a press release that communicated the FDA’s input on the study’s endpoints, but, according to the plaintiff, failed to disclose that the FDA found the methodology unacceptable. When the company later announced it would not use the disputed methodology, the share price initially increased. A decline in the share price occurred over the next two days, during which the stock moved in line with the general market. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead loss causation, an essential element of a securities fraud claim. The court noted that the share price rose on the day of the corrective disclosure and only declined later, in tandem with the broader market. The district court also denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint, reasoning that amendment would be futile. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege loss causation. It explained that when a stock price does not fall immediately after a corrective disclosure, and a later decline coincides with general market losses, a plaintiff must provide a plausible explanation linking the loss to the alleged fraud. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denial of leave to amend. View "Huey v. Anavex Life Sciences Corporation" on Justia Law

Betanco v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC

2026-06-25T12:32:55-08:00

The plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for a furniture distribution company, transporting goods from California warehouses to customers. The furniture was sourced both within and outside California, including from Mexico, and arrived at the distribution centers before being delivered to customers. The plaintiff signed an independent contractor agreement with a delivery-service provider that included an arbitration clause, and subsequently filed two lawsuits against the furniture company and the delivery company: a class action alleging wage and hour violations, and a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for civil penalties. The Alameda County Superior Court reviewed the defendants’ omnibus motion to compel arbitration of all claims and to dismiss the plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims. The trial court found that, although the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and the defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate, the plaintiff qualified as a “transportation worker” under section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and was thus exempt from FAA coverage. As a result, state law governed the enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The court ordered certain claims (reimbursement of expenses, wage statement claims, and unfair competition) to arbitration, but allowed wage claims to proceed in court under Labor Code section 229. It denied the motion to dismiss the representative PAGA claims, citing California Supreme Court precedent, and stayed both actions pending arbitration of individual claims. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court held that the plaintiff is a transportation worker exempt from the FAA because he played a direct and active role in the interstate movement of goods, even though his deliveries were intrastate and retail in nature. The court affirmed that the plaintiff has standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court, following Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. The order by the trial court was affirmed. View "Betanco v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC" on Justia Law

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

2026-06-25T06:45:12-08:00

In 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection faced a surge of individuals seeking admission at ports along the U.S.-Mexico border, often exceeding the capacity for safe processing. To manage this, the Department of Homeland Security instituted a “metering” policy that limited the number of people allowed to cross each day, with CBP officials stationed on the U.S. side of the border to prevent entry beyond daily capacity. The policy’s enforcement meant that some asylum seekers remained in Mexico, unable to present themselves for inspection or apply for asylum immediately. A group of asylum seekers and the advocacy organization Al Otro Lado filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, challenging the legality of metering. The District Court certified a class and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring the government’s denial of inspection and asylum processing to those “in the process of arriving in the United States” to be unlawful. After the government rescinded the metering policy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that an individual standing in Mexico who encounters a U.S. official at the border “arrives in the United States” for purposes of inspection and asylum eligibility. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision. It held that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien “arrives in the United States” only upon physically crossing the border. The statutory language does not entitle someone standing in Mexico to inspection or to apply for asylum, nor does it require U.S. officials to inspect such individuals. The Court concluded that the statutory provisions at issue do not have extraterritorial effect and that the metering policy, as applied, was not unlawful under the INA. The judgment was reversed and remanded. View "Mullin v. Al Otro Lado" on Justia Law

Hossfeld v Allstate Insurance Co.

2026-06-24T13:00:47-08:00

Robert Hossfeld received twelve telemarketing calls advertising Allstate Insurance products, despite having previously requested that Allstate not contact him. The calls were made by Atlantic Telemarketing Center, which had been subcontracted by Transfer Kings, a company retained by Allstate’s insurance agents, Fleming and Gilmond. Allstate’s internal do-not-call list included Hossfeld’s number months before the calls occurred. Neither Allstate nor its agents were aware that Atlantic was involved in marketing Allstate insurance until after Hossfeld initiated his lawsuit. Hossfeld sued Allstate in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because Allstate failed to maintain an adequate do-not-call policy and permitted calls to be made to him after his request. He also sought class certification for other similarly affected individuals. The district court denied class certification, finding Hossfeld had not demonstrated that the proposed class was sufficiently numerous. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in Hossfeld’s favor, holding Allstate vicariously liable for Atlantic’s calls under agency law and awarding treble damages for willful violations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, agreeing that Hossfeld failed to prove numerosity and impracticability of joinder. However, it reversed the district court’s summary judgment on liability, concluding that Hossfeld failed to show Allstate was liable for Atlantic’s calls under any theory of agency law, including subagency, apparent authority, or ratification. The Seventh Circuit clarified that the willfulness standard under the TCPA requires reckless or knowing conduct, not merely volitional acts. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, directing judgment for Allstate. View "Hossfeld v Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Braggs v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

2026-06-24T10:32:51-08:00

A group of inmates incarcerated within Alabama’s state prison system filed a class action challenging the adequacy of mental health care provided by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). The plaintiffs, who suffer from serious mental illnesses, alleged that overcrowding, understaffing, and a series of systemic failures resulted in constitutionally deficient mental health services, contributing to a suicide rate far above the national average. Key alleged deficiencies included improper identification and classification of mental health needs, inadequate treatment plans, insufficient psychotherapy, lack of proper suicide risk management, improper use of segregation for mentally ill inmates, and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for manifestations of mental illness. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama managed the litigation in multiple phases. After a seven-week bench trial, the court found the ADOC liable under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious mental health needs. The court then held extensive remedial proceedings, including further hearings and negotiations, and entered a comprehensive, system-wide remedial injunction. The court made detailed factual findings and, to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), issued particularized findings that the relief ordered was necessary, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means to remedy the constitutional violations. The court also adopted a monitoring plan to ensure compliance, involving external experts and a transition to internal oversight. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s liability findings and most aspects of the remedial and monitoring orders, holding that system-wide relief was appropriate given the systemic nature of the violations. However, the appellate court reversed certain remedial provisions where it found the relief exceeded what was necessary to correct the constitutional violations, particularly with respect to suicide-proofing cells and some staffing requirements, and as applied to a women’s facility where violations were not established. The case was remanded for modification in those limited respects. View "Braggs v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

State ex rel. City of St. Louis vs. Whyte

2026-06-23T12:30:06-08:00

A resident of St. Louis brought a class action lawsuit against the city, seeking a refund of fees paid for solid waste services. The plaintiff alleged that these fees were collected under the mistaken belief that the city was providing separate recycling and yard waste collection, which the city either failed to provide or did not provide consistently. The city had implemented a monthly solid waste services fee in 2010, increased it in 2017, and included the fee in residents’ water bills. Although the city at times collected recyclables and yard waste separately, it often did not, and ultimately terminated the program in 2025. The plaintiff argued that the city unjustly retained fees for services it did not render, seeking damages for herself and other residents. The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denied the city’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s claim for “money had and received” could proceed. The city then sought a writ of prohibition from the Missouri Court of Appeals, which was denied. The city subsequently sought relief from the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the city is protected by sovereign immunity and that section 432.070 of the Missouri Revised Statutes bars the claim. The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not plead facts that would establish an exception to sovereign immunity for her claim and that no statutory or recognized common law exception applied. The court also concluded that the proprietary function exception did not apply, as solid waste collection is a governmental function. The court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, directing that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed. View "State ex rel. City of St. Louis vs. Whyte" on Justia Law

Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc.

2026-06-23T10:25:49-08:00

Technicians employed by the defendant performed installation, maintenance, inspection, testing, repair, and replacement of fire alarms, fire sprinklers, and security system equipment under contracts with public entities in New York. These contracts varied in their language regarding the payment of prevailing wages: some disclaimed any obligation to pay prevailing wages, some were silent, and a few expressly based payment on prevailing wage rates. All contracts included a clause providing that any action against the defendant had to be brought within one year of accrual. The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging, among other claims, that they were owed prevailing wages as third-party beneficiaries of the contracts. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the breach of contract claims were time-barred by the contractual limitation period, that the contracts did not expressly entitle plaintiffs to prevailing wages, and, in the alternative, that plaintiffs were not covered by the prevailing wage law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs were covered by Labor Law § 220 but certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the implicit inclusion of prevailing wage promises in public works contracts and the enforceability of shortened contractual limitation periods. The New York Court of Appeals held that the promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract covered by Labor Law § 220, regardless of whether that promise appears in the contract’s text. As a result, employees may bring third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the prevailing wage requirement. The Court further held that contractual agreements to shorten the statute of limitations for such claims are unenforceable. The Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. View "Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc." on Justia Law

COCOM V. ABM AVIATION, INC.

2026-06-23T08:01:19-08:00

Robert Cocom, a former airport janitor, brought a putative class action against his previous employer, ABM Aviation, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations. When he was hired, Cocom signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA) requiring employment-related disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The MAA included waivers of class, collective, and representative actions, as well as a provision stating that arbitration awards would not have preclusive or precedential effect in other proceedings. Cocom’s lawsuit was originally filed in state court but was removed to federal court by ABM, which then moved to compel arbitration and strike the class claims. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied ABM’s motion, finding the arbitration agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The court relied heavily on the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Cook v. University of Southern California, interpreting the MAA as having an overly broad scope, indefinite duration, and lack of mutuality, and concluding that certain waivers violated California law. Finding multiple provisions unconscionable, the district court declined to sever them and refused to enforce the MAA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the MAA’s provisions were distinguishable from those in Cook, noting that the MAA was limited to employment-related disputes, thereby avoiding the overbreadth, indefinite duration, and mutuality issues identified in Cook. The Ninth Circuit also found that any potentially unconscionable waivers (such as those related to representative actions or public injunctive relief) were severable. The main holding was that the MAA was not substantively unconscionable and should be enforced, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COCOM V. ABM AVIATION, INC." on Justia Law

Nguyen v. City of L.A.

2026-06-22T11:03:30-08:00

A utility company, Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), entered into a 2022 franchise agreement with the City of Los Angeles, allowing it to install, maintain, and operate its natural gas system under city streets. In exchange, SoCalGas agreed to pay the City a franchise fee equal to 5.5% of its gross receipts from natural gas sales within the City. Of this, 3.5% was passed to SoCalGas customers as a surcharge, which was later approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The franchise agreement was adopted after extensive, arm’s-length negotiations and CPUC review. A putative class action was filed by a customer, alleging that the surcharge component of the franchise fee constituted an unlawful tax under article XIII C of the California Constitution because it was not submitted for voter approval. The plaintiff argued the fee should have been apportioned between charges for physical use of city property and charges for the general business privilege, with the latter portion requiring voter approval. The Superior Court for Los Angeles County granted summary judgment for the City, finding the franchise fee, including the surcharge, exempt from voter approval as a charge for the use of local government property under section 1, subdivision (e)(4) of article XIII C. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the franchise fee, including the portion passed through as a surcharge, was not a tax within the meaning of article XIII C, section 1, subdivision (e)(4), because it was compensation for the use of city property and not subject to voter approval. The Court further held that the fee did not need to be apportioned or shown to be reasonably related to the value of the franchise, but found that, even if such a requirement existed, the City met it through bona fide negotiations. View "Nguyen v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.

2026-06-22T10:03:33-08:00

Two individuals filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class, alleging that a life insurance company’s “Trendsetter LB” term life insurance policy misrepresented its premium structure. The plaintiffs argued that policy language stating the annual premium was “excluding riders” and that additional accelerated death benefit riders were included at “no charge” was misleading. They claimed consumers were led to believe these extra benefits were free, when in fact the premium included undisclosed charges for these riders. The plaintiffs did not allege they were denied any promised benefits, but contended the policy failed to break down the cost of its bundled components, allegedly causing consumers to misunderstand their options and overpay compared to a more basic policy. The case began in Alameda County Superior Court. Plaintiffs sought class certification for claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), focusing only on alleged misrepresentations in the policy’s standardized language. The trial court initially found ascertainability and numerosity met, but denied class certification for most claims, ruling that determining liability would require individualized inquiries into what information each customer received from agents or marketing materials. The court certified only a narrow claim regarding compliance with a statutory notice requirement, but later, at plaintiffs’ request, denied certification entirely when they clarified they did not intend to pursue that claim. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification. The court held that the policy language was, at best, ambiguous and that resolving liability would depend not just on the form policy language but also on individualized evidence about communications with each purchaser. The court determined that common issues did not predominate and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification. The judgment was affirmed. View "Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Johnson v. Quest Diagnostics Inc

2026-06-22T09:00:11-08:00

Employees participating in a 401(k) plan offered by their employer, a clinical laboratory company, brought a class action alleging that the plan’s fiduciaries breached their duties under ERISA by retaining two particular investment options: the Fidelity Freedom Funds and the Invesco Global Real Estate Fund. The plaintiffs argued that these funds underperformed compared to alternatives, were riskier, and that the plan’s managers failed to remove them despite subpar performance. They also claimed that internal policy statements required the funds’ removal and that the plan’s managers failed in their duty to monitor investments and breached trust obligations. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied a motion to dismiss the case, allowing discovery to proceed. After discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that the plan’s fiduciaries had fulfilled their obligations by hiring investment advisors, regularly reviewing investment performance, seeking relevant training, and following up on concerns regarding the challenged funds. The court concluded there was no breach of fiduciary duty or related failures. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, considering all facts and inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. The Third Circuit held that ERISA’s fiduciary standard is process-oriented, not outcome-based. The Court found that the fiduciaries had used a prudent process—hiring advisors, critically assessing their recommendations, meeting with fund managers, and maintaining regular oversight—even if the investments did not always outperform alternatives. The Court further held that internal policy statements were nonbinding and that the fiduciaries did not abuse their discretion. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. View "Johnson v. Quest Diagnostics Inc" on Justia Law

Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P.

2026-06-16T13:00:40-08:00

Several Michigan residents purchased expensive solar-panel systems from a company that promised substantial reductions in their electricity bills. The company’s advertising, prepared in part by entities connected to Trivest Partners, promoted significant savings and government payments, but the plaintiffs experienced little to no reduction in their bills and, in some cases, saw increases. The company, which operated in both Michigan and Florida, later went bankrupt. Alleging fraud and racketeering violations, the plaintiffs brought a civil RICO action and a Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim against Trivest Partners, its affiliates (all Florida entities), and the company founder. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the two Florida-based Trivest defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the civil RICO statute did not allow them to be sued in Michigan, as a court in Florida could exercise jurisdiction over all defendants. The district court denied the motion, holding that several practical factors—including the pending status of the case in Michigan, local counsel, and comparative convenience—favored retaining jurisdiction. The plaintiffs later added additional Trivest-related defendants, also Florida citizens, with the court again finding personal jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) de novo. The appellate court held that the district court’s reasons, grounded in convenience and practical considerations, were insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the “ends of justice require” standard under § 1965(b). The Sixth Circuit concluded that interests of convenience alone cannot justify asserting personal jurisdiction over defendants with no minimum contacts to the forum. The court reversed the district court’s order denying dismissal and vacated the order denying the Trivest defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. View "Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P." on Justia Law

Zurbriggen v Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc.

2026-06-16T10:01:02-08:00

American Airlines contracted with a uniform manufacturer to provide new apparel for its employees. After distribution, many employees reported health issues, including skin and respiratory symptoms, allegedly connected to wearing or being near the uniforms. The airline allowed employees to stop wearing the uniforms, ultimately replacing them. Laboratory and government testing found low levels of chemicals in the uniforms but concluded these were unlikely to cause the reported symptoms. Multiple alternative causes were identified, and the scientific evidence did not support the employees' claims. A group of employees sued American Airlines, the manufacturer, and others in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, initially seeking class certification under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). After several amended complaints and significant discovery disputes, the plaintiffs dropped their request for class certification, briefly raising questions about the court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. They later re-pled their class allegations in a fourth amended complaint, and the district court determined it retained jurisdiction. The defendants moved for summary judgment and to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, arguing these experts were essential to prove defect and causation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court properly retained jurisdiction under CAFA after plaintiffs reasserted class claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ experts due to unreliable methodologies. It further held that, without expert evidence, the plaintiffs could not establish a defect or causation under strict or negligent products liability. The court also held that neither the Tweedy doctrine nor res ipsa loquitur provided an evidentiary shortcut under the case facts, since the alleged injuries did not inherently indicate a product defect or negligence. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Zurbriggen v Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc." on Justia Law

Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC

2026-06-15T11:00:26-08:00

Hourly workers at a brewing company’s Williamsburg, Virginia facility alleged that the company failed to pay them for various pre- and post-shift activities, including donning and doffing personal protective equipment, complying with COVID-19 protocols, attending shift-handoff meetings, and handling tools. The company used an electronic badge system for entry but compensated employees based on scheduled shift hours, not actual time on site. Different employees performed these tasks at different times and locations, with some tasks done at home, some during shift hours, and some on the premises outside shift hours. The company committed to pay for all hours actually worked, provided employees notified management about extra time worked. The plaintiffs filed suit under the Virginia Wage Payment Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking class certification for wage and hour claims. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia certified the class, finding that common questions predominated, such as whether the company’s policy resulted in uncompensated mandatory work. The district court’s class definition included all hourly employees at the facility within the relevant timeframe, and it denied the company’s motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred by certifying the class without adequately considering significant variations among employees regarding their pre- and post-shift activities, the timing and location of those activities, and the applicable legal standards over time. The appellate court found that the class definition was overly broad and failed to account for differences among employees. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded for further proceedings, allowing the district court to consider narrower subclasses or to deny certification entirely. The appeal regarding the FLSA collective action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC" on Justia Law

Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing

2026-06-11T12:01:54-08:00

A law firm filed a class action complaint in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of an employee and similarly situated individuals, alleging wage and hour violations against several beverage distribution companies. This followed the same firm’s earlier, nearly identical class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, with overlapping claims and parties. The San Francisco action was amended to add claims under the Private Attorneys General Act. After the defense raised concerns about duplicative litigation, the defendants moved to stay the San Francisco case, arguing that the later-filed action was duplicative and should be stayed under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. The San Francisco Superior Court found substantial overlap between the two cases and granted the stay. In its tentative ruling, the court identified significant misconduct by the plaintiff’s attorneys, including fabricated legal citations and misrepresentations in their opposition to the motion to stay. The court issued an order to show cause regarding sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 and the attorneys’ ethical duties. The firm’s attorneys and a contract attorney responded, denying intentional misconduct and attributing errors to reliance on the contract attorney’s work and alleged citation-checking issues with legal research software. However, the court found their explanations lacking credibility, emphasized their responsibility as counsel of record, and imposed monetary sanctions jointly and severally against the firm and three attorneys, payable to both the defendants and the court. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the attorneys’ appeal of the sanctions order. The court held that the attorneys had forfeited their procedural challenges by not raising them in the trial court and found no abuse of discretion in imposing sanctions for filing a pleading with fabricated authority and failing to meet ethical and professional obligations. The appellate court affirmed the sanctions order. View "Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing" on Justia Law

Gelis v. BMW of North America LLC

2026-06-11T09:00:11-08:00

Several plaintiffs brought a class action against BMW of North America, alleging the company sold vehicles with defective timing chains. After partial dismissal of initial claims and additional discovery totaling approximately 12,000 pages, the parties reached a settlement resolving the merits of the dispute. However, they could not agree on attorneys’ fees, so a settlement agreement stipulated that class counsel would apply to the court for “reasonable attorneys’ fees” to be paid separately from class relief, with BMW not opposing fees up to $1.5 million and class counsel requesting up to $3.7 million. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey used the lodestar method to calculate fees, finding the hours and rates reasonable and applying a lodestar multiplier that resulted in a $3.7 million award. BMW appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit previously vacated the fee award, finding the record insufficient to support it and remanding for further proceedings. On remand, class counsel supplemented their billing records and again sought $3.7 million. The district court approved the hours and rates, applied a reduced multiplier, and awarded the same amount. BMW appealed again, challenging the use and calculation of the multiplier and the reasonableness of the hours. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that constraints imposed by the Supreme Court on lodestar multipliers in statutory fee-shifting cases, particularly Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, also apply to contractual fee-shifting arrangements governed by federal law. The court found the district court erred by applying a multiplier without considering Perdue’s “strong presumption” that the unenhanced lodestar is reasonable and by approving excessive hours without sufficient justification. The Third Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gelis v. BMW of North America LLC" on Justia Law

Revolinsky v Bayer Corporation

2026-06-10T12:31:15-08:00

This appeal concerns attorney fee allocation following the settlement of multidistrict litigation related to alleged injuries caused by Seresto flea and tick collars. Plaintiffs across the country, including Laura Revolinsky, brought class actions against Bayer and Elanco, claiming the products harmed their pets. Revolinsky’s attorneys sought to have these cases consolidated in New Jersey, while other plaintiffs’ counsel advocated for centralization in Missouri. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ultimately transferred the cases to the Northern District of Illinois, where the district court appointed lead and liaison counsel, but did not appoint Revolinsky’s attorneys to leadership positions. The court entered a case management order requiring counsel to seek advance approval for compensable work and to submit monthly reports; it generally limited compensation to work performed after leadership was appointed, though it allowed lead counsel some discretion to compensate earlier work if it benefited the class. After settlement was reached and a fund established, lead counsel applied for attorney fees, excluding pre-transfer and untimely work by Revolinsky’s attorneys. The district court approved the settlement and fee allocation, and Revolinsky’s attorneys later discovered their compensation was much less than anticipated. They did not timely object to the allocation or procedures. Instead, months after the deadline, they filed a separate motion seeking additional compensation for pre-transfer and untimely work. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed only the denial of this later motion. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion because the procedures and deadlines for fee submissions were clear and had been reasonably enforced. The court affirmed the district court’s order, emphasizing that objections to fee allocations must be raised in a timely manner under court-established protocols. View "Revolinsky v Bayer Corporation" on Justia Law

Johnson v Amazon.com Services LLC

2026-06-09T09:03:51-08:00

Two hourly warehouse employees for a large national retailer, on behalf of a putative class, sought compensation for overtime hours spent undergoing mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 health screenings at their workplace during the pandemic. These screenings, lasting roughly 10 to 15 minutes per shift, were required before employees could clock in and begin paid work. The employees asserted that, over time, these unpaid screenings amounted to significant uncompensated overtime in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed their claim, agreeing with the employer’s argument that the IMWL incorporated the federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which excludes preliminary activities, such as pre-shift screenings, from compensable work. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit certified to the Illinois Supreme Court the question of whether the IMWL in fact incorporates these federal exclusions. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the IMWL does not incorporate the Portal-to-Portal Act’s preliminary activities exclusion and that the relevant state regulations define compensable “hours worked” more broadly, including all time an employee is required to be on the employer’s premises. Upon receiving this answer, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the IMWL does not adopt either the preliminary activities exclusion of the Portal-to-Portal Act or the “benefit of the employer” test derived from federal law, except in two specific contexts outlined in state regulations (meal periods and travel). The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these interpretations. View "Johnson v Amazon.com Services LLC" on Justia Law

Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle

2026-06-05T13:30:03-08:00

A robotics company, whose primary product is a well-known robot vacuum, agreed in August 2022 to be acquired by a major online retailer. Over the next eighteen months, the companies sought approval for the merger from regulatory authorities in the United States and Europe. In January 2024, facing significant regulatory obstacles, the parties abandoned the merger. Following this, shareholders of the robotics company, led by an investment fund, brought a securities fraud class action against the company’s CEO and CFO. They alleged that during the merger’s review period, company statements misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the likelihood of regulatory approval, particularly concerning the company’s expectation of approval and the acquirer’s cooperation with regulators. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable material misrepresentation or omission and did not adequately allege scienter (the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing). During the appeal, the robotics company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, resulting in its dismissal from the appeal, which continued as to the individual defendants. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a claim for most of the statements challenged by the plaintiffs, affirming dismissal as to those. However, the court found that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that an August 24, 2023, proxy statement expressed an opinion about expected regulatory approval while omitting important contrary information regarding European regulatory concerns and the acquirer’s refusal to cooperate. This omission, in the circumstances, was sufficient to state a claim as to that statement. The dismissal was reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle" on Justia Law

COFFEY V. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC

2026-06-04T15:01:11-08:00

The plaintiff, an Arizona resident, registered her personal cell phone on the national “do not call” registry in 2004. She alleged that a real estate company, Fast Easy Offer, LLC, and related entities, contacted her through at least six phone calls and two text messages in the fall of 2024. The messages asked if she had given up on selling her property. According to the plaintiff, Fast Easy Offer’s business model involves purchasing homes below market value and remarketing them, and if a home is not purchased, the lead is given to a real estate brokerage, Keller Williams Realty Phoenix, with revenues shared. The plaintiff claimed that the purpose of these communications was to solicit the purchase of real estate brokerage services. The plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the communications did not qualify as “telephone solicitations” under the Act and that Keller Williams Realty, Inc. was not vicariously liable. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court held that the calls and texts were not telephone solicitations because they did not expressly encourage the purchase of services. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that under the TCPA’s definition, and consistent with Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012), the plaintiff had adequately pleaded that the messages qualified as telephone solicitations. The court concluded that the purpose of initiation of the calls or messages is determinative, and the plaintiff’s allegations about defendants’ intent sufficed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "COFFEY V. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC" on Justia Law

Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

2026-06-04T14:03:10-08:00

A trucking company conducted background checks on a job applicant, both before and during his employment, using disclosure and authorization forms. The applicant alleged these forms did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and initiated a class action on behalf of similarly situated job seekers and employees. He asserted that the company obtained background checks without proper, legally compliant disclosures and authorizations, in violation of federal law. The San Mateo County Superior Court initially certified the class for claims under the FCRA. After the Fifth District Court of Appeal decided *Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc.*, which interpreted the FCRA as requiring plaintiffs to show concrete injury for standing in California courts, the defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing the applicant had not identified any actual harm. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the applicant’s confusion and lack of awareness about the background checks did not amount to concrete injury, and decertified the class. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that California courts are not bound by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires concrete injury in federal courts. The Court interpreted the FCRA’s language and legislative history to mean that statutory damages are available for willful violations, even absent proof of actual harm. It found that a statutory violation alone is sufficient to confer standing in California courts for FCRA claims, and that the applicant’s interest in his statutory rights was adequate. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order decertifying the class, holding that proof of actual injury is not required to maintain a class action under the FCRA in California state court. View "Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

Jonathan R. v. Morrisey

2026-06-04T11:00:32-08:00

A group of children in West Virginia’s foster care system filed a class action lawsuit against state officials, alleging systemic failures by the state agencies responsible for their care. The plaintiffs claimed the state’s practices resulted in widespread abuses, neglect, inadequate placements, understaffing, and failure to provide necessary physical and mental health services. They alleged violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as statutory violations under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The class action encompassed approximately 6,800 foster children, with additional subclasses for kinship placements, children with disabilities, and those aging out of the system. The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia initially dismissed the case on abstention and mootness grounds, but that decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jonathan R. ex rel. Dixon v. Justice. Upon remand, the district court certified the General Class and ADA Subclass, denied certification of other subclasses, and proceeded with discovery. In February 2025, the district court, acting sua sponte and without notice or briefing, dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of standing, finding that it lacked power under Article III to grant the requested injunctive and declaratory relief and concluding the plaintiffs’ injuries were not redressable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It held that federal courts have the authority and duty to remedy systemic constitutional violations, including through comprehensive injunctive relief and declaratory judgments in institutional reform cases. The court found that the plaintiffs’ injuries were sufficiently concrete and ongoing, and that the requested relief was likely to redress those injuries. The district court’s dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. The Fourth Circuit declined to reassign the case to a new judge and found West Virginia’s cross-appeal on class decertification unreviewable at this stage. View "Jonathan R. v. Morrisey" on Justia Law

Hiller v. Marin Municipal Water Dist.

2026-06-02T14:02:52-08:00

A public agency adopted an ordinance to increase water service rates after following procedural steps, such as conducting a cost-of-service analysis, notifying the public, and holding hearings as required by Proposition 218 of the California Constitution. After adopting the new rates, the agency initiated a validation action in court to confirm the validity of the ordinance, providing notice to interested parties by publication in a local newspaper, as authorized by statute. No one responded to contest the action within the required time, so the court entered default judgment upholding the ordinance. Subsequently, an individual who had previously submitted administrative claims to the agency challenging the rates filed a class action and mandamus lawsuit seeking refunds and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Proposition 218 and constitutional rights. The agency responded with a demurrer, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the prior validation judgment and the statutory scheme requiring such challenges be brought through validation procedures. The Marin County Superior Court agreed, sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and finding that the plaintiff's opportunity to challenge the rates had been foreclosed by the unchallenged validation judgment. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that under Government Code section 53759 and the related validation statutes, any legal challenge to ordinances adopting water service fees must be brought through specified validation proceedings, including constitutional claims. Since the plaintiff neither intervened in the agency's validation action nor filed a timely reverse validation action, her claims were barred. The court also found that due process was satisfied by the published notice required by statute, and that mandamus proceedings are not exempt from these requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the agency. View "Hiller v. Marin Municipal Water Dist." on Justia Law

Mebane v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc.

2026-06-02T11:01:23-08:00

A former employee brought a class-action lawsuit against his previous employer, alleging that the company’s practices concerning rounding employees’ time entries and automatically deducting meal breaks resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The employer operated manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and used policies that rounded employee work time and deducted unpaid meal breaks regardless of whether an employee actually took the break. Plaintiffs argued these policies led to unpaid overtime and wages. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina initially certified two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA. However, after further developments and evidence showing that individualized inquiries would be necessary to determine whether employees were harmed by the time-rounding and meal-deduction policies, and that not all employees suffered wage loss, the district court decertified the classes and collective action. Subsequently, the named plaintiffs settled their individual claims with the employer, and the district court dismissed all remaining substantive claims with prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was asked to review the district court’s order decertifying the classes and collective action. The court held that because the plaintiff voluntarily settled his individual claims before filing the appeal, he lacked standing to challenge the district court’s decertification order. The court reasoned that once the individual claims underlying the request for class certification are settled or dismissed voluntarily, the plaintiff no longer retains a concrete interest sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Mebane v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc." on Justia Law

Smith v. The Gap, Inc.

2026-05-28T07:00:08-08:00

Gap, a major clothing retailer, launched an initiative in August 2021 to expand plus-size clothing options in its Old Navy stores. The company overestimated customer demand for these larger sizes, resulting in excess inventory that had to be sold at discounts. By early 2022, Gap reduced its in-store plus-size offerings and eventually limited extended sizing to online sales. In May 2022, Gap disclosed that these missteps negatively affected its financial results for the first quarter of the year. Investors who purchased Gap stock between November 24, 2021, and July 11, 2022, filed a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. They alleged that Gap and two senior executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose problems with the initiative in various statements to investors. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the plaintiffs did not identify any false or misleading statements or adequately plead that the defendants acted with scienter (intent or recklessness). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the challenged statements—including risk disclosures, earnings call remarks, and press releases—were not false or misleading in context and did not obligate Gap to disclose the problems with the initiative. The court found that the statements at issue were either generic industry risks, unactionable opinions or puffery, or did not give rise to a duty to disclose additional information. The appellate court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts supporting a strong inference of scienter and, accordingly, their control-person liability claims under Section 20(a) were properly dismissed. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Smith v. The Gap, Inc." on Justia Law

THAKUR V. TRUMP

2026-05-26T08:01:13-08:00

Several researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal grants from agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In April 2025, these agencies terminated the research grants by issuing form letters, citing shifts in agency priorities and referencing multiple Executive Orders issued by the President, some of which explicitly aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and related initiatives from the federal government. The affected researchers alleged these terminations resulted in lost funding, harm to their reputations, and disruption to their projects, with no ready alternative sources of support. The researchers filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting constitutional and statutory claims, including violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court provisionally certified two classes: one consisting of researchers whose grants were terminated by form letter without grant-specific explanation (the Form Termination Class), and another whose grants were terminated specifically due to the DEI Executive Orders (the DEI Termination Class). The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the reinstatement of the grants for both classes. The government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had established Article III standing. It reversed the preliminary injunction for the Form Termination Class, concluding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction over their APA claim because the claim was essentially contractual and thus barred by the Tucker Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction for the DEI Termination Class, finding that the class was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim because the grant terminations were based on viewpoint discrimination. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc.

2026-05-22T12:30:59-08:00

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against GateHouse Media in Ohio state court, alleging claims that met the requirements for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). GateHouse timely removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, where the parties litigated for several years. The district court eventually denied class certification and, based on that denial, remanded the case to state court, concluding it could no longer exercise jurisdiction and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims. After the case returned to state court, it remained inactive until plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification. GateHouse then removed the case to federal court a second time, asserting that this renewed motion provided a new basis for removal under CAFA. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing the removal was untimely. The district court denied the remand motion, finding that its earlier remand order had created ambiguity about federal jurisdiction and, under principles of equity, tolled the 30-day removal deadline. Plaintiffs sought and were granted interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day deadline for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) is strict and cannot be equitably tolled, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel ex rel. Michigan. The Sixth Circuit concluded that GateHouse’s second removal was untimely because the original complaint had already triggered the removal clock, and subsequent events, including renewed class certification efforts, did not restart it. The appellate court reversed the district court’s order and instructed that the case be remanded to state court. View "Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc." on Justia Law

Surgeon v. TKO Shelby, LLC

2026-05-22T07:41:41-08:00

Plaintiffs received a promotional flyer advertising a car dealership event, which offered a chance to win one of several grand prizes. The flyer instructed recipients whose code matched a winning number to call a hotline and then visit the dealership to claim their prize. Plaintiffs alleged that the scratch-off numbers on all flyers matched the grand prize, misleading recipients, while defendants maintained that a separate activation code determined the actual prize, which was a nominal cash amount for all claimants. Approximately 50,000 flyers were sent, 2,118 people called the hotline, and records indicated 927 people visited the dealership. However, there were no records identifying those 927 individuals. The Superior Court in Gaston County initially certified a class of the 927 people who visited the dealership. Defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the certification due to inconsistencies between the class definition and the court’s analysis, remanding for clarification. On remand, the trial court again certified a class based on revised criteria: receiving the flyer, calling the hotline, and visiting the dealership. However, the trial court allowed a named plaintiff who had not personally called the hotline to remain as a representative, leading to further conflict in its reasoning. Defendants appealed the renewed certification order. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that, on the current record, class certification was improper. The Court found that the class was not ascertainable because there was no objective method to identify class members without individualized fact determinations, which would overwhelm common issues. The Court vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded for further proceedings, leaving open the possibility of addressing spoliation claims if pursued. View "Surgeon v. TKO Shelby, LLC" on Justia Law

OLSON V. FCA US, LLC

2026-05-21T08:01:11-08:00

Jeffrey Olson leased a Jeep Grand Cherokee from a car dealership under a lease agreement that included an arbitration provision and a delegation clause, which assigned questions about the scope of arbitration to an arbitrator. FCA US, LLC, the manufacturer of the Jeep, was not a signatory to the lease agreement. Olson later became the named plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against FCA, alleging defects in the vehicle’s headrest system. FCA, not being a party to the lease, sought to compel Olson to arbitrate the dispute based on the arbitration agreement between Olson and the dealership. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied FCA’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court found that FCA, as a non-signatory to the lease agreement, could not enforce the arbitration provision or its delegation clause against Olson. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement applied only to Olson and the dealership (including its employees, agents, successors, or assigns), and FCA did not qualify under any of those categories. Additionally, the court rejected FCA’s argument that it could use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration, holding that none of Olson’s claims were sufficiently intertwined with the lease agreement to justify such an exception under California law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that FCA could not compel Olson to arbitrate because FCA was not a party to the arbitration agreement and no applicable exception—such as equitable estoppel—applied. The court clarified that, under both federal and California law, only parties to an arbitration agreement (or those qualifying under specific, limited exceptions) may enforce it. The court also rejected FCA’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent, finding it inapplicable to non-signatories in these circumstances. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

Boe v. Children's Hosp. Colo.

2026-05-20T05:32:12-08:00

The plaintiffs in this case are minor patients who had been receiving gender-affirming medical care at the TRUE Center for Gender Diversity, a specialized department at a major pediatric hospital serving the Rocky Mountain Region. Following a December 2025 declaration by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services stating that medical gender-affirming care for minors was unsafe and could result in exclusion from federal health care payment programs, the hospital suspended such care for transgender patients under eighteen. The hospital continued to provide hormone therapy and puberty blockers to cisgender youth for other medical reasons. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, experienced immediate and significant emotional and physical harm as a result. The plaintiffs filed a class action in the District Court for the City and County of Denver seeking a preliminary injunction under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) to require the hospital to resume medically necessary gender-affirming care. The trial court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, faced irreparable harm, and lacked an adequate remedy at law, but denied the injunction. The court reasoned that granting the injunction was contrary to the public interest, the balance of equities favored the hospital, and the injunction was not sufficiently specific to preserve the status quo. The Supreme Court of Colorado, en banc, reviewed the trial court's denial for abuse of discretion. It concluded that the trial court misapplied the legal standards governing preliminary injunctions in discrimination cases, particularly regarding the public interest and balance of equities. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs satisfied all six required factors, including a reasonable probability of success on their CADA claim, and that the injunction would preserve the pre-suspension status quo. The trial court’s order was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction. View "Boe v. Children's Hosp. Colo." on Justia Law

Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC

2026-05-18T10:30:34-08:00

Donte Jackson received a $30,000 loan from WebBank, which was later sold to Velocity Investments, LLC. After Jackson defaulted on the loan, Velocity, represented by the law firm Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC (PSC), sued Jackson in Maryland state court to collect the debt. Velocity eventually dismissed the state court suit with prejudice. Subsequently, Jackson brought a class action lawsuit against both Velocity and PSC, alleging that their practice of suing on time-barred debts was unlawful. In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, both Velocity and PSC moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in Jackson’s original promissory note. The district court found that Velocity, as a subsequent holder of the note, was a party to the arbitration agreement but had waived its right to arbitrate by filing suit in state court. The court ruled that PSC was not a party to the agreement, as it did not fit the contractual definition of an entity “servicing” the note, which the court interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. Only PSC appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that PSC, as the law firm representing Velocity, was not a party to the arbitration agreement because it did not “service” the note in the relevant contractual sense, which involves collecting and maintaining a payment schedule for the loan. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement covered only creditors and loan servicers, not lawyers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of PSC’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC" on Justia Law

Farella v. Anglin

2026-05-18T07:31:28-08:00

Two individuals were arrested by the Bentonville Police Department in Arkansas and appeared before a state district court judge two days and one day after their respective arrests. During these initial hearings, the judge set bail amounts for each individual without providing them with legal representation. Only after setting bail did the judge determine that they were indigent and appoint counsel for future proceedings. Both individuals remained incarcerated for several weeks before ultimately pleading guilty and being sentenced to time served. Following their experiences, these individuals, acting on behalf of a class of similarly situated pretrial detainees, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. They alleged that the judge’s practice of setting bail without first appointing counsel violated their rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring that indigent defendants be provided with counsel at the start of their initial bail hearings. The district court denied motions to dismiss, certified the class, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court held that the plaintiffs’ right to counsel attached at the initial hearing and that the bail-setting constituted a critical stage, thus granting declaratory and injunctive relief against the judge. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they failed to show an ongoing or imminent injury that could be redressed by the prospective relief sought. The court found that the possibility of facing the same situation again was too speculative and that the requested relief would not redress any past harm already suffered. As a result, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. View "Farella v. Anglin" on Justia Law

TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC.

2026-05-15T08:31:24-08:00

A consumer purchased a licorice product manufactured by a Minnesota company, relying on packaging that stated the product was “Naturally Flavored,” “Natural Strawberry & Raspberry Flavored Licorice,” and “Free of . . . Artificial Colors & Flavors.” The consumer later learned, through laboratory testing, that the product contained DL malic acid, which is an artificial flavor created from petrochemical sources. The consumer alleged that this ingredient rendered the product’s labeling false or misleading, and filed a putative class action in California, asserting claims for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court found that the complaint failed to plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid was artificial, thus not meeting the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also held that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the product’s labeling, reasoning that the labels did not explicitly state the product was “all natural” or “100% natural,” and that the ingredients list disclosed both natural and artificial ingredients. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the complaint satisfied Rule 9(b) because it identified the specifics of the alleged fraud and provided details about the laboratory testing. The court also held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the product’s claim to be free of artificial flavors when it allegedly contained an artificial flavor. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC." on Justia Law

J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc.

2026-05-14T08:32:09-08:00

An educational technology company was contracted by a county office of education to provide software and technology services to school districts, which involved collecting and storing various types of student data, including medical information. In 2022, the company experienced a data breach that resulted in unauthorized access to student medical records, including those of a minor plaintiff. The minor, through a guardian, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of both the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) and the Customer Records Act (CRA), claiming the company was negligent in protecting confidential medical information and failed to provide timely disclosure of the breach. The Superior Court of Ventura County granted the company’s demurrer and dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under either statute, as the company was not a covered entity under the CMIA or CRA and the plaintiff was not a “customer” under the CRA. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reversed, finding that the company fell within the scope of both statutes and that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support both claims. The appellate court also determined that the trial court erred by denying leave to amend the complaint. The Supreme Court of California reversed the appellate decision. The Court held that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege the company was a “provider of health care” under the CMIA, nor that he was the company’s “customer” under the CRA, so no claim was stated under either statute. However, the Court clarified that under the CMIA, a breach of confidentiality occurs when medical information is exposed to a significant risk of unauthorized access or use, and actual viewing by an unauthorized party is not required. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc." on Justia Law

Ibrahim Alzandani v. Hamtramck Public Schools

2026-05-12T13:00:34-08:00

Three Michigan parents alleged that a local public school district systematically denied their children access to special education services required by federal law. One child with autism reportedly received only a few hours of aide support each day, another autistic child was promised speech therapy that was not provided, and a third child with Down syndrome was allegedly denied evaluation and services altogether. In response, two parents filed complaints with the Michigan Department of Education, which found that the school district violated the children’s rights to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and issued corrective action plans. However, none of the parents pursued the IDEA’s due process complaint process. The parents and children instead filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the school district, Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, and the Michigan Department of Education. They alleged violations of the IDEA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Michigan law, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion, holding that exhaustion was not required for “systemic” failures, and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeal and held that the IDEA does not recognize a “systemic violations” exception to its exhaustion requirement. The court ruled that parents must pursue the IDEA’s due process hearing before filing suit, even in cases alleging district-wide failures related to staffing and funding. The court concluded that none of the recognized exceptions to exhaustion applied and reversed the district court’s decision, foreclosing the lawsuit until administrative remedies are exhausted. View "Ibrahim Alzandani v. Hamtramck Public Schools" on Justia Law

CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, LP V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2026-05-07T09:04:35-08:00

The case concerns the process for selecting a lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After investors filed federal securities claims against a company and its executives, several parties moved to be appointed as lead plaintiff, including Crain Walnut Shelling, LP. Crain Walnut reported the largest financial losses among the movants and made a prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality, initially making it the presumptive lead plaintiff. However, a competing movant, Universal, challenged Crain Walnut’s adequacy, raising concerns about inaccuracies in Crain Walnut’s filings and inconsistent representations about its ownership and organizational structure. During discovery, further issues arose when Crain Walnut’s representative gave problematic deposition testimony, indicating an unwillingness to comply with potential discovery obligations. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California evaluated these challenges. After initial proceedings and discovery, the district court concluded that the evidence raised doubts about Crain Walnut’s adequacy but initially applied a “genuine and serious doubt” standard. Ultimately, Universal was appointed as lead plaintiff after the district court found that Crain Walnut’s adequacy was rebutted based on the evidence. Crain Walnut then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s orders. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the correct standard for rebutting the PSLRA’s presumption of adequacy is the preponderance of the evidence, not a lower standard. The appellate court held that, even under the correct standard, the district court did not commit clear error in finding Crain Walnut inadequate, and thus mandamus relief was not warranted. The court therefore denied the petition for writ of mandamus. View "CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, LP V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory

2026-05-05T12:31:49-08:00

Robert Toothman was initially employed by Apex Life Sciences, LLC, a temporary employment agency, which placed him at Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. During his employment with Apex, Toothman signed an arbitration agreement that required him to arbitrate employment disputes with Apex and its defined affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies. In April 2018, Toothman’s employment with Apex ended, after which he was hired directly by Redwood and worked there until June 2022. Toothman and Redwood did not sign an arbitration agreement. Several months after leaving Redwood, Toothman filed a class action alleging Labor Code violations based solely on his direct employment with Redwood, not his prior period as an Apex employee. The Sonoma County Superior Court reviewed Redwood’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class claims. Redwood argued that it was either a party to the Apex arbitration agreement as an affiliate, a third-party beneficiary, or entitled to enforce the agreement under equitable estoppel. Redwood also claimed that Toothman’s class claims should be dismissed based on the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Redwood’s motion, finding that Redwood was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not an affiliate as defined by the agreement, and could not compel arbitration under any alternative theory. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order de novo. It held that Redwood was not a party to the arbitration agreement and did not qualify as an affiliate or third-party beneficiary. The court further determined that Toothman’s claims were not sufficiently intertwined with the arbitration agreement to justify equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Redwood’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class claims. View "Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory" on Justia Law

Rider v. Oxy USA

2026-05-05T09:07:17-08:00

Several individuals who own royalty interests in the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field brought a putative class action against two energy companies. Their claims are based on an alleged breach of a 2008 class action settlement agreement, which had resolved earlier disputes about underpayment of royalties by one of the companies. The 2008 settlement required limits on certain deductions from royalty payments and specified that its terms would bind successors, assigns, and related entities. In 2014, one defendant acquired assets from the other and continued making royalty payments. Plaintiffs allege the acquiring company violated the settlement by taking improper deductions after the acquisition. The plaintiffs initially sought to enforce the settlement in Kansas state court, but the District Court of Stevens County determined the judgment had become dormant and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling, and while the appeal was pending, they filed this federal class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but later denied class certification. The district court found that the proposed class was not ascertainable because identifying class members would require individualized title review and that other Rule 23 requirements were not satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court clarified that, under its recent precedent, class ascertainability does not require administrative feasibility—only an objectively and clearly defined class. The court found the proposed class ascertainable, that common questions predominated, and that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23 requirements. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded with instructions to certify the putative class. View "Rider v. Oxy USA" on Justia Law

Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

2026-05-04T10:30:28-08:00

Three individuals suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) alleged that while incarcerated in facilities where a private medical contractor provided care, they were denied medically accepted screening and treatment for their condition. They claimed that the medical contractor excluded opioid dependence screening and treatment from its otherwise comprehensive services, forcing affected individuals to undergo withdrawal, even when arriving with a valid prescription for medication-assisted treatment. The plaintiffs asserted that these policies were motivated by cost-saving considerations and persisted even after the contractor was aware of the prevailing medical standards and associated constitutional risks. The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reviewed the case, which was filed as a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought to certify two classes: one requesting injunctive relief to require the contractor to provide proper screening and treatment, and another seeking damages for past deprivation of such care. The district court certified both classes after narrowing their definitions to ensure ascertainability and found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the defendant, challenged the certification, particularly arguing against the validity, typicality, and commonality of the classes, as well as the predominance and superiority requirements for the damages class. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether the named plaintiffs had standing to represent the class seeking injunctive relief, given that standing was first raised on appeal and required fact-specific findings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of the damages class, finding no abuse of discretion in its conclusions regarding ascertainability, the Rule 23(a) requirements, predominance, and superiority. View "Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation

2026-05-04T07:00:11-08:00

A group of branded gasoline retailers, known as the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, operated gas stations and accepted Visa and Mastercard payment cards during a specified period. Following a long-running federal antitrust class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard imposed unlawfully high interchange fees, a $5.6 billion settlement was reached in 2019 with a class defined as all entities accepting Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards in the United States from January 1, 2004, to January 24, 2019. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of this settlement. However, after the opt-out period ended, they filed a separate class action asserting state-law antitrust claims for damages based on the same alleged conduct, contending that their suppliers were the direct payors of the fees and thus should be the proper class members. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were members of the original settlement class and that the settlement agreement barred their new claims. The district court found the term “accepted” in the settlement ambiguous but, after reviewing extrinsic evidence—such as contracts and how transactions were conducted—concluded that the retailers themselves, not their suppliers, “accepted” payment cards within the meaning of the agreement. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that its prior decision in Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. did not require class membership to be determined solely by identifying the “direct payor.” The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were intended to be class members. Additionally, it held that the claims brought by these plaintiffs were validly released in the settlement because they rested on the same factual predicate as the released claims and the plaintiffs had been adequately represented. View "In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC

2026-05-04T07:00:04-08:00

Two Vermont residents who worked as delivery drivers for a baked goods company sued the company, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because they were not paid overtime despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week. The company classified them as independent contractors, not employees, and both the drivers and the company are located in different states: the drivers in Vermont, and the company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The drivers brought the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, both on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated delivery drivers. After the case was filed, the plaintiffs asked the district court to allow notification of potential collective action members not just in Vermont, but also in Connecticut and New York. The company objected, arguing that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state drivers. The district court disagreed, concluding that it did have personal jurisdiction over the company regarding claims by non-Vermont drivers, and permitted notification to potential plaintiffs in all three states. The district court then certified the personal jurisdiction issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed its decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court. The appellate court held that, unless Congress has provided otherwise (which it has not in the FLSA), a federal district court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant for out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims is limited by the same rules that bind state courts. Because there was no showing that the claims by Connecticut and New York drivers arose out of the company's contacts with Vermont, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC" on Justia Law

Vela v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc.

2026-05-01T11:33:41-08:00

An employee worked as a railcar repairman for a company that performs inspections and repairs on freight cars at a train yard. He was hired with an agreement that required all employment-related disputes to be resolved through arbitration and included a waiver of class and representative actions, except for certain claims that cannot be waived by law. After his employment ended, the employee sued for various wage and hour violations under California law, asserting claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of other employees. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the employer moved to compel arbitration of the individual claims and to dismiss the class claims. The court ordered further proceedings to clarify whether the arbitration agreement was part of a contract of employment and whether the employee fell within a federal exemption for certain transportation workers. After additional evidence was submitted, the court granted the employer’s motion, compelling arbitration of individual claims and dismissing the class claims, finding the employee was not exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the order dismissing and striking the class claims. The court held that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement because the employee was neither a “railroad employee” nor a transportation worker directly involved in the interstate transportation of goods under the FAA’s section 1 exemption. The court found that repairing out-of-service railcars did not constitute direct engagement in interstate commerce. The court also held that, because the FAA applied, the waiver of class claims was enforceable under federal law, thus preempting contrary state law. The appeal as to the order compelling arbitration was treated as a petition for writ of mandate and was denied. View "Vela v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc." on Justia Law

Preston v. SB&C, Ltd.

2026-04-30T07:13:06-08:00

A patient received medical care at a hospital and was billed for those services. At the time, the patient’s income allegedly qualified her for financial assistance known as charity care under Washington law, which is designed to help low-income patients pay hospital bills. The hospital did not determine the patient’s eligibility for charity care before billing her and subsequently assigned the debt to a collection agency. The agency sued to collect the debt, obtained a judgment, and did not provide any information about the availability of charity care in its communications. The patient only learned about the program after judgment and was later granted a partial reduction by the hospital, but the collection agency refused to honor it, citing its policy against reductions after court judgment. The patient filed a class action against the collection agency in Skagit County Superior Court, alleging violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the Collection Agency Act (CAA), and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court dismissed some claims, including those under the CAA, and divided the remaining claims into “failure-to-screen” and “failure-to-notify” theories. The court dismissed the “failure-to-screen” theory, retained the “failure-to-notify” theory, and certified a question of state law to the Washington Supreme Court regarding whether the charity care notice requirements apply to collection agencies. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the statutory requirement to give notice of charity care under RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) applies to collection agencies collecting hospital debt. The court explained that the policy and plain language of the statute require patients to be notified by all entities engaged in billing or collection, including collection agencies, and that the duty to provide notice passes to assignees of hospital debt. View "Preston v. SB&C, Ltd." on Justia Law

Connex Credit Union v. Madgic

2026-04-29T03:08:49-08:00

The case involves a dispute between a credit union and borrowers who defaulted on a retail installment contract for a vehicle. After the borrowers defaulted, the credit union repossessed and sold the vehicle, then sued the borrowers for the remaining balance. The borrowers responded with a counterclaim alleging that the credit union failed to provide proper notice before and after repossession and sale, in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9 and the Retail Installment Sales Financing Act (RISFA). The borrowers sought statutory damages under both statutes and also moved to certify their counterclaim as a class action. The Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, granted summary judgment to the credit union on the borrowers’ counterclaim, reasoning that both the UCC and RISFA claims were subject to the one-year statute of limitations for penal statutes found in Connecticut General Statutes § 52-585. The court found the claims time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the alleged violations. Based on this conclusion, the court also denied the borrowers’ motion for class certification. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that both the UCC Article 9 and RISFA provisions at issue are remedial, not penal, and are thus not governed by the one-year limitation for penal statutes. Instead, it determined that the three-year statute of limitations for tort actions under § 52-577 applies, because the borrowers’ counterclaims arose from statutory violations rather than breach of contract. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the three-year limitation and reconsider class certification. View "Connex Credit Union v. Madgic" on Justia Law

Carefirst Bluechoice v. Skipper

2026-04-27T08:35:49-08:00

Matthew and Jamie Skipper obtained health insurance from CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. through the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange. After experiencing infertility, they underwent in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which included freezing embryos. When they later sought coverage for the medically necessary procedure of embryo thawing as part of a subsequent IVF cycle, CareFirst denied coverage, citing a policy exclusion. The Skippers paid for the thawing themselves and later sought reimbursement. CareFirst denied their appeal as untimely. The Skippers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration and, while that was pending, brought a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Shortly after the federal suit was filed, CareFirst reversed its denial and paid the claim. The federal court then dismissed the Skippers’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction due to the amount-in-controversy requirement. The Skippers promptly refiled their class action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. CareFirst moved to dismiss in the Circuit Court, arguing the case was moot because it had paid the Skippers’ claim and that the policy did not cover embryo thawing. The Circuit Court granted the motion based on mootness. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that the payment did not moot the class claims and that the complaint adequately stated a claim. The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. The Court held that when a putative class action is first filed in another court and the defendant tenders individual relief to the named representative before dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, a substantially similar complaint promptly refiled in state court is not moot until the representative has a reasonable opportunity to seek class certification. Additionally, the Court held that the relevant policy exclusion does not authorize CareFirst to deny coverage for medically necessary expenses arising from IVF procedures, including embryo thawing, and that Maryland law requires such coverage. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Carefirst Bluechoice v. Skipper" on Justia Law

Clippinger v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.

2026-04-24T11:30:33-08:00

State Farm, an automobile insurer, uses a standard process in Tennessee to determine the “actual cash value” (ACV) of vehicles totaled in accidents. This process involves comparing the insured’s vehicle to similar used vehicles listed for sale and then applying a “typical negotiation” adjustment, which reduces the estimated value based on the assumption that advertised prices are generally higher than actual sales prices. After her own totaled minivan was valued using this process, Jessica Clippinger agreed to the payout but later challenged the fairness of the typical-negotiation adjustment, arguing that it systematically undervalued cars and breached the insurance contract. She brought a putative class action on behalf of similarly situated State Farm customers. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee initially required Clippinger to use the policy’s appraisal process. After the appraisal resulted in a higher valuation and State Farm paid the difference, the district court found that Clippinger’s claim was not moot, as she had allegedly been harmed by incurring appraisal costs. The court granted class certification, accepting Clippinger’s argument that damages could be determined by simply refunding the amount of the negotiation adjustment for each class member, and found that common questions predominated over individual ones. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the class certification order. The court held that, even if the negotiation adjustment was flawed, determining whether State Farm breached its contract for each class member would require individualized evidence about the actual cash value of each vehicle. The court concluded that these individualized valuation questions would predominate over any common issues, making class certification improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Sixth Circuit further held that the district court’s proposed formula for damages improperly abridged State Farm’s substantive right to present individualized defenses, violating the Rules Enabling Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Clippinger v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Mullin

2026-04-24T07:02:56-08:00

Thirteen individuals and three nonprofit organizations challenged executive actions taken after the issuance of a presidential proclamation in January 2025, which responded to increased crossings at the southern border by suspending the entry of certain noncitizens and instituting new summary removal procedures. These new procedures, set out in subsequent agency guidance, barred individuals who crossed between ports of entry—or at ports without proper documentation—from seeking asylum or other statutory protections. The policies also established new, non-statutory removal processes that bypassed existing procedures and protections mandated by federal law. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed these policies in a putative class action. The court certified a class of all individuals subject to the proclamation, declared the agency guidance unlawful, vacated it, and enjoined agency officials from implementing similar actions under the proclamation. The district court found that the challenged policies supplanted the removal procedures and substantive protections Congress had established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and related regulations, including the right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the plaintiffs and affirmed the modified class certification. The D.C. Circuit held that Congress, in granting the President authority to suspend entry under the INA, did not authorize the executive to circumvent or override the statute’s exclusive and mandatory removal procedures or to categorically deny the right to apply for asylum and other protections. The court further held that neither the proclamation nor its guidance could lawfully suspend or replace statutory and regulatory processes for removal or for considering claims to asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture protection. The court also upheld the district court’s class-wide relief and its scope under federal law. View "Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Mullin" on Justia Law

Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Center

2026-04-22T18:09:29-08:00

An employee began working at a skilled nursing facility, which was later acquired by a new employer. As part of the onboarding process, the employer required the employee to sign three related agreements to arbitrate most employment disputes, except certain representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). After ending his employment, the employee filed a class action lawsuit for various wage-and-hour violations, including a PAGA claim. The agreements also contained class action waivers and a confidentiality agreement. The employer moved to compel arbitration of the employee’s individual claims, including his individual PAGA claim, and to enforce the class action waiver. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion, ruling that conflicting and ambiguous terms among the three arbitration agreements and other documents meant there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The court also ruled, in the alternative, that the agreement was unconscionable due to both procedural and substantive defects, including an unenforceable waiver of the right to bring a PAGA action and certain provisions in the confidentiality agreement. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the order denying arbitration. The court held that the agreements, although containing some ambiguities and minor inconsistencies, reflected a clear mutual intent to arbitrate employment-related disputes. The court found the agreements were not so uncertain as to be unenforceable, and any conflicting provisions could be severed. The court further determined that, while the agreements reflected some procedural unconscionability as contracts of adhesion, they did not contain substantively unconscionable terms. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and directed that arbitration be compelled. View "Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Center" on Justia Law

Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar

2026-04-21T12:09:53-08:00

A former emergency medical technician employed by a private ambulance company brought a class action alleging that his employer systematically miscalculated the “regular rate of pay” by excluding certain nondiscretionary bonuses from that calculation. This exclusion, he contended, resulted in the underpayment of overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premiums for himself and approximately 135 current and former employees during the alleged class period. The company paid ten types of bonuses, and the plaintiff received one of these—a bonus awarded during National Emergency Medical Services Week—on a single occasion. The plaintiff filed his class action in the Superior Court of Tulare County, seeking class certification for wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid overtime, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and other Labor Code violations. The employer opposed class certification, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was not typical of the proposed class because he received only one type of bonus and that each type of bonus involved unique circumstances and potential defenses. The trial court denied class certification solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not establish typicality, reasoning he would be subject to unique defenses regarding the inclusion of his bonus in the regular rate of pay. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the purported defenses related to the nature of the bonus (as a gift or discretionary payment) were not unique to the plaintiff, since other employees received the same type of bonus under similar circumstances. Therefore, the trial court committed legal error in its analysis of typicality. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the class certification motion, not inconsistent with the appellate opinion. View "Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar" on Justia Law

Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board

2026-04-21T10:34:34-08:00

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee. The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

BROWN V. SALCIDO

2026-04-20T09:03:20-08:00

Several individuals alleged that Google collected and misused the private browsing data of Chrome users who utilized Incognito mode, despite Google’s representations about the privacy of this feature. In June 2020, five plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of these users, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. After extensive discovery, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class for injunctive relief but denied certification for a damages class, finding the plaintiffs had not shown that common issues predominated over individual ones. Following the denial of damages class certification, the named plaintiffs sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), but the petition was denied. The case proceeded, and as trial approached, the parties settled: Google agreed to change its policies, the named plaintiffs would arbitrate their individual damages claims, and they waived their rights to appeal the denial of damages class certification. The settlement explicitly stated that absent class members were not releasing damages claims or appellate rights. Several months after the settlement, a group of 185 Chrome users, referred to as the Salcido plaintiffs, moved to intervene to preserve absent class members’ appellate rights regarding damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the intervention motion. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the intervention motion untimely. Applying the circuit’s traditional three-part test for intervention—considering the stage of the proceedings, prejudice to other parties, and the reason for and length of delay—the court found that intervention at this late stage would prejudice the existing parties, that the delay was unjustified, and that the timing weighed against intervention. The denial of the motion to intervene was therefore affirmed. View "BROWN V. SALCIDO" on Justia Law

Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

2026-04-17T10:30:33-08:00

A financial advisory employee of a large securities firm participated in a compensation program called the WealthChoice Awards, which provided annual contingent cash awards to select high-performing advisors. To earn these awards, an advisor had to meet certain revenue thresholds and remain employed at the company for eight years after the award was granted. A notional, unfunded account tracked a benchmark investment, but no funds were set aside for the advisor during the vesting period. If the advisor left the company before vesting, the award was typically forfeited. After vesting, payment was mandatory and made promptly, usually while the advisor was still employed. The stated purpose of the program was to incentivize retention and productivity, not to provide retirement income. After voluntarily resigning and forfeiting unvested awards, the employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. He alleged that the WealthChoice Awards program was an “employee pension benefit plan” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and that it violated ERISA’s vesting and anti-forfeiture rules. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the program was a bonus plan exempt from ERISA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the WealthChoice Awards program is a bonus payment plan and not an ERISA-covered pension benefit plan. The court reasoned that the program’s primary purpose was to enhance retention and productivity, eligibility was limited, the awards were not funded with deferred employee income, and payment was not systematically deferred until employment termination or retirement. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

Moore v. District of Columbia

2026-04-17T08:38:50-08:00

A police officer employed by the Metropolitan Police Department experienced a data breach that exposed sensitive information of numerous employees. In response, the officer filed a putative class action in Superior Court for the District of Columbia, naming the District, certain government entities, and several private technology contractors as defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to safeguard employees’ data. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed certain contractor defendants without prejudice, leaving the government defendants and a few contractors. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted the District’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of the Chief Technology Officer could not be sued as unincorporated government bodies, and that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the District. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the remaining private contractor defendants and asked the Superior Court to close the case. The Superior Court closed the case, prompting the plaintiff to appeal both the dismissal of her claims against the District and the denial of reconsideration. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that because the plaintiff dismissed her claims against the final contractor defendants without prejudice, the trial court’s order was not final as to all parties and claims. The court explained that dismissals without prejudice do not resolve the merits and thus do not confer appellate jurisdiction, except in rare circumstances. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the order below was not a final, appealable order. View "Moore v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

PANELLI V. TARGET CORPORATION

2026-04-17T08:01:05-08:00

A consumer purchased a set of bed sheets from a major retailer, choosing a more expensive option because the packaging stated the sheets were made of “100% cotton” and had an “800 Thread Count.” After using the sheets, he believed the quality did not match the advertised thread count. He later had the sheets tested by an expert, who determined the actual thread count was much lower. The consumer alleged that it is physically impossible for 100% cotton fabric to reach the advertised thread counts and claimed that the retailer’s labeling was false and misleading. The consumer initially brought a class action in California state court, alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The retailer removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The retailer moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the consumer failed to adequately plead his claims and that the impossibility of the claimed thread count meant no reasonable consumer would be misled. The district court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., interpreting it to mean that literally impossible claims cannot deceive reasonable consumers as a matter of law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of Moore. The appellate court clarified that claims of literal falsity are actionable under California consumer protection laws and that even physically impossible claims may deceive reasonable consumers. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the consumer’s allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. View "PANELLI V. TARGET CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Aerni v. RR San Dimas, L.P.

2026-04-16T12:09:56-08:00

Two individuals brought a putative class action against the owners of a hotel in San Dimas, California, alleging that the hotel violated Civil Code section 1940.1. The statute is designed to prevent hotels from forcing guests to move out or check out and reregister every 28 days—a practice aimed at denying guests tenant protections that accrue after 30 days of occupancy. The hotel enforced a policy requiring all guests to vacate after 28 consecutive days and to stay away for at least three days before re-registering. Plaintiffs, who stayed at the hotel in multiple 28-day increments, were subject to this policy and sometimes stayed elsewhere or in their vehicle during the three-day interval. The plaintiffs filed a class action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking to represent all individuals who had similar experiences at the hotel since November 2018. They argued that the hotel’s uniform policy and its status as a “residential hotel” made the case appropriate for class certification. The defendants countered that determining whether the hotel was a “residential hotel” under the statute would require individualized inquiries into whether each guest used the hotel as their primary residence. The trial court agreed with the defendants’ interpretation and denied class certification, finding that individual questions predominated over common ones. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the order denying class certification. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by interpreting section 1940.1 to require individualized proof that each class member used the hotel as their primary residence. The appellate court clarified that the “residential” status of the hotel is determined by the hotel’s overall use or intended use, not by each guest’s individual residency status. The court reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Aerni v. RR San Dimas, L.P." on Justia Law

Ortins v. Lincoln Property Company

2026-04-15T04:04:01-08:00

Two former tenants sued the owner and manager of a residential apartment complex, alleging that they were charged unlawful rental application fees and excessive lock change fees, in violation of the Massachusetts security deposit statute and consumer protection laws. They sought to represent a statewide class of similarly situated tenants. After contentious discovery, the Superior Court sanctioned the defendants, precluding them from contesting certain liability facts. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the security deposit claims but denied summary judgment on the consumer protection claims. Before trial, the parties reached a proposed class action settlement that established a fund for class members, with unclaimed funds to be distributed partly to charities and partly returned to the defendants. The Superior Court, after scrutiny and required revisions, approved the settlement. The court capped the amount of unclaimed funds that could revert to the defendants and required that a portion go to designated charities. However, the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee, a nonparty potentially entitled to notice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3), was not notified prior to settlement approval. After final approval and claims processing, the committee received notice for the first time and objected to the final distribution of unclaimed funds, arguing that the lack of timely notice violated the rule and that final judgment should be set aside. The motion judge agreed there was a violation but declined to vacate the settlement, finding no prejudice. On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the IOLTA Committee had standing to appeal the denial of its procedural right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the disposition of residual funds, but lacked standing to challenge the overall fairness or structure of the settlement. Assuming a violation of the rule occurred, the Court found no prejudice because the committee ultimately received the opportunity to be heard before judgment entered. The judgment was affirmed. View "Ortins v. Lincoln Property Company" on Justia Law

In re Orbit/FR, Inc. Stockholders Litig.

2026-04-13T07:02:19-08:00

A Delaware corporation specializing in antenna measurement systems was majority-owned by a parent company, which controlled the board and imposed a services agreement that disproportionately allocated expenses to the subsidiary. An investment fund, having previously rejected buyout offers, became a vocal minority stockholder. In 2018, after a controversial squeeze-out merger at $3.30 per share—approved without effective minority protections—a third-party expressed interest in buying the parent at a much higher valuation, but later withdrew due to concerns over the parent’s transfer pricing practices. The merger closed at a valuation much lower than that suggested by the later private equity investment. A minority stockholder initially filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty related to the merger. The court denied a motion to dismiss, and the original plaintiff’s counsel negotiated a proposed $825,000 settlement. The investment fund objected, sought to replace the lead plaintiff and counsel, and ultimately succeeded after the original settlement was rejected and the fund posted security to protect other stockholders’ interests. The fund, with new counsel, filed an amended complaint, pursued broader discovery, and advanced new damages theories, including contesting the services agreement and relying on the arm’s-length valuation from the private equity transaction. The litigation efforts included multiple discovery motions, expert reports, and defeating dismissal attempts, culminating in a mediated settlement for $17.85 million—21.64 times the original settlement and reflecting a 235% premium over the deal price. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the present opinion, held that the investment fund, as lead plaintiff, was entitled to an incentive award of $730,000. The court found that the award was justified based on the fund’s considerable time, effort, and resources expended, the significant benefit obtained for the class, and the absence of problematic incentives or conflicts. View "In re Orbit/FR, Inc. Stockholders Litig." on Justia Law

OLSON V. FCA US, LLC

2026-04-07T08:01:11-08:00

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a car dealership to lease a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The lease included an arbitration agreement containing a delegation clause, which specified that disputes about the scope of the arbitration agreement would be decided in arbitration. Later, the plaintiff filed a federal class action lawsuit against the vehicle’s manufacturer, alleging defects in the headrest. The manufacturer, however, was not a party to the lease agreement and did not claim to be an employee, agent, successor, or assign of the dealership. After the lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the manufacturer moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the delegation clause required an arbitrator—not the court—to decide whether the manufacturer could enforce the arbitration agreement. In the alternative, the manufacturer asserted that either the plain language of the agreement or the doctrine of equitable estoppel entitled it to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, finding that the manufacturer could not enforce the arbitration agreement because it was not a party to the contract and none of the exceptions allowing enforcement by a non-signatory applied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court held that, absent a relevant exception, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot enforce the agreement’s terms against a signatory. It found that the language of the arbitration agreement did not cover disputes with the manufacturer, and under California law, the manufacturer could not use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s claims were not founded in or intertwined with the lease agreement. The court’s disposition was to affirm the district court’s order. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

CenturyLink, Inc. v. Houser

2026-04-07T06:35:32-08:00

A group of shareholders brought a class action against a telecommunications company and its executives, alleging violations of securities laws related to the company’s merger with another entity. The plaintiffs claimed that the registration statement and prospectus for the merger contained false statements and omitted material facts about illegal billing practices known as “cramming,” which they argued were widespread, known to senior management, and impacted the company’s financial performance. The amended complaint incorporated allegations and statements made by confidential witnesses and public filings from related lawsuits, as well as affidavits from other cases, all supporting the claim of pervasive cramming practices. Initially, the Boulder County District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead material misrepresentations or omissions with particularity and denied leave to amend. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the denial of leave to amend the omissions claim based on the cramming theory, instructing that any borrowed allegations must be pleaded as facts after reasonable inquiry as required by C.R.C.P. 11. After the plaintiff amended the complaint, the district court dismissed it again, concluding that the plaintiff’s counsel had not satisfied the requirement to conduct a reasonable inquiry, as the complaint relied on allegations from other lawsuits without direct verification from the original sources or witnesses. The Colorado Supreme Court, en banc, reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal. The Supreme Court held that under C.R.C.P. 11(a), counsel must conduct a sufficient investigation to support allegations, at least on information and belief, but the extent of the required investigation is fact-dependent. Copying allegations from related complaints does not alone violate Rule 11 provided counsel’s inquiry is objectively reasonable in context. The Court found that the plaintiff’s counsel had met this standard and affirmed the judgment below. View "CenturyLink, Inc. v. Houser" on Justia Law

Duncan v. Bayer CropScience LP

2026-04-06T07:01:27-08:00

A group of farmers and farming entities brought suit against several manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of seeds and crop-protection chemicals, alleging that these defendants conspired to obscure pricing data for these “crop inputs.” The plaintiffs claimed that this conspiracy, which included a group boycott of electronic sales platforms and price-fixing activities, forced them to pay artificially high prices. They sought to represent a class of individuals who had purchased crop inputs from the defendants or their authorized retailers dating back to January 1, 2014. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and various state laws, seeking both damages and injunctive relief. After the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because they did not adequately allege parallel conduct among the defendants. The RICO claims were also dismissed with prejudice, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The district court dismissed the antitrust claim with prejudice, noting that the plaintiffs had prior notice of the deficiencies and had multiple opportunities to amend. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead parallel conduct or provide sufficient factual detail connecting specific defendants to particular acts. It concluded that the complaint’s group pleading and conclusory allegations did not meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss. The court also ruled that the dismissal with prejudice was proper given the plaintiffs’ repeated failures to cure the deficiencies. View "Duncan v. Bayer CropScience LP" on Justia Law

The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Ct.

2026-04-02T15:01:39-08:00

A former employee initiated a class action lawsuit against her prior employer, alleging violations of various California Labor Code provisions and other employment-related statutes. After the lawsuit was filed, the employer entered into individual settlement agreements with approximately 954 current and former employees, offering cash payments in exchange for waivers of wage and hour claims. The total settlement payments exceeded $875,000. The named plaintiff did not sign such an agreement, but many potential class members did. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted the plaintiff’s motion to invalidate these individual settlement agreements, finding them voidable due to allegations of fraud and duress. The trial court ordered that a curative notice be sent to all affected employees, informing them of their right to revoke the agreements and join the class action. The court, however, declined to require that the notice include language stating that those who revoked their settlements might be required to repay the settlement amounts if the employer prevailed. The court instead indicated that settlement payments could be offset against any recovery and that the issue of repayment could be addressed later. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the trial court’s order after the employer petitioned for writ relief. The appellate court held that, under California’s rescission statutes (Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693), putative class members who rescind their individual settlement agreements may be required to repay the consideration received if the employer prevails, but actual repayment can be delayed until judgment. The court instructed the trial court to revise the curative notice to inform employees that repayment may be required at the conclusion of litigation, and clarified that the trial court retains discretion at judgment to adjust the equities between the parties. The order of the trial court was vacated for reconsideration consistent with these principles. View "The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Lippert v Hughes

2026-04-02T12:00:45-08:00

A group of prisoners in Illinois sued the state’s Department of Corrections, alleging that they were provided with inadequate medical and dental care, which they claimed violated the Eighth Amendment. The class was certified, and the parties reached a settlement that led to the entry of a consent decree. This decree required the Department to prepare an implementation plan, with oversight and recommendations from an independent monitor, to address the systemic deficiencies identified. Over time, disagreements arose regarding the adequacy and specificity of the Department’s proposals, and the monitor’s recommendations were largely adopted by the court after finding the Department in contempt for noncompliance. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, approved and amended the consent decree, eventually adopting the implementation plan as part of it. The Department then filed several motions under Rule 60(b) to modify the consent decree, including requests to remove stipulations about compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and to excise or terminate the implementation plan. The court denied these requests, but did acknowledge changed circumstances and amended the decree to clarify that the implementation plan would only be enforceable if the court made findings required by the PLRA. The court also extended the term of the consent decree due to the Department’s lack of substantial compliance. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to review some orders, such as the denial of the motion to strike the stipulation and the extension of the decree, as these did not substantially alter the parties’ legal relationship. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the implementation plan, holding that its terms are not enforceable unless and until the district court makes the factual findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the PLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lippert v Hughes" on Justia Law

Montes v. SPARC Group LLC

2026-04-02T07:18:00-08:00

A consumer purchased a pair of leggings from a national retailer’s website at an advertised sale price of $6.00, which was displayed alongside a struck-out “regular price” of $12.50. The consumer believed, based on the website’s representations, that the leggings were normally sold at $12.50 and that the $6.00 price reflected a genuine discount. After purchasing and collecting the leggings, the consumer learned that the “regular price” was rarely charged and alleged that the higher reference price was misleading. She brought a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, claiming that the retailer’s “false discounting” scheme violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). She alleged three forms of injury: that she would not have purchased the leggings but for the misrepresentation (“purchase price” theory), that she did not receive the benefit of the bargain, and that she paid an inflated price due to artificially increased demand (“price premium” theory). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that, although deceptive conduct was sufficiently alleged, the consumer failed to allege injury cognizable under the CPA. The court reasoned that she did not claim the leggings were worth less than the $6.00 paid or differed from what was advertised, but only that they were not worth the higher reference price. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Washington law unclear on whether the consumer’s allegations constituted an injury to “business or property” under the CPA and certified the question to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. The Washington Supreme Court held that, without more, a consumer who receives and retains a fungible product at the price she agreed to pay, but was influenced by a misrepresentation about price history, does not allege a cognizable injury to business or property under the CPA. The court clarified that subjective disappointment or being misled into believing one obtained a bargain does not amount to an objective economic loss as required by the statute. View "Montes v. SPARC Group LLC" on Justia Law

Clay v Union Pacific Railroad Company

2026-04-01T12:31:12-08:00

Several plaintiffs, including a truck driver and employees, alleged that their employers or associated companies collected their biometric data, such as fingerprints or hand geometry, without complying with the requirements of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Each plaintiff claimed that every instance of data collection constituted a separate violation, resulting in potentially massive statutory damages. Some claims were brought as class actions, raising the possibility of billions in liability for the defendants. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the district judges addressed whether a 2024 amendment to BIPA Section 20, which clarified that damages should be assessed per person rather than per scan, applied retroactively to cases pending when the amendment was enacted. The district courts determined that the amendment did not apply retroactively and certified this question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the certified question de novo. The court considered Illinois’s established law of statutory retroactivity, which distinguishes between substantive and procedural (including remedial) changes. The Seventh Circuit held that the BIPA amendment was remedial because it addressed only the scope of available damages and did not alter the underlying substantive obligations or standards of liability. The court reasoned that, under Illinois law, remedial amendments apply to pending cases unless precluded by constitutional concerns, which were not present here. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the 2024 amendment to BIPA Section 20 applies retroactively to all pending cases. The court reversed the district courts’ rulings and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Clay v Union Pacific Railroad Company" on Justia Law

O'DELL V. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.

2026-04-01T08:01:06-08:00

Former employees of a travel-nursing agency brought a putative class action against the agency, alleging wage-related violations. Each employee had signed an arbitration agreement with the agency that contained a delegation clause requiring an arbitrator—not a court—to decide on the validity of the agreement. Four initial plaintiffs had their disputes sent to arbitration: two arbitrators found the agreements valid, while two found them invalid due to unconscionable fee and venue provisions. After these initial arbitrations, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed three out of four arbitral awards. At this stage, an additional 255 employees joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The agency moved to compel arbitration for these additional plaintiffs under their individual agreements. However, a different district judge raised the issue of whether non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel barred the enforcement of the arbitration agreements. After briefing, the district court denied the agency’s motion, concluding that the two arbitral awards finding the agreements invalid precluded arbitration for all 255 employees, effectively rendering their agreements unenforceable. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of arbitration agreements is incompatible with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court reasoned that such an approach undermined the principle of individualized arbitration and the parties’ consent, which are fundamental to the FAA. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the FAA does not permit using non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to invalidate arbitration agreements and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "O'DELL V. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC." on Justia Law

Harris v W6LS, Inc.

2026-03-31T10:04:44-08:00

Two Illinois residents obtained online loans of $600 each from a lender operating under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, with interest rates approaching 500% per year. The loan agreements included an arbitration clause, which delegated to the arbitrator all questions including the enforceability and formation of the agreement, specifying that such issues would be determined under “tribal law and applicable federal law.” At the time the loans were issued, the referenced tribal law did not exist. After receiving the loans, the borrowers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Illinois consumer-protection statutes and federal laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the loan agreements. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration and delegation provisions were unenforceable because they effectively forced the plaintiffs to waive their substantive rights under Illinois law, applying the “prospective waiver” doctrine. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration and delegation provisions. The court determined that, at the time of contracting, the specified tribal law did not exist, and federal law does not supply substantive contract-formation rules. Because the contract’s governing law provision referred to a body of law that was nonexistent and subject to unilateral creation by the defendants’ affiliate, there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the absence of mutual assent rendered the arbitration and delegation provisions unenforceable and affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Harris v W6LS, Inc." on Justia Law

Gasca v. Precythe

2026-03-31T07:31:23-08:00

A group of parolees who had been detained challenged the procedures used by the Missouri Department of Corrections for revoking parole, arguing that these procedures violated their due process rights. The plaintiffs brought a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of all adult parolees in Missouri who currently face or will face parole revocation proceedings. The district court issued an order in 2020 requiring the Department to implement certain changes. After further proceedings, the plaintiffs sought and were awarded attorneys’ fees for their partial success and for monitoring the Department’s compliance. The Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s fee awards, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) limited the attorneys’ fees that could be awarded. The district court had repeatedly rejected the Department’s argument, finding that the PLRA’s fee cap did not apply because the certified class included parolees who were not detained and because some of the relief benefited non-detained parolees. The district court issued its final judgment in January 2025 and permanently enjoined the Department while awarding additional attorneys’ fees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the PLRA’s attorneys’ fee cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) applied to the class action. The Eighth Circuit held that the fee cap does apply because the certified class consisted of individuals who are, or will be, detained during parole revocation proceedings and thus fall under the statutory definition of “prisoner.” The court also found that the PLRA’s fee cap section is not limited to actions challenging prison conditions. The Eighth Circuit vacated the fee awards and remanded the case for the district court to recalculate the fee awards in accordance with the PLRA’s limitations. View "Gasca v. Precythe" on Justia Law

Parker v. Hooper

2026-03-30T15:30:29-08:00

A class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the prison’s medical care was constitutionally inadequate and that the facility failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit began in 2015, and evidence was introduced at trial in 2018. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a lengthy opinion finding systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. While prison officials began making improvements ahead of a scheduled remedial trial, the district court later issued a Remedial Opinion and Order, prescribing detailed institutional changes and appointing special masters to oversee compliance. The district court’s Remedial Order required the state to bear the costs of three special masters, directed broad institutional reforms, and did not expressly adhere to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, retaining jurisdiction only for compliance procedures. After entry of judgment, the defendants appealed. During the appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, subsequently reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and the validity of the district court’s orders. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, § 1292(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s Remedial Order violated the PLRA by failing to apply the statutory needs-narrowness-intrusiveness standard, improperly appointing multiple special masters, and requiring the state to pay their fees. The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court erred by disregarding ongoing improvements to prison medical care and by misapplying the standards for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA/RA. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc.

2026-03-27T13:00:07-08:00

An employee of the Falmouth Public Schools in Maine, enrolled in a health insurance plan administered by Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., challenged the plan’s exclusion of coverage for weight-loss medications. After being diagnosed with obesity and prescribed FDA-approved weight-loss drugs, the employee’s requests for coverage were repeatedly denied. Her medical providers appealed to Anthem, supporting the necessity of the medication, but Anthem maintained its denial, citing the plan’s explicit exclusion of weight-loss medications regardless of obesity diagnosis. The employee, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, sued Anthem’s parent company, Elevance Health, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. She alleged that the exclusion constituted disability discrimination under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which incorporates the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Elevance moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege disability discrimination. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the exclusion applied to all enrollees, regardless of disability status, and did not target disabled individuals for discriminatory treatment. The court found the allegations of discrimination to be conclusory and insufficient to support claims of intentional, proxy, or disparate impact discrimination. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the exclusion of weight-loss medication coverage constituted discrimination under Section 1557. The court concluded that the exclusion was facially neutral, did not serve as a proxy for disability discrimination, and did not result in a lack of meaningful access to plan benefits for disabled individuals. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc." on Justia Law

Aerni v. RR San Dimas

2026-03-25T11:32:37-08:00

Two individuals who stayed at a San Dimas hotel challenged the hotel’s practice of enforcing a maximum 28-day stay policy. Under this policy, guests were required to check out and completely vacate the property for at least three days before being permitted to re-register, a practice the hotel’s management acknowledged was intended to avoid creating landlord-tenant relationships. The plaintiffs, who stayed at the hotel multiple times between June and November 2022, brought a putative class action alleging violations of California Civil Code section 1940.1 and other related claims, arguing that the hotel’s policy was designed to circumvent tenant protections for those using the hotel as a primary residence. The plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all individuals who stayed at the hotel for at least 28 consecutive days but fewer than 31 days, from late 2018 to the present. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found the class was numerous, ascertainable, and that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical, but denied class certification. The trial court reasoned that individualized questions predominated, because it believed section 1940.1 required proof that each class member used the hotel as their “primary residence” for the hotel to qualify as a “residential hotel” under the statute. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the order. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by interpreting section 1940.1 to require individualized proof that each guest used the hotel as their primary residence. The court clarified that whether a hotel is a “residential hotel” under section 1940.1 is a question that focuses on the overall character and intended use of the hotel, not on each individual guest’s circumstances. The order denying class certification was reversed, and the matter was remanded for the trial court to revisit the class certification question under the correct legal standard. View "Aerni v. RR San Dimas" on Justia Law

Schoening Investment LP v. Cincinnati Casualty Company

2026-03-25T10:03:42-08:00

A Florida-based limited partnership invested in commercial real estate in Kentucky and purchased insurance for those properties from an insurer. The insured property suffered damage in March 2022, and the partnership promptly filed a claim. The insurer’s adjuster evaluated the damage, determined it was repairable, and offered to pay the cost of repairs minus a deduction for depreciation, explaining that the insured could recover the deducted amount after completing repairs. The partnership had purchased additional coverage that would pay for repairs “without deduction for depreciation” if repairs were completed within two years; however, at the time of the claim, the repairs had not been made. After rejecting the insurer’s offer, the partnership filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, arguing that the insurer breached the policy by deducting depreciation from the repair-cost settlement. The insurer moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion, finding that the policy allowed the insurer to deduct depreciation unless and until the insured completed repairs, at which point the depreciation could be recovered under the optional coverage. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under Kentucky law and the specific terms of the policy, the insurer was permitted to deduct depreciation from the payment for repair costs because the insured had not yet completed repairs. The court found that the optional coverage only eliminated the depreciation deduction if the insured actually repaired the property, which had not occurred. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, concluding that the insurer’s actions were consistent with the contract’s terms. View "Schoening Investment LP v. Cincinnati Casualty Company" on Justia Law

The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Court

2026-03-23T12:01:34-08:00

A former employee brought a class action lawsuit against her former employer, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and other employment-related statutes. After the complaint was filed, the employer entered into approximately 954 individual settlement agreements with other employees, providing cash payments in exchange for releases of claims. The plaintiff did not sign such an agreement but moved for class certification and later sought to invalidate the individual settlements on the grounds of fraud and coercion, arguing the employer misrepresented the litigation’s status and the scope of the settlements. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted the motion, ruling that the individual settlement agreements were voidable due to fraud or duress and ordered that a curative notice be sent to affected employees. The court’s notice advised that employees could rescind their agreements and join the class action, but did not require immediate repayment of settlement funds to the employer. The employer objected, arguing the notice should have informed employees that they might be required to return the settlement money if they rescinded and the employer ultimately prevailed in the litigation. The trial court declined to include this language, instead following certain federal cases that allowed offsetting the settlement amount against any recovery but did not require repayment before judgment. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case on a writ. The court held that under California Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693, employees who rescind their settlement agreements may be required to repay the consideration they received, but repayment can be delayed until final judgment unless the employer shows substantial prejudice from delay. The court also found the trial court retains equitable authority to adjust repayment at judgment under section 1692. The appellate court directed the trial court to reconsider the curative notice in accordance with these principles. Each side was ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Wardson Constr., Inc. v. City of Raleigh

2026-03-20T07:36:30-08:00

Several home builder companies challenged fees they were required to pay to a city when connecting to municipal water and sewer systems. These so-called Capital Facilities Fees were imposed as a condition of development between 2016 and 2018. The builders paid these fees directly to the city and allege that the charges were not authorized by state law. They sought to recover the payments and also requested to represent a class of all entities who, like them, paid the fees during the relevant period. In Superior Court, Wake County, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, arguing that their claims and those of other payors shared common legal and factual questions. The trial court certified a class including all entities who paid the fees between January 2016 and June 2018, finding that the class was numerous, the claims predominated over individual differences, and class treatment was the superior method for resolving the dispute. The trial court also granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the merits, but the city appealed only the class certification order directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The Supreme Court of North Carolina considered only whether class certification was proper. It held that, under the applicable state statute, the right to a refund depends on who made payment to the city, not on who ultimately bore the cost. The possibility that some builders incorporated the fees into home prices did not defeat class certification, as the statute entitles the actual payor to relief. The court concluded that the trial court correctly applied the legal criteria for class certification and did not abuse its discretion. The order certifying the class was therefore affirmed. View "Wardson Constr., Inc. v. City of Raleigh" on Justia Law

Armistead v. County of Carteret

2026-03-20T07:36:28-08:00

A group of Carteret County property owners challenged the county’s policy of charging waste disposal fees. The county does not provide direct trash or recycling collection services but instead offers access to waste disposal sites and a landfill. The county funded these facilities by charging fees to property owners, including both those who potentially used the county sites and those who hired private waste collection services. The plaintiffs argued that the county unlawfully charged these fees to property owners who never used the county sites or who had private waste collection, and also that the total fees collected exceeded the cost of operating the facilities, in violation of state law. Following extensive discovery, the Superior Court in Carteret County considered plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court rejected one proposed class, finding that determining whether each property owner actually used a county site would require individualized inquiries that would predominate over common issues. However, the court certified three other classes: those allegedly charged fees despite using private waste collection services, and those asserting that the county collected fees beyond its actual operating costs. The county appealed the class certification order directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The plaintiffs did not cross-appeal the denial of the first class. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Superior Court’s class certification order. The Court held that it is feasible to ascertain class members who used private waste collection services by relying on the customer lists from the limited number of providers in the county. The Court also determined that issues of predominance and superiority did not bar class certification and that any future developments could be addressed through modification or decertification of the class. Thus, the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Armistead v. County of Carteret" on Justia Law

NVLSP v. US

2026-03-20T06:32:50-08:00

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

2026-03-19T06:32:52-08:00

The plaintiffs in this case were former hourly employees of Amazon who worked in the company’s Illinois distribution warehouses. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon required all hourly, nonexempt employees to undergo mandatory medical screenings before clocking in for their shifts. These screenings included temperature checks and health questions, and typically took 10 to 15 minutes, sometimes causing employees to clock in after their scheduled start time. Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon violated wage laws by not compensating employees for the time spent in these screenings, arguing the screenings were necessary to their work and primarily benefited Amazon by enabling continued operations during the pandemic. The plaintiffs initially filed a class-action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, asserting claims under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Amazon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which dismissed the complaint. The district court held that the FLSA claims were barred by the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which excludes certain preshift activities from compensable time, and summarily concluded the state law claims failed for the same reason. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which certified to the Supreme Court of Illinois the question of whether Illinois’s Minimum Wage Law incorporates the PPA’s exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that section 4a of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the PPA’s exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute and relevant state regulations do not contain such an exclusion and that the Illinois Department of Labor explicitly defines compensable hours to include all time an employee is required to be on the premises. The court thus answered the certified question in the negative. View "Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Narrigan v. Goldberg

2026-03-18T13:30:05-08:00

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the Massachusetts Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He alleged that the Act’s provisions regarding payment of interest on unclaimed property resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. The plaintiff’s complaint included evidence that the state held property in his name, but did not explain his connection to the listed address or further describe the property. He had not filed a claim to recover the property through the statutory process. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief since he did not demonstrate any future harm, and that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Takings Clause, reasoning in part that the statute provides a mechanism for reclaiming the property in full and that any taking resulted from the plaintiff’s own neglect. The district court did not address the ripeness argument raised by the Treasurer. Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that if the plaintiff’s challenge was to the statutory interest rate, his claim was not ripe, as he had not yet made a claim for the property or been denied interest. Alternatively, if the claim was that a taking had already occurred when the state took possession, he lacked standing to seek prospective relief because any injury was in the past and not ongoing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction. View "Narrigan v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown

2026-03-18T10:30:28-08:00

Two individuals, each of whom held credit card debt with Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy—one under Chapter 13 and the other under Chapter 7—in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. After receiving notice of the bankruptcy filings, Goldman Sachs allegedly continued collection efforts on the debts, including repeated communications warning of adverse credit reporting. The debtors claimed these actions violated the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code. They commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), seeking damages and injunctive relief, and proposed to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. Goldman Sachs responded by moving to compel arbitration of the debtors’ claims based on an arbitration clause in the credit card agreements, and sought to stay the adversary proceeding. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Goldman Sachs’ motion, finding that the claim for a willful violation of the automatic stay was a core bankruptcy matter, and that enforcing arbitration would irreconcilably conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia affirmed, holding that arbitration would undermine the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce the automatic stay and disrupt the centralized resolution of bankruptcy-related disputes. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit held that compelling arbitration of a statutory and constitutionally core claim for violation of the automatic stay would conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, including centralization of claims, uniform enforcement, the debtor’s “fresh start,” and the specialized expertise of bankruptcy courts. The court concluded that under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC

2026-03-17T13:00:04-08:00

Abdulkadir Abdisalam worked as a courier delivering medical supplies for a company that classified its couriers as independent contractors. To work for the company, Abdisalam was required to form his own corporation, Abdul Courier, LLC, which then entered into a contract with the company. This contract included an arbitration provision requiring disputes to be arbitrated. Abdisalam signed the contract as the owner of his corporation, not in his individual capacity. After several years of providing courier services, Abdisalam alleged that the company misclassified him and others as independent contractors and failed to pay them proper wages, in violation of Massachusetts law. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of couriers seeking remedies under Massachusetts statutes. The company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in its contract with Abdul Courier, LLC. The district court denied the motion, finding that Abdisalam, having signed only as the owner of the LLC and not in his personal capacity, was not bound by the contract’s arbitration clause. The court also rejected the company’s arguments that Abdisalam should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of direct benefits estoppel, intertwined claims estoppel, or as a successor in interest. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that, under Massachusetts law, it was for the court—not an arbitrator—to decide whether Abdisalam was bound by the arbitration agreement. The court further held that Abdisalam, as a nonsignatory to the agreement in his personal capacity, was not bound by its arbitration provision, and none of the equitable estoppel or successor theories advanced by the defendant provided a basis to compel arbitration. View "Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Reichert v. Kellogg Co.

2026-03-16T12:00:37-08:00

Retired employees of two companies, who participated in their employers’ defined benefit pension plans, brought class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These plaintiffs, all married, claimed that their plans calculated joint and survivor annuity benefits using mortality tables based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s. Because life expectancies have increased since then, the plaintiffs asserted that using such outdated mortality assumptions improperly reduced their benefits, resulting in joint and survivor annuities that were not the actuarial equivalent of the single life annuities to which they would otherwise be entitled, as required by ERISA. Each group of plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court—one in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Kellogg plans and one in the Western District of Tennessee against the FedEx plan—asserting that the use of obsolete actuarial assumptions violated 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d) and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The district courts in both cases dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim, holding that ERISA does not require use of any particular mortality table or actuarial assumption in calculating benefits for married participants, and thus the allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that, under ERISA’s statutory requirement that joint and survivor annuities be “actuarially equivalent” to single life annuities, plans must use actuarial assumptions, including mortality data, that reasonably reflect the life expectancies of current participants. The court concluded that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the use of outdated mortality tables was unreasonable and could violate ERISA. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts’ judgments and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Reichert v. Kellogg Co." on Justia Law

Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp.

2026-03-16T05:05:41-08:00

An assisted living residence operated by the defendant charged new residents a one-time “community fee” upon admission. The agreement stated that this fee was intended to cover upfront staff administrative costs, the resident’s initial service coordination plan, move-in assistance, and to establish a reserve for building improvements. The plaintiff, acting as executor of a former resident’s estate and representing a class, alleged that this community fee violated the Massachusetts security deposit statute, which limits the types of upfront fees a landlord may charge tenants. The complaint further claimed that charging the fee was an unfair and deceptive practice under state consumer protection law. The Superior Court initially dismissed the case, finding that the security deposit statute did not apply to assisted living residences, which are governed by their own regulatory scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts previously held in a related decision that the statute does apply to such residences when acting as landlords, but does not prohibit upfront fees for services unique to assisted living facilities. The court remanded the case for further factual development to determine whether the community fee corresponded to such services. After discovery and class certification, both parties moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court judge ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the community fees were not used solely for allowable services because they were deposited into a general account used for various expenses, including non-allowable capital improvements. On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed. The court held that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because uncontradicted evidence showed that the community fees corresponded to costs for assisted living-specific intake services that exceeded the amount of the fees collected. The court emphasized that the statute does not require the fees to be segregated or tracked dollar-for-dollar, and ordered judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc.

2026-03-10T11:00:33-08:00

Two former employees of a financial services company, each a participant in the employer’s defined contribution retirement plan, sued the company on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated plan participants. They alleged that the company, as plan sponsor and fiduciary, breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by selecting and retaining certain BlackRock LifePath Index Funds as investment options, which they claimed were imprudent and caused monetary losses to their individual plan accounts. The plaintiffs sought recovery of losses under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss most of the claims, holding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a breach of fiduciary duty. It then certified a class of all plan participants and beneficiaries with investments in the BlackRock funds during the relevant period, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), finding that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims are inherently suitable for class treatment because they are brought on behalf of the plan and that allowing individual suits would risk inconsistent standards or impair interests of absent participants. The district court also found that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) was satisfied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the class certification order. The Fourth Circuit held that, in the context of a defined contribution plan, claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) for monetary losses to individual accounts are inherently individualized and cannot be joined in a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1), which does not provide for notice or opt-out rights. The court also held that the claims failed to satisfy the commonality prerequisite because many class members did not experience the same injury. The district court’s order was thus reversed and vacated. View "Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc." on Justia Law

Sambrano v. United Airlines

2026-03-09T10:01:37-08:00

Several employees of United Airlines challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging that United failed to provide reasonable religious and medical accommodations, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). United required all U.S. employees to be vaccinated by specific deadlines unless granted a religious or medical exemption. Employees seeking a religious accommodation needed to provide a personal statement of belief and a third-party attestation; those seeking a medical exemption had to submit supporting medical documentation. United initially planned to place all exempted employees on unpaid leave but later revised its policy for non-customer-facing employees, allowing them to work with masking and testing requirements, while customer-facing employees remained on indefinite unpaid leave. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas considered and partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The district court rejected a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and a subclass of employees subject to masking and testing requirements, finding that the proposed classes lacked commonality and predominance due to the individualized nature of harm and the need for separate inquiries into the circumstances of each member. The court certified a modified subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of religious-accommodation seekers who were placed on unpaid leave but excluded those with medical accommodations from the subclass. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the class certification order under an abuse of discretion standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the broader classes and subclasses due to the individualized nature of the claims and in certifying the subclass of religious-accommodation seekers placed on unpaid leave. The court found that common questions predominated and that a class action was a superior method of adjudication for that subclass. View "Sambrano v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

Chicago Headline Club v. Noem

2026-03-05T16:01:26-08:00

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing. Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company

2026-03-04T12:30:06-08:00

Two individuals each owned companies that distributed snack foods for a larger food company. Years earlier, they had joined a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. That class action ended in a settlement, which included an optional provision: class members could agree to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an additional payment. Both individuals opted into that provision and accepted the payment, thereby agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration. Several years later, the two individuals brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, again asserting claims related to alleged misclassification and seeking damages. The defendant company moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing the prior agreement. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers under Section 1. The district court rejected that exemption argument, but did not order arbitration. Instead, it stayed and administratively closed the case without entering judgment, stating it was not compelling arbitration but was closing its doors to further proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling. The court held that, although the district court did not expressly deny the motion to compel arbitration, its actions amounted to a denial, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to determine whether the motion to compel arbitration should be granted or denied and to explain its reasoning. The court also clarified that, under the parties’ agreement, any compelled arbitration must proceed on an individual, not class, basis. View "Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company" on Justia Law

Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.

2026-03-04T06:46:09-08:00

After receiving a letter from a debt collector that she believed was misleading and threatening, an individual felt confused and feared potential legal action. She consulted an attorney and then initiated a putative class action lawsuit, seeking damages for herself and similarly situated Wisconsin consumers under both federal and state consumer protection statutes. The alleged violation centered on the misleading nature of the debt collection letter and its implications regarding possible litigation. After some discovery, she elected to pursue monetary damages for a putative class under the Wisconsin Consumer Act and sent the debt collector a statutory notice and demand. In response, the debt collector offered the individual actual damages and the maximum statutory penalty, and promised to cease sending similar collection letters, offering this as “an appropriate remedy.” The individual rejected the offer and moved for class certification. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court granted class certification, reasoning that the statutory provision required an appropriate remedy to be offered to the whole class, not just the named plaintiff. The court concluded that allowing a defendant to “pick off” the class representative would undermine the purpose of class actions under the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the public policy interests underlying class actions. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. The court held that under Wis. Stat. § 426.110(4)(c), when a customer initiates a class action for damages, the statute requires that an appropriate remedy be given to the party bringing suit—not the putative class—within 30 days after notice. If the party plaintiff receives or is promised an appropriate remedy, a class action for damages cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc." on Justia Law

LaFleur v. Yardi Systems, Inc.

2026-02-27T11:03:37-08:00

Two Ohio homeowners discovered that their personal information, including their names, addresses, and property details, appeared in paid reports on a real estate research website operated by a company. The website allows users to search for property information by address or owner name and provides one free report per user, with additional reports available for purchase. The homeowners, without having consented to the use of their information, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated individuals, alleging that the company violated their rights of publicity under both Ohio statute and common law by using their identities for commercial gain. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the company moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that their identities possessed independent commercial value—a necessary element of a right of publicity claim under Ohio law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit conducted a de novo review. It affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing that their names or identities had any commercial value, as required by both Ohio’s statutory and common law right of publicity. The court reasoned that simply being used in a commercial context does not satisfy the commercial value requirement, relying on both prior circuit precedent and Ohio state court decisions. The court also declined to certify a question of law to the Ohio Supreme Court, concluding that Ohio law on this issue was sufficiently settled. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "LaFleur v. Yardi Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

STUCKEY VS. APEX MATERIALS, LLC

2026-02-26T11:19:30-08:00

Two workers filed a putative class action against several contractors and subcontractors, alleging that they performed work on public works projects and were not paid overtime at the prevailing wage rates required by Nevada law. Their lawsuit sought damages equal to the difference between what they were paid and the higher amounts allegedly owed under Nevada’s prevailing-wage statute for both regular and overtime work. The plaintiffs also asserted, in the alternative, that they could recover these amounts under Nevada’s more general wage-and-hour provisions or as third-party beneficiaries of the relevant public works contracts. The complaint did not specify which public works projects were involved or allege that the plaintiffs had pursued administrative remedies through the Nevada Labor Commissioner. The case was first reviewed by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs had not alleged exhaustion of the administrative remedies required under Nevada’s prevailing-wage law. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that there was no private right of action for wage claims under the prevailing-wage statute and that the alternative claims were derivative and failed for the same reason. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, finding that amendment would be futile. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that NRS Chapter 338, Nevada’s prevailing-wage statute, does not provide a private right of action to employees outside the administrative process it creates. Claims for violation of the statute must first be brought through the administrative mechanisms with the Labor Commissioner, and cannot be circumvented by recasting them under other wage-and-hour laws or as third-party beneficiary claims. The court also found no error in denying leave to amend the complaint. View "STUCKEY VS. APEX MATERIALS, LLC" on Justia Law

Bradford v. Sovereign Pest

2026-02-25T16:30:29-08:00

Bradford entered into a service agreement with a Texas-based pest control company, Sovereign Pest Control, and as part of this agreement, provided his cell phone number to the company. Bradford later acknowledged that he gave his number so the company could contact him if needed. During their business relationship, Sovereign Pest made several pre-recorded calls to Bradford’s cell phone, including calls to schedule renewal inspections, after which Bradford scheduled inspections and renewed his service plan multiple times. Bradford initiated a putative class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that Sovereign Pest violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by sending him unsolicited pre-recorded calls without his “prior express written consent.” The district court granted summary judgment for Sovereign Pest, holding that the calls did not constitute telemarketing and that Bradford had given prior express consent. Bradford appealed, arguing that the calls were telemarketing and that he had not given the required consent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the TCPA only requires “prior express consent,” which can be either oral or written, for any pre-recorded call to a wireless number, regardless of whether the call is telemarketing or informational. The court found that Bradford had provided prior express consent by voluntarily giving his cell phone number to the company in connection with the service agreement and by his subsequent conduct. It concluded that the statute does not require “prior express written consent” for telemarketing calls and that Bradford’s arguments to the contrary were unavailing. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed summary judgment in favor of Sovereign Pest. View "Bradford v. Sovereign Pest" on Justia Law

Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal

2026-02-25T07:45:09-08:00

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law. After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial. The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co.

2026-02-24T14:00:35-08:00

A commercial trucking business owner, who is white, learned about a $25,000 grant program administered by two insurance companies in partnership with another company. The program offered grants to ten small businesses to help them purchase commercial vehicles but was limited to black-owned businesses. After receiving an email invitation to apply, the business owner began the online application but stopped and did not submit it upon realizing that only black-owned businesses were eligible. He later alleged that he would have otherwise applied and met all requirements except for the race-based criterion. Following the application deadline, the business owner and his company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the grant program’s racial eligibility requirement violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying them the opportunity to enter into two contracts: one at the application stage and one at the grant award stage. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered a cognizable injury caused by the defendants’ conduct. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed the causation requirement for standing because the business owner chose not to submit the application, resulting in any alleged injury being self-inflicted rather than fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. The court clarified that the judgment was without prejudice and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Generation Changers Church v. Church Mutual Ins. Co.

2026-02-23T12:02:21-08:00

A tornado struck Tennessee, damaging two properties owned by a church that held property insurance with an insurer. The church filed a claim, and the insurer made a payment, but the church alleged that the insurer improperly calculated the amount by subtracting depreciation for non-material costs (such as labor) from the "actual cash value" (ACV) payment, leading to a lower payout. The insurance policy did not specify whether labor should be depreciated. The church then brought a putative class action, asserting similar claims under the laws of ten states, seeking class certification for policyholders who received reduced ACV payments because of the insurer’s practice. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addressed several motions. It rejected the insurer’s argument that the church lacked Article III standing to assert claims under other states' laws, and denied the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Texas law. When considering class certification, the district court found the plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements but limited class certification to four states (Arizona, California, Illinois, and Tennessee), citing unsettled law in the remaining six states. The court reasoned that the uncertain nature of laws in Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, and Vermont would make a ten-state class action unwieldy, and thus declined to certify a class for those states. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the plaintiff had Article III standing to represent the class because the alleged injuries were substantially similar across the proposed class members. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by not conducting an Erie analysis for five of the six excluded states and vacated the class-certification order in part, remanding for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the denial of class certification for Vermont due to insufficient authority on Vermont law. View "Generation Changers Church v. Church Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Tederick v. Loancare, LLC

2026-02-23T12:01:17-08:00

A married couple who lived in West Virginia refinanced their home loan in 2004. Over the years, they regularly sent their mortgage servicer payments that included both the scheduled monthly amount and additional principal prepayments, combining the two in single checks and clearly indicating when a prepayment was included. The loan servicers, including LoanCare, LLC (which began servicing the loan in 2019), allegedly failed to apply the prepayments before the monthly payments, resulting in the couple being charged excess interest. Despite several requests for correction, LoanCare did not adjust its practices. The couple eventually paid off the loan and sought a refund for the excess interest. The couple filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that LoanCare violated two provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the Act): section 46A-2-127(d) and section 46A-2-128. They also asserted claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and conversion claims, but allowed the statutory claims to proceed. After discovery, LoanCare moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act required proof of intentional misconduct, and that there was no evidence it acted intentionally. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment for LoanCare, holding that the Act’s provisions at issue required proof of intentional violation, which the couple could not show. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in requiring intent, holding that the statutory provisions impose strict liability and do not require proof of intent to violate. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tederick v. Loancare, LLC" on Justia Law

Voss v. Quicken Loans, L.L.C.

2026-02-19T06:12:43-08:00

A purchaser of a home paid off an existing mortgage at closing, which triggered a statutory obligation for the lender to record a release of the mortgage within 90 days. The lender failed to record the release by the deadline, recording it 22 days late. The statute at issue provides that if a lender does not timely record the release, the borrower and current owner may seek $250 in statutory damages. After the lender’s late recordation, the owner filed suit seeking those damages and, in addition, sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals whose lenders had not timely recorded mortgage releases. The dispute was initially removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, but that court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denied the lender’s motion for summary judgment, finding the owner had standing, and granted the owner’s motion to certify a class. At that time, an amendment to the statute barring class actions for such statutory damages had been enacted but not yet effective, so the trial court applied the prior version. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the owner had statutory standing and that the amended statute did not apply retroactively to bar the class. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the statute confers standing consistent with the Ohio Constitution, allowing the owner’s individual claim for statutory damages. However, the court further held that the 2023 amendment, which bars class-wide recovery of statutory damages for violations occurring in 2020, is remedial and applies retroactively to this case. The court found that the lower courts erred by not applying the amended statute and by certifying the class. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding with instructions to decertify the class. View "Voss v. Quicken Loans, L.L.C." on Justia Law

City of Southfield General Employees' Retirement v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

2026-02-17T11:30:26-08:00

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., a publicly traded company, announced ambitious financial goals for 2023, which increased its stock price. However, the company subsequently lowered its guidance and identified a series of accounting errors, resulting in significant declines in its stock price. The City of Southfield General Employees’ Retirement System, representing investors who purchased stock during the period between November 2022 and November 2023, filed a class action lawsuit against Advance Auto and several former executives. The plaintiffs alleged violations of SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, asserting that the defendants intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the company’s financial results and forecasts. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina consolidated several investor suits and designated Southfield as lead plaintiff. The court found that Southfield adequately alleged material misstatements or omissions and satisfied the basic requirements for a securities fraud claim, except for scienter—the requirement that defendants acted with wrongful intent or recklessness. The court concluded that the more plausible inference was that the defendants acted in good faith and corrected errors as they became known, dismissing the complaint for failure to sufficiently plead scienter. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit examined the allegations individually and holistically, finding that none supported a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court held that the facts, even when considered collectively, only plausibly suggested wrongful intent but did not meet the heightened standard for a strong inference. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the securities fraud claims and the related vicarious liability claim. View "City of Southfield General Employees' Retirement v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc." on Justia Law