Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, business entities owning recovery rights assigned by health insurers and other third-party Medicare payors, alleged that Defendants, including a drug manufacturer, a specialty pharmacy, and healthcare nonprofits, colluded to inflate the price and quantity of the drug Xenazine. This alleged scheme purportedly violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state laws, causing the Assignors to reimburse inflated Xenazine prescriptions at supra-competitive prices.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the class-action complaint with prejudice, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that Defendants’ conduct proximately caused their injuries. The court emphasized that RICO’s proximate-causation requirement focuses on the directness of the harm, not its foreseeability. The court found the alleged causal chain too attenuated, involving numerous independent actors like physicians and pharmacists, and dismissed the state-law claims for similar reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal RICO claims, agreeing that Plaintiffs failed to establish proximate causation. The court noted that the alleged scheme had more direct victims, such as distributors and wholesalers, and that the volume of Xenazine prescriptions depended on the independent decisions of doctors. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the state-law consumer-protection and unjust-enrichment claims, finding them insufficiently pleaded.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs had standing to bring claims on behalf of unidentified assignors, remanding those claims for dismissal without prejudice. The court upheld the district court’s denial of post-judgment relief and leave to amend the complaint, concluding that further amendment would be futile. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., alleging that its business practices violated state and federal antitrust laws. These practices included Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, which required cellular manufacturers to license Qualcomm’s patents to purchase its modem chips, and alleged exclusive dealing agreements with Apple and Samsung. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously challenged these practices, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the FTC, holding that Qualcomm did not violate the Sherman Act.The district court in the current case certified a nationwide class, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded to consider the viability of plaintiffs’ claims post-FTC v. Qualcomm. On remand, plaintiffs proceeded with state-law claims under California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed the tying claims and granted summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims. The court found that the Cartwright Act did not depart from the Sherman Act and that plaintiffs failed to show market foreclosure or anticompetitive impact in the tied product market. The court also rejected the UCL claims, finding no fraudulent practices and determining that plaintiffs could not seek equitable relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tying claims and the summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims under the Cartwright Act. The court held that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy was not anticompetitive and that plaintiffs failed to show substantial market foreclosure or antitrust injury. The court also affirmed the rejection of the UCL claims but vacated the summary judgment on the UCL unfairness claim related to exclusive dealing, remanding with instructions to dismiss that claim without prejudice for refiling in state court. View "KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2020, Colorado State University (CSU) transitioned from in-person to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Renee Alderman and Tyler Stokes, both students, filed class action lawsuits seeking refunds for tuition and fees paid for that semester, alleging CSU breached its contract to provide in-person learning and access to facilities. They also claimed unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the breach of contract claims, citing CSU's statutory authority to suspend operations during unforeseen calamities, and later dismissed the unjust enrichment claims, ruling that the contract covered the same subject matter.Alderman appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of her unjust enrichment claims, holding that CSU's invocation of the statute rendered the contract unenforceable, thus allowing the unjust enrichment claims to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that the lower court erred in holding the contract unenforceable. The court held that the statutory provision allowing CSU to suspend operations was part of the contract, and the inability to state a breach of contract claim did not render the contract itself unenforceable. Consequently, Alderman's unjust enrichment claims failed as a matter of law because a valid, enforceable contract existed covering the same subject matter. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and directed reinstatement of the district court's judgment in favor of CSU. View "Bd. of Governors of the Colo. State Univ. v. Alderman" on Justia Law

A cyberattack on California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. (CPK) in September 2021 compromised the personal information of over 100,000 former and current employees. This led to multiple class action lawsuits against CPK, alleging negligence and other claims. The consolidated plaintiffs reached a settlement with CPK, offering cash payments and credit monitoring services to class members, with CPK required to make payments only to those who submitted valid claims. The settlement's monetary value was estimated at around $950,000, while the attorneys sought $800,000 in fees.The United States District Court for the Central District of California approved the settlement but reserved judgment on the attorneys' fees until after the claims process concluded. The consolidated plaintiffs reported a final claims rate of 1.8%, with the maximum monetary value of the claims being around $950,000. Despite expressing concerns about the scope of attorneys' fees, the district court ultimately awarded the full $800,000 in fees and costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's approval of the class settlement, finding that the district court had properly applied the heightened standard to review the settlement for collusion and had not abused its discretion in finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the fee award, noting that the district court had not adequately assessed the actual value of the settlement and compared it to the fees requested. The case was remanded for the district court to determine the settlement's actual value to class members and award reasonable and proportionate attorneys' fees. View "IN RE: CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN DATA BREACH LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Lillian Vogt purchased a used van from a dealer and later discovered that the dealer had bought the van from a representative of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. The van had been classified as a total loss by Progressive but was sold with a clean title instead of a salvage title. Vogt believed that Progressive had mistitled the van and filed claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and negligence per se against the company. She also sought to certify two classes of individuals who purchased and owned vehicles that Progressive allegedly mistitled in the same manner.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied class certification for both classes. The court concluded that issues common to the putative class members would not predominate over member-specific issues of reliance or causation. Vogt was granted leave to appeal this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. The appellate court agreed with the district court, affirming its decision. The court held that the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims required proof of reliance, which was a member-specific question unsuitable for class treatment. Similarly, the negligence and negligence per se claims required proof of causation, which also entailed proof of reliance. The court concluded that individualized inquiries into each putative class member’s reasons for purchasing their vehicles would be necessary, making class certification inappropriate. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Vogt v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Daniel Garcia purchased cloth facemasks from several retail stores in late 2020. The retailers collected sales tax on these masks, which Garcia believed to be nontaxable. Garcia filed a class action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against the retailers, alleging that they collected sales tax on items they knew or should have known were nontaxable, violating the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).The Court of Common Pleas overruled the retailers' preliminary objections, which argued that the complaint was legally insufficient. The Superior Court granted the retailers permission to appeal and reversed the trial court's order. The Superior Court concluded that the collection of sales tax did not occur "in the conduct of any trade or commerce" as contemplated by the UTPCPL. The court reasoned that the collection of sales tax is a statutory obligation distinct from the conduct of trade or commerce and that merchants act as agents of the Commonwealth when collecting sales tax.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that a merchant’s collection of sales tax does not occur "in the conduct of any trade or commerce" under the UTPCPL. The court emphasized that the collection of sales tax is a statutory obligation imposed on merchants, who act as agents of the Commonwealth, and is distinct from their commercial activities. The court also noted that the Pennsylvania Code requires a clear separation between the advertising of a product’s price and the sales tax due, further supporting the conclusion that tax collection is not part of trade or commerce. View "Garcia v. Foot Locker" on Justia Law

A debt buyer, Velocity Investments, LLC, purchased consumer debt from Citibank, N.A., which had been charged off as a loss. Velocity sent a written communication to David Chai regarding the debt but failed to include the required notice of Chai’s right to request records, as mandated by the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. Chai filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of a putative class, seeking statutory damages under the Act, while disclaiming any concrete injury from the violation.The Santa Clara County Superior Court certified a class of individuals who received similar communications from Velocity. Velocity moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Chai lacked standing because he admitted to no concrete injury. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the Act requires a consumer to have suffered actual damage to sue. Chai appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act does not condition a consumer’s claim for statutory damages on the existence of actual damages. The court found that the Act allows consumers to seek statutory damages for violations of their rights under the Act, regardless of whether they suffered actual damages. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, allowing Chai to pursue his claim for statutory damages. View "Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

A controller orchestrated a merger that consolidated Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corporation under Sears Holdings Corporation. The controller, through his investment funds, owned a majority of the new entity. In 2012, Sears Holdings spun off Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. (the Company) as a separate public entity, with the controller retaining a majority stake. In 2019, the Company merged with an acquisition subsidiary, with each share converted into the right to receive $3.21. Some stockholders sought appraisal, while others pursued a plenary action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware coordinated the appraisal proceeding and the plenary action for discovery and trial. The court certified a class in the plenary action, which was later modified to explicitly include stockholders who sought appraisal. During the appraisal proceeding, the Company and its post-merger parent became insolvent, rendering the appraisal claimants as general creditors with no prospect of recovery. The Fund, an appraisal claimant, opted to join the plenary action. The court found the merger was not entirely fair and determined a fair price of $4.06 per share, awarding incremental damages of $0.85 per share to the class members who had received the merger consideration.The Fund, having not received the merger consideration, sought to recover the full fair price damages award. The court held that under the precedent set by the Delaware Supreme Court in Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., the Fund was entitled to the full fair price damages of $4.06 per share without any offset for the merger consideration it did not receive. The court concluded that the Fund could opt out of the appraisal proceeding and participate in the plenary action remedy, ensuring it was made whole. View "In re Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litigation" on Justia Law

In this case, inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) filed a class action lawsuit in 2015 against the warden, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and other officials. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court bifurcated the case into liability and remedy phases. After an eleven-day bench trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims. Subsequently, a ten-day trial on remedies concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunctive relief, but the court did not specify the relief in its judgment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a "Judgment" in favor of the plaintiffs and a "Remedial Order" outlining the appointment of special masters to develop remedial plans. The defendants appealed, arguing that the district court's judgment and remedial order were final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had not entered a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had it entered an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appellate court determined that the district court's actions were not final because they contemplated further proceedings, including the appointment of special masters and the development of remedial plans. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and vacated the stay of the remedial order. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, purchasers of coupon processing services, alleged that Inmar, Inc. and its subsidiaries engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to raise coupon processing fees. They sought class certification for a manufacturer purchaser class. The district court rejected their attempts to certify the class, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' first two motions for class certification. The first was denied due to discovery issues, and the second was rejected as an impermissible fail-safe class. Plaintiffs' third motion proposed three different class definitions: the Fixed List Class, the Limited Payer Class, and the All Payer Class. The district court rejected all three, finding the Fixed List Class to be a fail-safe class, the Limited Payer Class to be unascertainable and excluding too many injured manufacturers, and the All Payer Class to fail the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) due to a high percentage of uninjured members.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the denial of class certification. The court found that the Fixed List Class failed to define a class and improperly shifted the burden to the district court. The Limited Payer Class was deemed unascertainable and not superior due to its exclusion of many injured manufacturers. The All Payer Class failed the predominance requirement as the plaintiffs' expert did not show injury for 32% of the class members, raising both predominance and standing issues. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. View "Mr. Dee's Inc. v. Inmar, Inc." on Justia Law